Workers in the cane fields. The use of whips was common.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
PRESS RELEASE
The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands
(Hawaiian Kingdom vs. United States of America)
NEW YORK, 6 July 2001. Yesterday afternoon the Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom, H.E. David Keanu Sai, Acting Minister of Interior, filed with the Security Council at United Nations headquarters in New York a Complaint against the United States of America concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish American War of 1898.
The Complaint was filed with the Security Council in accordance with Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, which provides, "a State which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter."
The Hawaiian Kingdom has requested the Security Council, in accordance with Article 36(1) of the United Nations Charter, to investigate the Hawaiian Kingdom question, in particular, the merits of the complaint, and to recommend appropriate procedures of methods of adjustment.
In the complaint, the Hawaiian Kingdom begins with a preliminary statement concerning its independence by stating,
"This case arises out of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the entire territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States of America since the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the failure on the part of the United States of America to establish a direct system of administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As will be described below [complaint], this action constitutes a fundamental breach of Hawaiian State sovereignty and the treaties entered between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, as well as the 1907 Hague Regulations and international law.
The Hawaiian Kingdom acquired the recognition of its independence on December 19, 1842, by the United States of America; April 1, 1843, by the United Kingdom; and by joint proclamation between the United Kingdom and France on November 28, 1843. On May 16, 1854, the Hawaiian Kingdom declared itself a neutral State, and whose neutrality became a provision in divers treaties with other independent States. At the time of recognition of Hawaiian Independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom's government was a constitutional monarchy, and for the next fifty years, it would develop a complete system of laws, both civil and criminal, and have treaty relations of a most favored nation status with the major powers of the world, including the United States of America..."
Following these preliminary statements is a chronology of events that begins with the United States of America's illegal intervention into the civil affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom in January of 1893, and its ultimate illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish American War of 1898.
Regarding the illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Islands, the Complaint states,
"Under the international laws of occupation, more particularly Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV, the occupying government must establish a system of direct administration of the laws of the country that it's occupying. In other words, the United States government, as an illegally occupying government in the Hawaiian Islands since its unprovoked incursion by its troops on August 13, 1898, was mandated to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law over the territory and not its own, until they withdraw. This is not a mere descriptive assumption by the occupying government, but rather it is the law of occupation.
Instead of establishing a system to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in 1898, the United States, by its Congress in 1900, created a puppet government. This government, called the Territorial Government of the Hawaiian Islands, would enforce American law throughout the Hawaiian Kingdom. United States President William McKinley appointed the most heinous criminal in the Kingdom, Sanford B. Dole its first governor. Sanford B. Dole, a traitor to the Kingdom, was given authority by a United States President to punish and even put to death any Hawaiian subject or loyalist to the Kingdom who would threaten his so-called authority. United States military bases sprang up throughout the islands and together with the Territorial Government they imposed their rule over Hawaiian nationals. Having lost control over its ports of entry, American citizens unknowingly flocked to the Hawaiian Islands under the false impression that it was lawfully annexed, and soon overwhelmed the population of Hawaiian nationals."
The complaint also outlines the fraud committed by the United States of America before the United Nations when it reported Hawai'i as one of its colonies. The Complaint explains,
"In 1945, the United Nations was created with the United States as one of its charter members. According to its Charter, the United Nations would promote the protection of human rights and establish a process of de-colonization for the people who have not yet attained independence as a nation. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 provides that '...all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.'
In accordance with Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter, member States who had colonial possessions were required to report yearly to the Secretary General the status of their colonies in relation to self-determination. It was at this point that the United States committed fraud before this international organization by fraudulently reporting the Hawaiian Islands as a U.S. colony along with Alaska, America Samoa, Guam, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The underlying problem here was that the Hawaiian Kingdom had already achieved independence for the Hawaiian Islands since 1842, and the United States and other members of the Community of States also recognized this independence. Independence, at the time, could not be claimed for the territories of Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico nor the Virgin Islands.
This attempt to mask the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is what forged the creation of the Puppet State of Hawai'i in 1959. In 1959, the American Ambassador to the United Nations reported to the Secretary General that '...since 1946, the United States has transmitted annually to the Secretary General information on the Territory of Hawai'i pursuant to Article 73(e) of the Charter. However, on August 21, 1959 Hawai'i became one of the United States under a new constitution taking effect on that date. In the light of this change in the constitutional position and status of Hawai'i, the United States Government considers it no longer necessary or appropriate to continue to transmit information on Hawai'i under Article 73(e).'
In regard to the continuity of Statehood during occupation Professor Marek, author of Identity and Continuity of State in Public International Law, (1968) states,
'Since the law relating to the continuity of the occupied State is clear and unequivocal, any acts of the occupying power which are not in accordance therewith are clear violations of international law,' and '...a disguised annexation aimed at destroying the independence of the occupied State, represents a clear violation of the rule preserving the continuity of the occupied State.'"
The Complaint and attachments can be viewed on the Internet at:
http://www.HawaiianKingdom.org/united-nations.shtml
For questions please contact:
Peter Umialiloa Sai
telephone: (808) 239-5347
e-mail: foreignhk@hawaii.rr.com
Now, before you all get hot and bothered about the issue of whether Hawaii is a state, decide whether or not you feel that governments are as obliged to obey the laws they themselves create as are the citizens. If you believe that governments should not have to obey their own laws (like those who suggest that the government does have the right to lie to us all about TWA 800, the legality of the tax system, etc.) then quit now.
But if you agree that governments are as obligated to obey the laws as are citizens, then you will find more information about the illegalities committed by the United States in its acquistion of Hawaii at..
And...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/HAWAII/hawaii.html
The above links make it clear (and United States public law 103-150 reaffirms) that Hawaii never legally ceased to be an independent and soverign nation.
Good. Let's get rid of Hawaii and their two Democrat senators and one Democrat rep.
Since you despise this country so much, you'll get your wish: to be resident of a foreign, welfare state.
Let 'em have their independence ...
But only after the US has either removed or destroyed anything .. ANYTHING .. built with the money of American taxpayers.
Like Pearl Harbor, all of Hawaii's airports, its road system, any schools or public buildings that may have built with assistance of US taxes ... etc, etc, etc.
Let 'em have their "country" as it was in 1854.
Don't forget we will have to re introduce leposry.
This is the same situation for Peutro Rico, V as payment for improvements in their new country.
Excuse me, but even if most of this rubbish revisionist hysteria were true, it can never erase the fact that a huge majority of people living in Hawaii, and particularly Hawaiian descendants, VOTED to join the United States before it became a State. Next.
Nice to see a quagmire so easily filled. Good job.
Does this mean that the UN has an opportunity to impose a tax on Hawaiian sugar cane and pineapples?
What about my annual family vacation trek to Maui? Enquiring minds want to know!
This kinda puts the USA in a bad spot. Why is it wrong for Serbia to maintain control over say Kosovo, but right for the USA to maintain control over Hawaiian, or South Western USA? Hawaiians desire indepenence and South Western USA wants to reunite with Mexico. If Serbia was "evil" in deneighing the right of self determination to it's captured minorities why is USA "good" in deneighing it's capture minorities self determination
This point was not lost on those of us opposed to USA waging war against Serbia.
I hope they have better luck than South Carolina had.
The complaint also outlines the fraud committed by the United States of America before the United Nations...
For that offense, the other UN members should kick the US out of the UN. Once the US is out of the UN, the UN should get out of the US.
If you read all their claims you'd see that they declare the statehood election illegal because it was held by an illegitimate government. I've also heard claims that the "anti" statehood supporters were suppressed and prevented from advertising their arguments for a Hawaiian nation.
Personally, I'll be interested to see how this all plays out. I don't support state seccession, but all of their arguments are based on truth and in our own laws. Nobody can argue that we took the islands legally, but what are we supposed to do about it now, a century later?
Let them go .... but make sure that they destroy or move all federal structures that were paid for with taxpayer monies in a greater proportion than their population versus the rest of the US. IF they make up 1% of the US population .... trash or move 99% of the infrastructure that was paid for by federal taxes.
Oh and by the way ... make sure they take the same proportion of the FEDERAL debt with them when they leave.
Of course 20 years later they would be a Japanese or Chinese territory.
"Excuse me, but even if most of this rubbish revisionist hysteria were true, it can never erase the fact that a huge majority of people living in Hawaii, and particularly Hawaiian descendants, VOTED to join the United States before it became a State. Next."
You are not paying attention. That vote was RIGGED, because it did NOT include the option to return to independence as is required by the UN Charter.
The statehood vote was illegaly. And, more to the point, Hawaii was not legally a territory of the United States and so therefore there should have not been a statehood vote to begin with. The whole step by step process was illegal, and as another respondant points out, it makes for an awkward situation where the US sticks its nose into other people's nation sunder the claim of enforcing international rules of conduct when the US's acquisition of Hawaii was a legal travesty.
Again, it gets back to a simple point. If a world where nations are as required to obey the laws as are people, Hawai is not legally a state. The United States government is continuing an illegal military occupation begun at the start of the Spanish American war. Everthing that followed that, including the statehood vote, was just posturing to make the theft of Hawaii look all legal and proper for the gullible taxpayers.
Under...Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV, the occupying government must establish a system of direct administration of the laws of the country that it's occupying. ...the United States government, as an illegally occupying government in the Hawaiian Islands since its unprovoked incursion by its troops on August 13, 1898, was mandated
The 1907 Article was retroactive to 1898?
Washington D.C., the federal government, lied a lot.
IF, and that's a big IF, Hawaii makes this stick, other states might follow, which could make the USA a group of independent states, somewhat like Switzerland, somewhat like those folks back in 1776 intended. Lincoln would roll in his grave, but a union of sovereign states would make Jefferson et al darn happy.
P.S. For all the folks that want financial compensation for all the military bases, yeah right. Howabout cash compensation for all the drunks in uniform? Destruction of property? The Japanese didn't attack the hula skirts, they attacked the WashD.C. fleets.
The US has been in that bad spot for awhile. As I recall, after the collapse of the USSR some of the "geographic areas" that had been part of Russia for a couple of centuries wanted to go independant. The administration supported this. I did not see how the administration could do so without supporting the secession of South Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy.
Let them have a new referendum. Those guys will lose. Just like the nationalists lost in Puerto Rico and Quebec.
Forgot one thing, make the Hawaiians pay for the referendem out of state monies.
Good point about 1907,
Yea, the USA is a glass house when it comes to allowing minority populations the right of self determination and had better stop throwing stones.
Buck:
Things change, last time my family was there they said the cane and pineapple fields were small potatos...no pun intended.
Tourism, all those golf courses, pays better than working in the fields, and the old open immigration door is slammed shut.
...and some say the most profitable crop is not exactly what the tour guides brag about, but millions annually. Not coffee..............
Go anyway!
If Hawaii doesn't want to be a state, and I'm shocked to find out they are not, then they have the right to leave, so does Texas, Kansas, Florida, and Tennessee.
Maybe the idea of the Republic of Texas isn't so bad after all.
I guess then we could join OPEC and have a hand in ruling the world.
So it begins, the first state attempting to succede from the Union.
I agree with Sinkspur let Hawaii and her far left congressional delegation go. Let them keep all the stuff that the Fed built, just close all our military bases. They will likely end up like the Phillipines after we closed our bases there. Their economy would collapse and the government become a crippled and corrupt welfare state.
Right on, and also the slightly weird Gadsen(sp?) Purchase?
Would that be retroactive? If so, I'd now have a cousin chagrined to find out she's Mexican!
...and with all her USAF security clearances, my my my.
See post #6 above. They are called "binding free elections".
Collapse? Naw, civilian tourism is much bigger than military paychecks. Heck, make those military bases into civilian resorts and civilian airports and business would boom!
What about the former CSA?
I don't mean to step on your toes .... pineapple and sugarcane are major crops on Maui. And the recent influx of Vietnamese and Japanese and Chinease permanent immigrants has constituted over 50% of the local population. Maui persists in a high unemployment rate as a result.
When Rose and I were there (just a few weeks ago) we noticed an increasing number of homes over in Hana (eastern side of the island) with signs painted on their garage doors ... "get off our island!"
YOU SEE, THE DESTRUCTION OF PARADISE IS CREATING A PROBLEM.
The locals no longer regard the *HUGE* influx of immigrants as important to their lifestyle other than the deterioration of it.
I don't blame them, either.
"Don't forget we will have to re introduce leposry."
All your spell checkers are belong to us!
--Boris
This is not a state trying to succede from the union any more than the rantings of David Koresh meant Texas was trying to succede. This is a small self selected and very racist group who claim some special connection with a long gone "kingdom" trying to create havoc using the UN as their foil. For a State to try to succeed the recognized government in that state, or at the very least a clear marjoity of the citizens would need to pass laws and resolutions calling for leaving the Union. This did indeed happen once upon a time, you may recall. But that is certainly not what is happening here.
While the "Hawaiian independence" movement has seen some growth it is still a small fringe movement. The vast majority of citizens do not favor changing status of the state. The fact that the Hawaiian movement (as least the most virulant part of it) wants to only allow "blood Hawaiians" to vote is not a plan guarenteed to win them a lot of support in a state as poly-racial as Hawaii.
It does however provide good theater and a forum for socialist grieveance group types to join ...in paradise.
No such thing as a "binding free election", we see case after case of captured populations demanding independence and to a great degree these demands are supported by the USA. Soon this desire for independence will hit the USA big time. Then I think we will here an entirely diferent story from our leaders in D.C.
"Sure it is OK for the rest of the world to devolve into small states all fighting one another but no that is not acceptable here." My question is why not? Why is Russia or Serbia wrong to fight for it's territoral integrity, but OK for the USA to do the same?
Why is Hawaii different then Kosovo?
What makes Southern Calif diferent then Chesnia(sp)?
Buck:
No problem with my toes, I've got thick boots!
My experience was on the Big Island, where I noticed lack of activity in the cane fields. (I'd go there every year for about ten/fifteen years a while back.)
I was told that the field folks got better jobs at the resorts, and that the cane brokers couldn't get workers.
Anyway, between resort work and harvesting pakololo (sp?) no one wanted to sweat in the cane fields.
The local resentment towards new occupants was brown skin against mainlanders coming in and driving property prices way up.
I guess like so many issues, there are many sides, eh?
Excuse didn't this happen in Yugosolvia.
Didn't we support the rebels.
I say the PR and HI should go for it.
Then we can subject them to the same type of war we conducted against Yugosolvia.
Collapse? Naw, civilian tourism is much bigger than military paychecks.
They may not collapse for the loss of military pay checks, but add in all the other federal dollars that funnels in to Hawaii and what will happen? We’re talking farm subsidies, welfare, school/college support, federal highway funds. I could go on and on. With Hawaii’s liberal voting record liberal state courts how long do you think Hawaii can survive without federal funds.
Conservatives should support at least a hearing for this effort, because it calls into question the whole efficacy of having a federal government at this time.
Ask yourself, "Aside from national defense, what do we need a federal government for?" And then consider that the federal government is keeping our borders open to illegal immigrants and dragging its feet on the construction of a missile defense system, so the federalists don't even have that argument, either.
See Mr. Smith Doesn't Go to Washington.
If Serbia was "evil" in deneighing the right of self determination to it's captured minorities why is USA "good" in deneighing it's capture minorities self determination
This point was not lost on those of us opposed to USA waging war against Serbia.
The point is lost on me because I'm still wrestling with the significance of the act of "deneighing". Are these mute horses?
let me help, denying or maybe dening, you pick.
"Let 'em have their independence ...
But only after the US has either removed or destroyed anything .. ANYTHING .. built with the money of American taxpayers. "
This is nonsense. If a thief steals your car and while it is in his possession paints it and installs a stereo, are you obliged to compensate the thief for the improvements when the police return your stolen car to you? Of course not. The thief put in the improvements on the stolen property for his own benefit, not yours. Likewise, the improvements made to Hawaii were made to benefit the overthrowers, not the overthrown. If one wishes to make a case for monies owed for improvements, let us be fair and include back rents owed for the property those improvements sit on.
"Don't forget we will have to re introduce leposry."
There was no Leprosy in Hawaii until the Missionaries and whaling ships showed up.
We agree, that Hawaii is Paradise. No other place on the planet offers paradise as Hawaii does. Yet, the influx of immigrants has hurt the finest place on the planet.
Why has America allowed the federal governmenent to dilute local issues to the point of requesting UN resolution? And this question is the key, here.
The real problem is over immigration issues that the federal government has enacted as policy against Americans. We see it all over our national borders. I see it here in California with illegal immigrants begging for jobs in Southern California, right here in Riverside County.
Maybe Hawaii is right. We need a higher authority to thwart off potential vigilantism; the US federal government only cares about screwing Americans.
I guess then we could join OPEC and have a hand in ruling the world.
Hmmmm, interesting point. Alaska could join too, then the democrats would have nothing to say about drilling in ANWR.
This is interesting. If all the socialists in Hawaii want to leave the union, how are they going to finance all their little projects? Just about everything has to be imported onto the island. It could be really fun to watch. Let them have a vote on it.
Seems we are much more enlightened these days (if by CSA you mean Confederate States of America). Did you know that here in Texas we have a shadow government of the Republic of Texas? I haven't heard much about them lately but I do know they exists. I would not be suprised to see Texas choose to leave the union if Hawaii is allowed to go. After all Texas was once an independent nation too. The point being, the USA is on very thin ice, when it condemns other nations for not allowing self determination. Either self determination is a good thng, in which case states like Hawaii and Texas should be allowed to leave the union or it is not a good thing and Russia, Serbia, Macedonia should be allowed to defend themselves from those who would tare them apart.
This is a good example illustrating how current international law is ridiculous and defies all historical precedent for war and nation-building. I'm sure our conquest of the US territory and genocide of the native Americans was "illegal" under current law, but should we all move back to Europe/Africa/Asia? Heck no. This is why we should have expelled the native Hawaiians when we conquered it. Multicultural nations don't work. Countries aren't built through peaceful negotiation, they're built by blood. Deal with it, remove head from sand, move on.
"If Hawaii doesn't want to be a state, and I'm shocked to find out they are not, then they have the right to leave, so does Texas, Kansas, Florida, and Tennessee."
Also Alaska and California, whose statehoods were also "irregular".
It's interesting to hear all the "Gee, aren't the Hawaiians better off under our rulership" arguments being offered, and then recalling that White Southern Plantation owners made the exact same justifications when keeping blacks slaves.
But the issue gets back to a simple basic truth. What seperates a dictatorship from all other forms of government is that dictatorshgips do not obey their own laws. And under the letter of the laws and treaties then in force, Hawaii is not legally a state.
Here is a summary of how Hawaii was stolen.
It is easy to find the courage necessary to support a moral position if that position benefits oneself. True moral courage, however, is proven when one chooses to support that which is morally and ethically right even when such a position is to one's one detriment.
The people of the United States find themselves in such a position right now, forced to choose between a moral and ethical position that carries with it the potential for "inconvenience", or supporting the status quo and having to admit to themselves that they are not the champions of justice they imagine themselves to be. By the end of this article, you will know for yourself which one you are.
Most folks have heard that Hawaii is a state, one of the United States of America. Most people, including those who live in Hawaii, accept that statement as a fact.
But the reality is that in a world in which nations are as bound by the rule of laws as are the citizens of nations (if not more so), the truth is quite different!
The truth is that each and every step along Hawaii's path from sovereign and independent nation, to annexxed territory, to state, was done in violation of laws and treaties then in effect, without regard to the wishes of the Hawaiian people. Many people, including President Grover Cleveland, opposed the annexation of Hawaii.
But in the end, simple greed and military interest overrode any concerns or moral right and legality. Hawaii;s legitimate government was toppled using threat of American military force. Hawaii was stolen from her people for the benefit of wealthy American plantation owners and military interests, and the justifications for the crime were invented after-the-fact.
Hawaii's government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this "superior force of the United States of America," Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people.
Who were this group of American men and why did they overthrow the government? Sugar!
Workers in the cane fields. The use of whips was common.
Sugar was by far the principal support of the Islands, and profits and prosperity hinged on favorable treaties with the United States, Hawaiian sugar's chief market, creating powerful economic ties. The plantation owners were, for the most part, the descendents of the original missionary families who had brought religion to the islands in the wake of the whaling ships. As ownership of private property came to the islands, the missionary families wound up owning a great deal of it!
Hawaii has little in the way of mineral wealth, so the land was useful only for agriculture. In a day when unrefridgerated sailing ships such as Captain Matson's "Falls Of Clyde" were the only means to ship produce to the US Mainland, sugar, and to a lesser extent coconuts, were the only produce which could survive the sea voyage.
Clipper ships at anchor in Honolulu harbor.
But the United States had, in 1826, recognized Hawaii as a sovereign nation in its own right, and imposed the usual import tariffs on sugar coming from the islands. This cut into the profits of the sugar plantations. Indeed, being American citizens themselves, the plantation owners were rankled by the fact that the US government actually made more profit from their sugar then the plaantation owners themselves did! To evade the tariff, it became necessary to the plantation owners that Hawaii cease being a seperate and sovereign nation.
In 1887, during the reign of Lili`uokalani' s brother, King Kalakaua, a group of planters and businessmen, seeking to control the kingdom politically as well as economically, formed a secret organization, the Hawaiian League. Membership (probably never over 400, compared to the 40,000 Native Hawaiians in the kingdom) was predominantly American, led by Lorrin A. Thurston, a lawyer and missionary grandson.
Lorrin A. Thurston.
Their goal, for now, was to "reform" the monarchy. But what was "reform" to the Americans was treason to the people of Hawaii, who loved and respected their monarchs.
It is important to recall that, unlike the hereditary rulers of Europe, Hawai's last two Kings were actually elected to that office by democratic vote. Kalakaua and his sister Lili`uokalani were well-educated, intelligent, skilled in social graces, and equally at home with Hawaiian traditions and court ceremony. Above all, they were deeply concerned about the well-being of the Hawaiian people and maintaining the independence of the kingdom. They saw no reason to relinquish their independence solely to make already rich Americans richer still.
The Hawaiian League's more radical members favored the king's abdication, and one even proposed assassination. But they decided that the king would remain on the throne but with his power sharply limited by a new constitution of their making. Killing him would be a last resort if he refused to agree. Many Hawaiian League members belonged to a volunter militia, the Honolulu Rifles, which was officially in service to the Hawaiian government, but was secretly the Hawaiian League's military arm.
Kalakaua was compelled to accept a new Cabinet composed of league members, who presented their constitution to him for his signature at `Iolani Palace. The reluctant king argued and protested, but finally signed the document, which became known as the Bayonet Constitution. As one Cabinet member noted, "Little was left to the imagination of the hesitating and unwilling sovereign, as to what he might expect in the event of his refusal to comply with the demands made upon him."
The Bayonet Constitution greatly curtailed the king's power, making him a mere figurehead. It placed the actual executive power in the hands of the Cabinet, whose members could no longer be dismissed by the king, only by the Legislature. Amending this constitution was also the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature. The Bayonet Constitution's other purpose was to remove the Native Hawaiian majority's dominance at the polls and in the Legislature. The righteous reformers were determined to save the Hawaiians from self-government.
The privilege of voting was no longer limited to citizens of the kingdom, but was extended to foreign residents -- provided they were American or European. Asians were excluded -- even those who had become naturalized citizens. The House of Nobles, formerly appointed by the king, would now be elected, and voters and candidates for it had to meet a high property ownership or income requirement -- which excluded two-thirds of the Native Hawaiian voters. While they could still vote for the House of Representatives, to do so they had to swear to uphold the Bayonet Constitution.
The Hawaiians strenuously opposed the diminution of their voice in governing their own country and resented the reduction of the monarch's powers and the manner in which the Bayonet Constitution had been forced on him. Hawaiians, Chinese and Japanese petitioned the king to revoke the constitution. The self-styled Reform Cabinet responded that only an act of the Legislature could do this - though their new constitution had never been put to a vote.
In 1889 a young part-Hawaiian named Robert W. Wilcox staged an uprising to overthrow the Bayonet Constitution. He led some 80 men, Hawaiians and Europeans, with arms purchased by the Chinese, in a predawn march to `Iolani Palace with a new constitution for Kalakaua to sign. The king was away from the palace, and the Cabinet called out troops who forcibly put down the insurrection. Tried for conspiracy, Wilcox was found not guilty by a jury of Native Hawaiians, who considered him a folk hero.
On Jan. 20, 1891, King Kalakaua died of kidney disease at age 54, leaving his sister, Lili`uokalani' as Queen of Hawaii, who childless herself, declared the young Princess Ka`iulani her successor to the throne. Just 7 months later, Lili`uokalani' s husband, John Dominis, an American sea captain's son, also died.
The next year, Lorrin Thurston and a group of like-minded men, mostly of American blood, formed an Annexation Club, plotting the overthrow of the queen and annexation to the United States. Thurston went to Washington to promote annexation, and received an encouraging message from President Benjamin Harrison: "You will find an exceedingly sympathetic administration here."
On Jan. 14, 1893 the queen attempted to proclaim a new constitution restoring power to the throne and rights to the Native Hawaiian people.
Alerted earlier of the queen's intention by two of her Cabinet members, the Annexation Club sprang into action. A 13-member Committee of Safety was chosen to plan the overthrow of the queen and the establishment of a provisional government. As they plotted revolution, they claimed that the queen, by proposing to alter the constitution, had committed ''a revolutionary act."
The American warship USS Boston was in port at Honolulu Harbor. With an eye toward landing troops, Lorrin Thurston and two others called upon the American minister in Hawai`i, John L. Stevens, an avowed annexationist. Stevens assured them he would not protect the queen, and that he would land troops from the Boston if necessary "to protect American lives and property." He also said that if the revolutionaries were in possession of government buildings and actually in control of the city, he would recognize their provisional government. It is important to note that Stevens lacked legal standing to recognize a new government on behalf of the United States.
The next day, Jan. 15, Thurston told the queen's Cabinet that the Committee of Safety would challenge her. and delivered a letter to Minister Stevens requesting him to land troops from the Boston, stating that "the public safety is menaced and life and property are in peril." This was a critical point. The "public safety" was threatened only by the Committee of Safety itself. Stevens had no legal basis to send American troops ashore in force. It was, by any definition of the word, an invasion using American troops, in order to overthrow a foreign government.
The Committee of Safety offered the presidency of the provisional government to Sanford B. Dole, another of the "mission boys," as Thurston called them. Rather than abolishing the monarchy, Dole favored replacing the queen with a regency holding the throne in trust until Princess Ka'iulani came of age. He accepted the presidency and submitted his resignation as a justice in Hawai`i's Supreme Court.
Sanford Dole, President of the provisional government of Hawaii, whose brother
founded the Dole Pineapple company.
On the morning of Jan. 17, Dole gave Stevens a letter from Thurston, asking for his recognition of the provisional government, which they planned to proclaim at 3 that afternoon. The American minister told Dole, "I think you have a great opportunity."
On Jan. 17, 1893, at dusk, Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne under protest, with these words:
"I, Lili`uokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom."That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.
"Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands."
Note that the queen surrendered Hawai`i's sovereignty not to the revolutionaries but to the "superior force of the United States of America". This firmly put the United States in the legal position of having invaded and overthrown the government of a foreign nation without provocation.
The Royal Guard surrender their arms at the Iolani Palace Barracks
The provisional government took over the palace and declared martial law. Later, at its request, Minister Stevens proclaimed Hawai`i a temporary protectorate and raised the American flag over government buildings. He wrote the State Department urging annexation, saying, "The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe, and this is the golden hour for the United States to pluck it."
The provisional government had chartered a steamer, and Thurston and four others hastened to Washington with a treaty of annexation in hand. The queen's envoys were refused permission to sail on the same ship, and by the time they reached Washington, President Harrison had already sent the annexation treaty to the Senate.
But Harrison was in his last days in power, and Grover Cleveland, who replaced him, withdrew the treaty, alarmed by the legal ramifications of what had happened.
President Cleveland sent to Honolulu special commissioner James H. Blount, former chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Blount's job was to investigate the circumstances of the revolution, the role Minister Stevens and American troops played in it, and to determine the feelings of the people of Hawai`i toward the provisional government. Blount immediatly ordered the troops back to their ship and the American flag taken down and replaced by the Hawaiian flag.
Blount's final report charged that Minister Stevens illegally conspired in the overthrow of the monarchy, which would not have taken place without the landing of U.S. troops. Blount recommended restoring the queen, saying...The undoubted sentiment of the people is for the queen, against the provisional government and against annexation." He noted, "There is not an annexationist in the Islands, so far as I have been able to observe, who would be willing to submit the question of annexation to a popular vote."
Based on Blount's findings, President Cleveland decided that, in the name of justice, he would do everything in his power to reinstate the queen. Minister Stevens was recalled from Hawaii in disgrace, and replaced with Albert Willis, who expressed to the queen the president's regret that the unauthorized intervention of the United States had caused her to surrender her sovereignty
Willis next went to Sanford Dole and the provisional government, acknowledging the wrong committed by the United States in the revolution and requested them to resign power and restore the queen.
The answer, of course, was no. They repudiated the right of the American president to interfere in their domestic affairs and said that if the American forces illegally assisted the revolution, the provisional government was not responsible.
On Dec. 18, 1893, President Cleveland made an eloquent speech to Congress on the Hawaiian situation. He had harsh words for the landing of American troops at the revolutionaries' request:
"This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war; unless made either with the consent of the government of Hawai`i or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperiled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the government of the queen ... the existing government, instead of requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government Building and palace. ... When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. ... "
The president continues:
"But for the notorious predilections of the United States minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should have been called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed."But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property, the committee would never have exposed themselves to the plans and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the queen's government.
"But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to accord all needed protection and support, the committee would not have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government Building.
"And, finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the queen and her government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States. ... "
He further stated,
"... 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 cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."
President Cleveland concluded by placing the matter in the hands of Congress.
The Senate hearings were conducted by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, John Tyler Morgan, an annexationist, whose final report managed to find everyone blameless for the revolution except the queen. Many in the Senate disagreed, and the House censured Stevens and passed a resolution opposing annexation.
With their goal of annexation stalled, the leaders of the provisional government decided to form a republic, while waiting for a more opportune political climate. Meanwhile, vast tracks of Hawaiian land (including Pearl Harbor) were taken from their rightful owners without compensation by the new government and traded to the United States in exchange for a reduction of the sugar tariff. The United States Navy began to study how they would use the "Unsinkable Battleship Hawaii" in its Pacific commanding location.
The new provisional government drafted a constitution and declared it law by proclamation -- the very act for which they had forced Lili`uokalani from her throne. The new constitution required voters to swear allegiance to the republic, and thousands of Native Hawaiians refused, out of loyalty to queen and country. Foreigners who had sided with the revolution were allowed to vote. Property requirements and other qualifications were so strict that relatively few Hawaiians and no Asians could vote.
On July 4, 1894, (again pandering to the United States in the hopes of eventual anexation) Sanford Dole announced the inauguration of the Republic of Hawai`i, and declared himself president.
Unwilling to give up, many Hawaiians and other royalists accumulated arms for a counterrevolution to restore the monarchy. In the January 1895 uprising, led again by Robert Wilcox, the royalists were forced by government troops to retreat into the valleys behind Honolulu, and after 10 days of fighting, most of them, including Wilcox, were captured.
The republic's prize catch was Queen Lili`uokalani. A search revealed a cache of arms buried in the flower garden of her home at Washington PLace (now the state Governor's mansion). She was arrested Jan. 16, 1895, exactly two years from the date the American troops landed in support of the revolution. Imprisoned in a corner room on the second story of `Iolani Palace, she was guarded day and night, allowed only one attendant and no visitors. The windows of her room were painted over to prevent her from seeing out, and her supporters from seeing in. The paint remains on those windows to this very day. Lili`uokalani passed the long hours writing music (Lili`uokalani wrote many of Hawaii's most popular traditional tunes) and quilting.
Lili`uokalani was given a document of abdication to sign and was led to believe that, if she refused, several of her followers were to be shot for treason. She wrote, "For myself, I would have chosen death rather than to have signed it; but it was represented to me that by my signing this paper all the persons who had been arrested, all my people now in trouble by reason of their love and loyalty toward me, would be immediately released ... the stream of blood ready to flow unless it was stayed by my pen." It is worth noting that the Hawaiian Constitution did not provide a legal process for the Monarch's abdication and without the approval of the legislature, the document had no legal validity.
Despite Lili`uokalani's signing of the abdication document, Wilcox and four others were sentenced to death. Many other royalists received long prison sentences and heavy fines. Lili`uokalani noted, ''Their sentences were passed the same as though my signature had not been obtained. That they were not executed is due solely to a consideration which has been officially stated: 'Word came from the United States that the execution of captive rebels would militate against annexation.'" In other words, the Americans who had stolen the government were still lying to the queen to get what they wanted, stayed from killing Wilcox and the others only by intercession from the United States, which was still trying to figure out what its own role was in the fiasco.
The queen was charged with misprision of treason and was given the maximum sentence of five years imprisonment at hard labor and a $5,000 fine. Out of fear that seeing their Queen at hard labor would trigger yet another armed revolt among the populace, Lili`uokalani remained a prisoner in the palace for eight months, then under house arrest until 1896.
Upon gaining her freedom, Lili`uokalani went to Washington, armed with documents signed by many Hawaiians asking President Cleveland to reinstate their queen. But it was now too late for him to be of further help. His term was over and he could do no more. Grover Cleveland wrote: "I am ashamed of the whole affair."
His successor, President William McKinley, sent the annexation treaty to the Senate.
Hawaiians submitted a petition to Congress with 29,000 signatures opposing annexation, and petitions to the Republic of Hawai`i, asking that annexation be put to a public vote. They were never permitted to vote on the issue.
In all, three seperate Treaties of Annexation were sent to congress. All three failed. In the end, Hawaii was annexxed by a joint resolution of Congress. But Congress did not have the legal authority to do so. A joint resolution of Congress has no legal standing in a foreign country, which is what Hawaii remained, even under the provisional government.
Sovereignty of Hawai`i was formally transferred to the United States at ceremonies at `Iolani Palace on Aug. 12, 1898. Sanford Dole spoke as the newly appointed governor of the Territory of Hawai`i. The Hawaiian anthem, ''Hawai`i Pono `I" -- with words written by King Kalakaua -- was played at the Hawaiian flag was lowered, and replaced by the American flag and "The Star-Spangled Banner." The Hawaiian people had lost their land, their monarchy and now their independence. The American plantation owners were now free ot the import tariffs; small matter that the Hawaiian people had lost their independence along the way.
Sanford Dole hands over sovereignty of Hawaii to the United States. It
was not legally his to give.
Even this act of transfer was illegal under international law. Beginning with Dewey's attack at Manilla, the international rules of war went into effect, with Spain and the United States as belligerents and Hawaii as a neutral nation. UNder the Hague convention of 1907, the United States government was required to enforce Hawaiian law rather than its own, but failed to do so.
By annexxing Hawaii without a treaty, then stationing military forces on the islands, the US, while a belligerent nation in wartime, committed an unprovoked incursion into a neutral nation and established military forces there. This is what Hitler did across Europe and Japan did in China. This is an act of war under anyone's laws.
United States warship in Honolulu harbor.
The following year saw the death of the beautiful young Princess. Ka'iulani, heir to the Hawaiian throne, at age 23. With her died the last hopes for a restoration of the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy. To this day, questions still linger as to exactly how and why such a young and healthy woman died. Lili`uokalani remained an indomitable spirit, honored and revered by her people as a queen to the end. She died in 1917, at the age of 79, still waiting for justice.
Hawaii remained a territorial possession of the United States for many years. The military presence illegally begun during the Spanish American war continued to grow, including the Naval base at Pearl Harbor. The plantation familes grew richer and richer, while the original Hawaiian people were marginalized, often homeless in their own homelands. The animosity between Hawaiians and the Americans exploded into public view during the celebrated Ala Moana Rape case, in which famed lawyer Clarence Darrow argued for the defense. The thin veneer of a tropic paradise, crafted for the emerging tourist industry was shattered in moments by the anger shown on both sides.
Continued next reply.
In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided that the best way to get a reluctant America into a war with Hitler was to "back door" a war by luring Japan into an attack against the United States. By cutting off oil exports to Japan, Roosevelt forced Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies, and by placing the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl, Roosevelt made an attack at Pearl the mandatory first move in any military move by Japan in any direction.
See "Pearl Harbor: The Mother Of All Conspiracies" for the details on Roosevelt's monstrous swindle.
Following WW2, Hawaii was placed on the list of non self-governing territories by the United Nations, with the United States as trustee, under Article 73. Under Article 73 of the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebesite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebesite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by article 73 of the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation.
In 1959 Hawaii's plebesite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebesite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter. Cheated out of their independence yet again, Hawaiians voted for the lesser of two evils and became the 50th state.
The history of Hawaii's transition from sovereign nation to a state of the United States is a history of crime after crime after crime, of policy pur forward by proclamation and reinforced by American weapons of war, of military incursion, of violations of international law and treaties then in effect. None of the events which turned Hawaii from a sovereign nation into a part of the US was legal and above board. It was robbery, by anyone's definition of the word, with the justifications and excuses made up after the fact to make the affair palatable to an American public that still wanted to view its government as fair, just, and honorable.
In 1988, a study by the United States Justice Department concluded that Congress did not have the authority to annexx Hawaii by joint resolution. The ersatz annexxation was a cover for the military occupation of the Hawaiian islands for purposes related to the Spanish American war.
Bill Clinton signs United States Public Law 103-150.
On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact.
United States Public Law 103-150, despite its polite language, is an official admission that the government of the United States illegally occupies the territory of the Hawaiian people.
In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (he same is true of the Alaska plebesite).
In a world where nations are as governed by laws as are men, Hawaii is not and has never legelly been a part of the United States. Hawaii was stolen from the Haiaiian people, and they want it back.
Hawaiians on Maui demand the return of ceded ancestral lands.
Unable to argue against these legal issues calling into question the legitimacy of the United States presence in Hawaii, supporters of the Status Quo have put forward various straw-man arguments to justify why, even if the Hawaiian people were deprived of their government and lands illegally, that things should stay just the way they are today.
One of the most often-used straw-man arguments is that a Monarchy limited by a Constitution would be a bad thing. It does not seem to have harmed England, Monaco, or any of the quite prosperous Saudi Emirates. Two of Hawaii's Kings were elected to that office by popular vote. No other Monarchy boasts such a democratic process. And as the Wilcox Rebellions proved, Hawaiians found life under American rule much less enjoyable than it had been under Queen Lili`uokalani.
Yet another straw-man argument is that Hawaiian independence would mean the total removal of the American military. This is nonsense. Those bases are not here for the benefit of Hawaii, but for the benefit of the US mainland. The American military maintains bases around the world in foreign nations including Okinawa, Germany, and Cuba. America would not hesitate to enter into a treaty with the government of an independent Hawaii to continue to lease its facilities here and there is no reason for the government of an independent Hawaii to refuse.
Yet another straw-man argument is that were Hawaii returned to the Hawaiians, that they would be obliged to pay for the improvements that have been put here since their lands were taken. This too is nonsense. If a thief steals your car and while it is in his possession paints it and installs a stereo, are you obliged to compensate the thief for the improvements when the police return your stolen car to you? Of course not. The thief put in the improvements on the stolen property for his own benefit, not yours. Likewise, the improvements made to Hawaii were made to benefit the overthrowers, not the overthrown. If one wishes to make a case for monies owed for improvements, let us be fair and include back rents owed for the property those improvements sit on.
The final straw-man argument is that Hawaiian independence would cause the society in the islands to fall apart. But the truth is that a new government of an independent Hawaii is well motivated to NOT change anything; to keep the industry, tourism, high tech, indeed all of Hawaiian life pretty much as it is now, and to displace or disrupt as little as possible. Extremists and obvious fear-mongers aside, a transition of Hawaii from a state to an independent nation would change only to whom rent checks and taxes are sent, and little else. Even the flag of Hawaii would likely remain the same. Hawaii would lose the massive and complex bureaucracy that connects Hawaii to the mainland, and Hawaiia's citizens would be free of their share of the $7 trillion dollar federal debt and its ruinous interest, but who would mourn the loss?
The military bases would still be here. The United States would want that. So would the government of an independent Hawaii. People would want to continue running their businesses. The government of an independent Hawaii would want exactly the same thing. Confusion and discord harm tourism. A new government of an independent Hawaii is well motivated to keep the islands serene.
But what it really comes down to is whether one believes in justice or not. It's easy to support justice that works to your own favor, but the true test of moral citizenship is when you uphold justice even when it is a personal inconvenience.
If one holds that the government of the United States is obliged to obey the laws and the UN charter it freely signed, then the status of the Hawaiian people as a distinct and sovereign nation is beyond debate. This makes the United States in Hawaii, as Gandhi described the British in India, acting as the masters in someone else's home. Maybe good masters, maybe beneficial masters, but masters in someone else's home nonetheless.
And it is time for them to leave.
More info on the Nation Of Hawaii can be found at The Nation Of Hawai website.
I'm sure our conquest of the US territory and genocide of the native Americans was "illegal" under current law, but should we all move back to Europe/Africa/Asia?
Well offical US policy as implemented in the Balkans would indecate that yes, we should all move back or divide our selves into lots and lots of city states each ruled by a different ethic group. At least that appears to be offical US policy as best anyone can understand.
From the Hague Convention of 1907:
SECTION III
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
This has to do with occupation--by the military. From what I've scanned through the links, I don't think we occupied Hawaii. We annexed it and set up a civil government.
The annexation may have been shady, but that's a different problem.
Why is the UN in the news now everyday?
Why is the UN interfereing with US concerns?
Why do we give the UN 1/4 of all its operating capital?
I go to Hawaii all the time, and I can attest to the fact that most natives love America, and want nothing to do with this leftist attempt to seperate them from the US.
Just because some group of nuts makes a lot of noise does not mean they represent the majority.
Texas would not be allowed to seperate from the USA, though it never handed over its total soverenighty. Why should Hawaii be allowed to seperate?
IF Hawaii does break away, then Texans should organize and do the same. We don't want to pay heavy taxes to D.C. and get little in return. We are sick of the federal system, and we want our liberty restored.
If Hawaii is allowed to break free, then how many other states will do the same?
To Hell with Koffe's dictatorship.
This is yet another example of the idiotic past wrongs limitation school of historical interpretation. Some of the less able historians around the world feel a nation can never act against any wrong it was guilty of having committed itself. Carried to it's logical extreme, this method of historical analysis is revealed as patently absurd. For example:
The U.S. that exists today was built partly by slave labor in the 1800s. Therefore, we have no right to condemn the Sudanese slave trade, because our forefathers once did the same thing.
The U.S. seized large tracts of land from Indians during the 1800s, so we have no right to condemn the genocide of Hitler or today's ethnic cleansing. Also, the formation of the states created via our conquests was illegitimate, so these governments must now be dissolved and the land returned to returned to the governance of neolithic bands and tribes.
Would anybody agree with the above? No. Because it's ridiculous to use a 19th century model of geopolitics to analyze ethical dilemnas in the 21st century, period. Looking to the past for practical training on how to do things is the best aim for historical study...but looking to ancient models to determine what we may permit ourselves to do is absolutely useless, and possibly even dangerous if it pushes into endless deliberation where swift action is required.
This is a good example illustrating how current international law is ridiculous and defies all historical precedent for war and nation-building. I'm sure our conquest of the US territory and genocide of the native Americans was "illegal" under current law, but should we all move back to Europe/Africa/Asia? Heck no. This is why we should have expelled the native Hawaiians when we conquered it. Multicultural nations don't work. Countries aren't built through peaceful negotiation, they're built by blood. Deal with it, remove head from sand, move on. 45 Posted on 07/07/2001 13:24:05 PDT by Franklin1776 (HHICorp@hotmail.com)
--
You know, this is just another bunch of crybaby leftist minorities holding out their hand not unlike the Jesse (I gots lots of kids all over the place) Jackson pushing for "reperations".
Has anyone asked them how much money they want to shut up?
Carol
You suggest that, "you go there all the time."
What is your frequency of personal/business time there over and above being on the mainland? More than that, I want to hear your knowledge of experience as opposed to opinion. I am sure you will say something more than playing around.
"Why is the UN interfereing with US concerns? "
Because the United States signed the United Nations charter of their own free will.
"I go to Hawaii all the time, and I can attest to the fact that most natives love America, and want nothing to do with this leftist attempt to seperate them from the US. "
Well, I live here and most of the indigenous people I know are very angry at the illegal actions of the United States government.
"Just because some group of nuts makes a lot of noise does not mean they represent the majority. "
The "majority" has nothing to do wth the issue. The issue is whether the United States acted according to the laws and treaties in effect at the time when it first assisted the overthrow of the Hawaiian government, then annexed Hawaii, then whether the plebesite vote held to determine statehood was held in accordance with the United Nations charter, which the government of the United States signed of its own free will. The answer to all three is, "the United States acted illegally", "the United States acted illegally", and "the United States acted illegally".
"Texas would not be allowed to seperate from the USA, though it never handed over its total soverenighty. Why should Hawaii be allowed to seperate? "
That Texas "would not be allowed to seperate from the USA" (Sig HEIL!) does not mean it does not have a right to.
IF Hawaii does break away, then Texans should organize and do the same. We don't want to pay heavy taxes to D.C. and get little in return. We are sick of the federal system, and we want our liberty restored. "
I think you should. Texas was annexed by Joint Resolution of Congress, which was held to be as illegal then as it was in the case of Hawaii.
"If Hawaii is allowed to break free, then how many other states will do the same? "
As many as deem it necessary. Quite a few states already have the legal right to do so. For example, when Clinton created the Grand Staircase Escalante monument, locking away the low sulphur coal deposits, he violated Utah's statehood agreement, which reserved those coal deposits to fund the Utah public school system in perpetuity. If the Federal Government breaks a statehood agreement with any state, does that state legally remain a state?
But we come back to the same major issue. Is a government as obligated to follow its own laws as are the citizens, and every single argument offered up to keep Hawaii a state amounts to justifying, after the fact, the illegal overthrow, illegal annexation, and invalid statehood election.
You are clearly supporting the right of the US Government to set aside its own laws when and where it wants to. What happens when they do so to your detriment, instead of to your advantage?
Is a government as obligated to follow its own laws as are the citizens? Yes or no.
You may think Hawaii is a paradise, I thought it was horrible. No Pine trees and now snow.
"Has anyone asked them how much money they want to shut up? "
I have asked YOU a question.
Is a government as obligated to obey its own laws as are the citizens? Yes or no.
Come to poppa.... your horror on Hawaii shores are not an experience that I know of; maybe you tripped over a lava rock or something .... give it a rest. Hawaii is paradise.
AS: You make a good point regarding the 19th versus 21st century. We can condemn Serbian ethnic cleansing, whatever happened in our past, if it is wrong - period. and the history shows ambivalence from US on this matter (Pres. Cleveland etc.), the US was not evil here. The history as reported sounds convincing. One group of insiders took control and handed the Government over to the US to get what they really wanted, money and power. A similar thing happened in Panama, to help create the Panama canal, a bogus revolt against Columbian govt was made to forge an 'independent' panama that was handed over to the US.
The solution is *not* to unscramble the egg that was made 100 years ago in the age of empires ... the solution is to respect human rights, self-determination and freedom going forward. Calling it an ongoing occupation is wrong. Hawaii now has a Democratic form of Government and representation at the Federal level. They have more rights than they had as a territory or even in independence. Let them vote in pro-independence politicians, put their claims on the ballot/refurendum and push for independence. If Hawaii wants to go it alone, let them. I would support as strongly as I support Taiwan independence. We let Phillipines go, and it didnt hurt us. (may have hurt the phillipines economically ..)
Michael, thanks for sharing the interesting history.
bingo. But I am still wondering why all the nations Russia still holds in illegitimate occupation do not petition.
Fine. Let's also give most of the land owned by the American indians back to them AS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PROMISED. I am not an indian but I know the history and the indians got screwed harder, deeper and drier than the Hawaiians. Give the Black Hills back to the Lakota. Give the Wallowa Valley of Oregon back to the descendants of Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce. KEEP GOING UNTIL WE HONOR ALL OF THE TREATIES. We have a lot of land to return to the rightful owners - American indians. The United States government had written treaties with the indians guaranteeing them certain lands and then unilaterally broke the treaties and allowed trespassing settlers to steal the land.
And make the U.S. gov't give back all the land it gobbled up from the Teddy Roosevelt days to now. The feral gov't is only supposed to have land for forts,ports and needful uses.
"I am not an indian but I know the history and the indians got screwed harder, deeper and drier than the Hawaiians."
It is beginning to look like the US Goverment screwed pretty much everyone they ever came into contact with, "screwed harder, deeper and drier", including first and foremost, their own citizens.
Remember that part in the Declaration of Independence about how government's derive their powers from the consent of the governed?
I do NOT give my consent to a government that lies to the people.
I do NOT give my consent to a government that does not obey its own laws.
Because in the end, the question of Hawaii's status comes down to the reality that the United States government admits acting illegally during the overthrow, did not have legal standing to annex Hawaii, and staged a bogus statehood election.
If your state/territory of residence goes so shall the southeast go as well!
No, they miss the point. The ballot (of which my parents voted - I am a Territory baby, by the way). Said simply yes or no to Statehood. They could say yes to Statehood or not. This is the convenient piece that all these social revisionists conveniently ignore. No one forced them to vote yes. PLUS the issue was in the paper by those opposed who sought NO votes, but were drowned out by a large majority voting yes. People need to get educated before they spout half truths or untruths becoming only of a liberal.
"The ballot (of which my parents voted - I am a Territory baby, by the way). Said simply yes or no to Statehood. They could say yes to Statehood or not. "
That's the problem. Under Article 73 of the United Nations charter, which the United States signed of its own fre will, the plebesite vote was required to also offer the choice to return to being an independent nation. Without that choice for independence being on the ballot, the plebesite was illegal and non-binding. Minus a choice for independence, the only choice was statehood or remaining a territory, which made the Hawaiians legally inferior to regular citizens. Given a choice between remaining secnd class ctizens as a territory and being a state, it's not surprising that more voters elected for statehood. But had independence been on the ballot, it's certain that independence would have won more votes. Indeed the fact that independence was omitted from the ballot in violation of Article 73 proves that those holding the election knew in advance that independence would win the most votes were it available.
In a world where nations must obey the laws as do individual citizens, Hawaii was made a state by illegal means.
Again, if people were as aghast as you feign to be, then the easy revolt would have been to vote no. The fact they did not and people ENTHUSIASTCALLY embraced Statehood proves that your after the fact spin is complete revisionist nonsense. I know the people who were there on both sides of the fence for this vote. You are wrong. Sorry, but your agenda is going nowhere and latest public opinion polls also confirm this for the continuation of the State of Hawaii.
Did you know that here in Texas we have a shadow government of the Republic of Texas? I haven't heard much about them lately but I do know they exists.
The "Republic of Texas" crowd is all in prison, doing VERY long terms. That's why you haven't heard about them, and won't.
*yawn*
I say screw them. Hawaii is a state and will stay a state. The U.N. has no say in the matter. If they stick their nose into our affairs I say bloody it good.
It is beginning to look like the US Goverment screwed pretty much everyone they ever came into contact with, "screwed harder, deeper and drier", including first and foremost, their own citizens.
You're anti-American, Michael. Here's additional proof. Conspiracies, cover-ups, independence...you're a friggin' anarchist!
But if you agree that governments are as obligated to obey the laws as are citizens
I believe the impeachment fiasco proved that both the POTUS and the Senate of the United States have decided that neither the government, or it's officials, are obligated to obey the laws that they enact upon the citizenry.
Because the U.N. has no say in what happens in this country. If we want to take over China then we'll do it and they'll damn well like it. The U.N. will tell us thank you berry berry much or we'll destroy their sorry asses also.
Hawai'i is not in a "Pacific commanding location" for anything, except the entire Pacific coast of North America. These islands are a terrific base for defending (or attacking, which is why the United States should hold them) everything from Alaska to the Panama Canal, and on their other side, they do not project power against any foreign land. They're an integral part of US defense.
The U.N. will not survive for the next 10 years because of this nonsense. Americans are not about to allow the U.N. to start getting involved in our affairs. They'll go along with the U.N. as long as the U.N. is screwing with other countries. But once the U.N. turns it's attention on the U.S. they're done for.
WE should hold them because noone has the balls to try to take them. Let em try. Please. Let em try.
"They'll go along with the U.N. as long as the U.N. is screwing with other countries. "
Bump
Maybe we could move the UN out there before we give these people the independence they crave. Surfs up, Kofi.
I BUMP! your post #2 Sink, and raise you post #3 by BlueLancer. Just think folks, without those two Hawiian Democrat Senators, the Senate would belong to the Republicans. Giving Hawaii her independence should be put on the fast track.
This is how wars get started. Some jackass forgets that those that carry the big stick makes the rules and steps out of line then the big stick is used to beat him into submission. It happens over and over again.
Really? Well that explains it.
Of course you realize that any nation formed under any such U.N. action would have it's constitution written by the U.N... So long Bill of Rights.
Of course you realize that any nation formed under any such U.N. action would have it's constitution written by the U.N... So long Bill of Rights.
We could also give back the indigenous peoples lands that were taken to form the United States. We could also give back Texas and the greater southwest to the indigenous peoples of Mexico, or the Mexicans themselves. Perhaps, we could also argue that Israel has no right to exist. Hell, we could just practice backwards Balkanization and figure out what tribe of Neanderthals were supplanted by whatever branch of human beings existed at that time and revert the world to them.
Better yet, maybe it's time to load up the rifles and wait for the next hare-brain to come knocking, demanding his/her/its rights to my property. Return to the flower of mankind: base destruction for survival sake.
I agree, but why then do we have the right to stick our nose in other nations internal affairs. Kosovo in particular. You were as I recall a big supporter of intervention in Kosovo, don't you see that now we are open to the same type of interference? This time by the UN which hates the USA and claims to be world government which supercedes national government.
I agree, but why then do we have the right to stick our nose in other nations internal affairs.
You still don't understand the big stick theory?
Kosovo in particular. You were as I recall a big supporter of intervention in Kosovo, don't you see that now we are open to the same type of interference?
Youn recall wrongly. I wasn't for it or against it. I have to say though that if they were murdering women and children then we should have nuked their sorry ass. I also do not believe our soldiers were war criminals. I don't believe a government should me murdering women and children. I don't even think our government was right in Waco or Ruby Ridge. But the U.N. can kiss my hairy ass.
This time by the UN which hates the USA and claims to be world government which supercedes national government.
The U.N. will be destroyed the second it trys to stick it's nose into American affairs. Mark my works for future reference.
The bottom line is what failed form of government would this Nation of Hawaii glop together that would be any better than the one formatted by the Constitution? Do you revert to the savagery, feudalism and sheer superstition of the ancient Hawaiians with their demigods, ahupua'a restrictions and chiefly whims? No, this is pure fantasy by malcontents and racists who simply want power they will never have.
The truth is Statehood allowed more people to be treated equally. Many in the majority white man businesses were AGAINST statehood. So was the Advertiser. The Asian immigrants were for it because of the opportunity it afforded. "The goal was democracy for all in Hawaii, to give our Asian population a political voice equal to their numbers,... Hawaii wanted to become a state before World War II, recalled ILWU union supporter and social worker Ah Quon McElrath. In 1933 at McKinley (school), we debated the question of statehood," she said. "We were interested in statehood. "We could see where an extension of democracy could be cemented." McElrath said. "We wanted to extend democracy to an isolated group of islands with a multi-ethnic group. We wanted to be absolutely sure we got that kind of democracy."
As with all these historical issues, the truth is always somewhere in between and ignored more than recorded. There is no going back and what you propose is anarchic and traitorous for those of us who still live here and seek to scrape by in the land in which we were born. I wonder about your roots and the roots and issues for all those claiming to be Hawaiian or speak for all Hawaiians and who are mostly a mixed bag. Democracy and equality are sure better than the primitive Kingdom of hawaii. You need look no further than Britain to see no support for that folly. I'd stick with producing movies or acting.
Piffle Poof!
Then the USA had better grow some balls in dealing with the UN. Throw the UN out of the USA would be an excellent way to begin. Let those feminist, leftist, scum sucking, queer loving pigs meet in some third world hell hole.
Oh I forgot gun graping, please insert "gun graping" into my anti UN rant. Thanks.
Then the USA had better grow some balls in dealing with the UN. Throw the UN out of the USA would be an excellent way to begin. Let those feminist, leftist, scum sucking, queer loving pigs meet in some third world hell hole.
I'm with you. I'll help kick them out. Just pass the law or whatever we need to authorize it.
The truth is that the U.N. will be writing any constitutions for countris that they create. And you can bet that free press and gun ownership will not be part of that constitution. Now I imagine that globalism and anti hate thought laws will be but no Bill of Rights as we know it.
The locals no longer regard the *HUGE* influx of immigrants as important to their lifestyle other than the deterioration of it.
Well, to use the Kosovo argument that others have used, these immigrants -- which got there legally -- get to vote in any UN-ordered election. After all, most of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo are illegal immigrants, and their votes count according to that thinking.
Actually, that is because of NATO not the the UN.
Ya-a-a-wn.
None of it matters because the immigrants there -- whether they got there legally or illegally -- get to vote on the issue, according to precidents set by the U.N. in previous actions. Now if the native Hawaiians take actions to force those immigrants to leave, why . . . isn't that what the Serbs tried to do in Kosovo. Look what the U.N. did to them.
Sorry dude -- any other action, other than letting all current residents decide, is racist.
My God! Where do you hide out on Hawaii? There aren't too many places .... get with the program if you ever come back.
Actually I think it is far worse then that. I think that once the NWO, facist police state deals with USA gun owners that our new NWO leader will kill just about every one. Not by mistake mind you on purpose. I think the elites want to depopulate the planet.
Depopulation leads to a cleaner environment and more riches per human.
Yup.
You need rest.
you'll get your wish: to be resident of a foreign, welfare state.
And absolutely NO FOREIGN AID for them.
And tariffs. Lots and lots of tariffs!
Hey Howlin now you are talking like an American conservative! Way to go!
make those military bases into civilian resorts and civilian airports and business would boom!
We're NOT leaving them. I personally would vote to burn them to the ground rather than turn them over.
I am an American conservative, you dope.......LOL.
Hell, ya' better be packing soon....I never dreamed I'd get my contry back...LOL...I think I smell Chinese money!
Maybe we could move the UN out there before we give these people the independence they crave. Surfs up, Kofi.
ROFLMAO. Very, very funny.
Man, how long has it been since a plane crashed???? Michael needs a new hobby!
mathurine has a better idea. See #77.
Lot of good old UN bashing here
U.N. Investigating Whether E-Mails From U.S. Gun Enthusiasts a Security Threat
Check it out.
If you believe that the people of Hawaii have the right to self-determination, do you think that right is reserved only to those with Native Hawaiian blood? If so, of what quantum and why? Or do you believe the right to self-determination encompasses all people born in Hawaii regardless of ethnic origin? If so, do you really think that given a vote, the people of Hawaii would elect to remove themselves from the U.S.?
It's time for Hawaiian Kingdom adtivists to wake up and smell the coffee. The most they'll get is some kind of federal "tribal" recognition, some land, and some money. Hawaii will remain the 50th U.S. state.
The issue of secession was put to rest in the War of Northern Agression a.k.a. War Between the States.
However, the multiculturalist bilge that permeates modern society is apt to lead to a devolution of powers to regions/states in a confederalist form of government. Many states will become the equivalent of what Belize, Bermuda, Canada, etc. are to the British...nominally affiliated, but not a common nation state.
As went Rome, so goes the U.S....thank the Trent Lotts, Arlen Specters, Tom Daschles of the world for making this possible...Clinton was a symptom of the times...not the cause.
"If you believe that the people of Hawaii have the right to self-determination, do you think that right is reserved only to those with Native Hawaiian blood? If so, of what quantum and why? Or do you believe the right to self-determination encompasses all people born in Hawaii regardless of ethnic origin? If so, do you really think that given a vote, the people of Hawaii would elect to remove themselves from the U.S.?"
The above statements show that you are not paying attention. Hawaii cannot remain a state because it isn't a state. Not legally.
The overthrow of the Hawaiian government was illegally accomplished by American missionary descendants using American military troops. By any definition of the word, this was an unprovoked invasion into another nation; an act of WAR, no different than what Hitler did to France. Now, hypothetically, had enough Germans then moved to France to form a majority, then voted to stay a part of Germany, would you have stated that Germany could keep France because that's what the "French" voters wanted? Because that's exactly the same scanario you appear to support in Hawaii. The islands were grabbed by Americans using American military force, followed by an illegal annexation, followed by an illegal plebesite. Now the Hawaiians are a minority on their own islands and have no more chance to vote themselves freedom then they did during the rigged statehood vote.
"It's time for Hawaiian Kingdom activists to wake up and smell the coffee. The most they'll get is some kind of federal "tribal" recognition, some land, and some money. Hawaii will remain the 50th U.S. state."
It sounds like you approve of theft as long as you share in the benefits. It sounds like you don't think governments should obey their own laws or treaties they signed of their own free will. It sounds like you think the United States has every right to move into other people's lands and do what they want under any flimsy pretext.
But if you won't stand up for the Hawaiians when the government has ADMITTED error in taking their lands and freedom, then who do you expect to stand up for you when that same government you support now comes for your lands, and your freedom?
Hawaii cannot remain a state. Hawaii isn't a state to begin with. Not legally. The overthrow wasn't legal, the annexation wasn't legal, the statehood vote wasn't in conformance with Article 73 of the UN Charter.
Everyone who is trying to argue to keep things as they are is an accomplice after-the-fact to the theft of the Hawaiian islands from their rightful owners. And if that's what those people want to do, then they should drop the pretexts that they have a moral or legal right to engage in such thievery and just admit that they approve of invading other people's homes and taking their lands by force and deception.
You cannot have it both ways. If the United States government wants to be seen by the world as an honorable and trustworthy member of the international community, then it needs to behave like one, and that means acting in conformance with its own laws and with treaty obligations. If the United States government persists in acting like an international pirate, then it should not act surprised when the world (and its own citizens) view it as one.
"You're anti-American, Michael. Here's additional proof."
No, I think Amricans are pretty cool people. What I am opposed to is a government that breaks its own laws, lies to the people, and invades other people's lands without provocation.
The question is why do you support a government that breaks its own laws, lies to the people, and invades other people's lands without provocation?
"They may not collapse for the loss of military pay checks, but add in all the other federal dollars that funnels in to Hawaii and what will happen? We’re talking farm subsidies, welfare, school/college support, federal highway funds. I could go on and on. With Hawaii’s liberal voting record liberal state courts how long do you think Hawaii can survive without federal funds. "
You seem to have the attitude that all those military bases are there for the benefit of the Hawaiians. They aren't. Those military bases are there for the benefit of the United States and the United States would want to keep them there, just as it maintains bases in Guantanimo or Okinawa.
Most of the federal funds that come into Hawaii support the military establishment. On an island in the middle of the Pacific, we have an "interstate" highway system, which is actually just the roads needed to connect the military bases with one another. Take the recently opened H3 for example, which connects the Kanaohe Marine base with Pearl Harbor. As you drive along it, you can see where grading was done for on and off ramps to make the route more useful to the civilian areas. But these additional ramps were left unfinished. The road is really for military purposes.
Most of the Federal education funds are absorbed by the state's school system in "administrative costs". What little is left goes to NON-Hawaiian children, since Hawaiian children are educated from the private Bishop Estate Trust, which funds the Kamehameha Schools.
But again, we get back to the issue of whether a moral citizen should demand that the goverment which feeds off their taxes act in a moral and legal manner. Trying to excuse the now-admitted illegal annexation of Hawaii on the basis of giving the Hawaiians a handout is like trying to justify my stealing your house, then taxing you to live in it, then handing part of the taxes back to you in the hopes you will feel grateful to me for my generosity and forget that you used to own the place.
It still comes down to a single question. Do you think the government should obey its own laws the way citizens are required to?
"The issue of secession was put to rest in the War of Northern Agression a.k.a. War Between the States."
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the government's supporters, ever eager with their snide remarks and ad hominem atacks, are really quite clueless as to what is going on.
Hawaii cannot secede if it isn't a state to begin with.
And that is the whole point.
You have to make a choice here. Either you agree that governments must obey the laws as citizens do, or you think governments have every right to act criminally, while only the people are obliged to obey the dictates of that criminal government.
If you are like me, and hold that governments are required to obey the law, then Hawaii is not a state.
The initial overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was an unprovoked invasion by American troops into another nation, no different than what Hitler did to France. In both cases, the invasions were supported by the flimsiest of pretexts.
Under US Law, annexation can occur only with a treaty of annexation in which the annexed territory AGREES to be annexed. The Americans who set up a "provisional" government in the wake of the invasion of Hawaii (and ruthlessly put down efforts by the people to restore the original Hawaiian government) eventually sent three such treaties to Washington DC. Not one of those treaties was ever put to a popular vote. A great many Hawaiians signed petitions AGAINST annexation (never shown to congress at the time, these anti-annexation petitions were only recently uncovered in the National Archives). For these and other reasons having to do with the awkwardness of the situation, all three annexation treaties failed to pass.
Hawaii was annexed at the opening of the Spanish American War by a joint resolution of Congress. But under US law, annexation required a treaty with the annexed lands, and no such treaty had been approved. In 1988, the US Department Of Justice conceded that the annexation of Hawaii violated United States law. Congress does NOT have the legal authority to annex lands by joint resolution. It never has. And, since the United States was a beligerent in the Spanish American war, the seizure of Hawaii also fell under the Hague convention of 1907, which required the United States, as an occupying force, to enforce Hawaiian laws, not impose those of the United States, which is what it did.
Since the annexation was illegal, Hawaii never was a territory of the United States. Following the close of the Spanish American war, Hawaii should have been restored at least to the former independent Republic, if not all the way back to the original Kingdom. But the United States remained as an occupation force, without the legal right to do so even under US law, illegally imposing US laws on the lands and people. Because of this continued military occupation, and the general unawareness that the annexation had been illegal under United States law, Hawaii was declared a non-self governing territory by the United Nations with the United States as trustee. Under Article 73 of the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebesite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebesite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by article 73 of the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation.
By the letter of the United States' own laws, Hawaii should have never had to hold a plebesite, since it was not legaly annexxed as a territory of the United States. But once the plebesite was held, it should have included the option for Hawaiians to regain their independence. But the vote was rigged (as seems to be an historical feature of American elections), and the option for independence never appeared on the ballot, as was required under Article 73. The Hawaiians were left with a choice of "remaining" a territory (which they actually weren't under United States law) where Hawaiians were treated as second class citizens with reduced rights, or becoming a state. The voters chose the lesser of two evils, statehood, only because the choise for independence, mandated by Article 73, wasn't even on the ballot.
But even ignoring the act that the statehood vote was rigged, the plain fact is that the satehood vote hsould never have happened. Hawai was never legally a territory of the United States to begin with, under United States laws.
So, there is a simple choice to make. If you hold that the government of the United States is required to obey its laws to the same extent that the citizens are, then Hawaii is not and never was a legal territory or state.
And before you start trying to defend the actions of the government in its grabbing of someone else's home away from them, keep this simple fact in mind.
The only thing that protects the rights of indivudual citizens is the requirement that the government obey its own laws, and the limits of the Constitution. If we tolerate, or worse, encourage, the United States government to set aside its own laws and the Constitution, and to take the independence and the lands of the Hawaiians when and where doing so is to our advantage, then what protects YOU when it is in the government's advantage to set aside those same laws and consitutional protections to take YOUR lands, and YOUR independence?
The law of the land has to apply to all or it ceases to be law and merely becomes dictates.
If you tolerate the illegal actions by the United States government in seizing the lands and independence of the Hawaiians, then be prepared to lose your own.
Michael, get real! You're putting words in my mouth and reading way too much negative stuff into my statements. I neither approve theft, nor do I condone ripping off the Hawaiians. But you have to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hawaiian Kingdom activists who envision the U.N. telling the U.S. that it has to relinquish Hawaii, and the U.S. actually following through on something like that are dreaming. You can't satisfy the activists without disenfranchising almost 1 million people who don't have Hawaiian blood. You can't make right a 100-year old wrong without committing another wrong. The reality of the situation is that Hawaii will remain part of the U.S. in spite of all your facts, your well thought out logic, and history. Sorry to have to tell you that but you should get over it already!
"Let them have a new referendum. Those guys will lose. Just like the nationalists lost in Puerto Rico and Quebec.
Forgot one thing, make the Hawaiians pay for the referendem out of state monies."
Why have a referendum? The government will just try to rig it again.
If someone tries to steal your car and gets caught at it, is the fair thing to allow the thief a second chance to steal it again?
No, if someone steals your car and gets caught, the fair thing is to return the car to the rightful owner. Only other car thieves would dispute that.
The United States stole Hawaii from her people. The United States has ADMITTED DOING SO.
The fair thing is not to give the United States a second chance, but to return the stolen property to the rightful owner.
Only other thieves would dispute that.
"You can't satisfy the activists without disenfranchising almost 1 million people who don't have Hawaiian blood.
You can't satisfy the French Resistance without disenfranchising almost 1 million invading Nazis who don't have French blood.
"Pragmatic" is a polite term for not having the courage to do what is morally and legally right.
"You may think Hawaii is a paradise, I thought it was horrible. No Pine trees and now snow."
I don't know where you think you were but it wasn't Hawaii. Every island has Norfolk pines, and there is snow on Maui and the Big Island every winter. The observatories are always getting snowed in and there is a proper ski run on the Big Island. You can ski in the morning and go surfing in the afternoon.
"And absolutely NO FOREIGN AID for them.
And tariffs. Lots and lots of tariffs!"
That's okay, I'm sure the new government will just start charging rents on all those military bases to make up the difference.
We could also give back Texas
Texans fought and WON independence from Mexico already.....
And no, not all of the 'Republic of Texas crowd' are in prison.
"I'm sure the new government will just start charging rents on all those military bases to make up the difference."
Not if we destroy them completely .. as well as everything else built with taxpayer money .. before we leave.
"My country ..
May she always be right in her dealings with other nations,
But my country, right or wrong."
CPT Stephen Decatur
"Well, we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves,
But you outside people best leave us alone!"
Charlie Daniels
And no, not all of the 'Republic of Texas crowd' are in prison.
The leaders are, especially after they held that old couple hostage for days.
The legislature enacted laws four years ago that will prevent scoundrels from tying up courts the way the ROT (how appropriate) clowns did.
The leaders are, especially after they held that old couple hostage for days.
Former leaders, yes...and because they took it upon themselves to break civil laws.
The bottom line is what failed form of government would this Nation of Hawaii glop together that would be any better than the one formatted by the Constitution? Do you revert to the savagery, feudalism and sheer superstition of the ancient Hawaiians with their demigods, ahupua'a restrictions and chiefly whims? No, this is pure fantasy by malcontents and racists who simply want power they will never have.
The truth is Statehood allowed more people to be treated equally. Many in the majority white man businesses were AGAINST statehood. So was the Advertiser. The Asian immigrants were for it because of the opportunity it afforded. "The goal was democracy for all in Hawaii, to give our Asian population a political voice equal to their numbers,... Hawaii wanted to become a state before World War II, recalled ILWU union supporter and social worker Ah Quon McElrath. In 1933 at McKinley (school), we debated the question of statehood," she said. "We were interested in statehood. "We could see where an extension of democracy could be cemented." McElrath said. "We wanted to extend democracy to an isolated group of islands with a multi-ethnic group. We wanted to be absolutely sure we got that kind of democracy."
As with all these historical issues, the truth is always somewhere in between and ignored more than recorded. There is no going back and what you propose is anarchic and traitorous for those of us who still live here and seek to scrape by in the land in which we were born. I wonder about your roots and the roots and issues for all those claiming to be Hawaiian or speak for all Hawaiians and who are mostly a mixed bag. Democracy and equality are sure better than the primitive Kingdom of hawaii. You need look no further than Britain to see no support for that folly. I'd stick with producing movies or acting.
This article, and your positions, are ridiculous and anti-American. Your arguments about legality throughout history are useless. You dodged my point - by your logic, we should give the land back to the Native Americans, since they were screwed out of it and massacred so the US could form. What about that? Do you think we should give all that land land to them? Do you think we should go back and honor every single land agreement ever made? To be consistent, your answer should be yes. And thus your entire argument is preposterous.
"Hawaii cannot remain a state. Hawaii isn't a state to begin with. Not legally. The overthrow wasn't legal, the annexation wasn't legal, the statehood vote wasn't in conformance with Article 73 of the UN Charter."
Is it your assertion that for Hawaii to qualify as a "legal" state, three criteria must be met? Overthrow of the sovereign must be accomplished in a "legal" way, annexation to another sovereign nation-state must be "legal," and any vote to join a sovereign nation-state must be in accordance with Article 73 of the UN Charter. What is required under international law to "legalize" the overthrow of a sovereign? Recognition by other sovereigns of the new nation-state. What is required in international law for annexation or a statehood vote to be "legal"? Recognition by other sovereigns of the annexation or statehood vote. Mindful that the UN Charter is a treaty and not U.S. law, what makes criteria set in Article 73 of the UN Charter legally binding?
Hey where I was I didn't see one pine tree or any snow.
Will admit I was there four hours on my way to the land of morning calm.
85 degrees at nine in the morning sucks,to much humidity. I perfer tempatures in the 60's 70's and weather that requires you to wear a long sleeve shirt.
Now Maine, is paradise. Five seasons snow and pine trees.
"Mindful that the UN Charter is a treaty and not U.S. law, what makes criteria set in Article 73 of the UN Charter legally binding? "
Because the Constitution mandates that the government conform to all treaties that it willingly signs. In order to change the status of a non self-governing territory, a plebesite is required, and the plebesite must include the option for independence. Hawaii's plebesite did not include that option. Neither did Alaska. As always, the US government bent the rules and lied to the people to get what it really wanted, the unsinkable battleship Hawaii.
As for the rest of your comments, the key issue is the annexation. Given that the annexation was illegal under US law, then Hawaii was never a US territory, again under US law. There shouldn't have been a plebesite vote. Hawaii was never legally a non self-governing territory.
Public Law 103-150 officially aknowledges that under United States law Hawaii never legally ceased to be a seperate and sovereign nation.
As a US citizen, I DEMAND that the government obey the laws of the nation and the Constitution. I cannot and will not support a government that lies to the people, or steals someone else's lands and freedom under a flimsy pretext.
And I cannot imagine any real Americans supporting such a government.
Boy, this land-grabbing has been going on for quite some time.
Thanks for the post!
"Your arguments about legality throughout history are useless."
Yes or no; do you think the US Government must obey its own laws?
The difference between a dictatorship and all other forms of government is that in a dictatorship, the laws are applied only when and where the government decides that they should.
In the nation created by the Founding Fathers, the principle protection of the rights of individual citizens was that the government was obliged to obey the legal limits imposed on it by the Constitution, and to obey all laws as any citizen would.
If you advocate that the government may ignore the US laws regarding the proper procedure for annexxing Hawaii, then you advocate the abandonment of all civil rights under the Constitution, because a government that ignores the law to take the lands and independence of the Hawaiians will not hesitate to ignore the law to take YOUR lands and independence if it suits them.
The issue isn't the Hawaiians. The issue is whether we have a government that must obey the laws or not, whether we live under a dictatorship that ignores the laws or not.
Which do you favor? A government that must obey the laws of the land or a dictatorship that ignores the laws at its choosing?
"The issue isn't the Hawaiians. The issue is whether we have a government that must obey the laws or not, whether we live under a dictatorship that ignores the laws or not."
Michael, the U.S. gov't of today is vastly different from the U.S. gov't of 100 years ago. A lot of what went on back then wouldn't pass muster today.
While I admire your ability to examine the facts and logically draw conclusions from them, you're too involved in parsing the sentences and are missing reading the book. While you've spent a lot of time proving the U.S. gov't did wrong, I'd like to hear what your just and equitable solution to this mess would be.
I appreciate your points, but I still need help. The UN approved the Hawaii plebicite by accepting its result and removing Hawaii from the UN list of non-selfgoverning territories. Even if the UN had refused the plebicite's result, in international law it would have been "legal" because other sovereign nations recognized the changed status of Hawaii by locating consulates there. Thus, the plebicite didn't violate the UN Charter (at least, according to the UN) and didn't violate international law. That leaves only U.S. law that could have been violated. I cannot find PL 103-150 that you cite. Can you help me?
"Michael, the U.S. gov't of today is vastly different from the U.S. gov't of 100 years ago. A lot of what went on back then wouldn't pass muster today."
That's a very odd statement to make, given that the government has been caught red-handed lying to the taxpayers about TWA 800.
Look at all the lies the American people have been told over the decades. Gerald Ford admitted that the Warren Report fictionalized JFK's back wound. Recently declassified documents prove that the claim that the Japanese maintained radio silence on the crossing to Pearl Harbor was a total lie and that even civilian passenger steamships knew the Japanese were there. Photographic evidence that surfaced after James Earl Ray died in prison proved that the gunshot that killed Dr. Martin Luther King did not come from the rooming house where Ray was supposed to be. Last year's election exposed huge amounts of fraud in the Voter's News Service, yet all the networks insist they will continue to use VNS in the future. There was no "worst storm" in the Ron Brown Crash, but there was a bullet hole in his head. Vince Fostrer did not commit suicide.
The issue here isn't Hawaii, but whether We The People will tolerate a government that lies to us, and refuses to follow its own laws.
Because if you tolerate the illegal annexation of Hawaii because it doesn't personally inconvenience you, then what's to stop the same government from grabbing your home under some flimsy pretext, such as environmentalism, when they so choose?
Is there a "statute of limitations" in an invasion? If Hitler had held into France just a bit longer, would you tell the French to shut the heck up and get over it? If not, then you cannot tel the Hawaiians to not feel some resentment over the unprovoked military invasion of their lands, followed by an annexation which was illegal even under US laws.
And again, we get back to the basic core issue. Do you think that the government should obey its own laws? Do you think that the government has the legal right to lie to the people? Are you comfortable living under a government that breaks its own laws and lies to the people at will?
The Republic of Texas is a great idea, but we will insist on relocating all the socialists to the coast of their choice.
This has nothing to do with a REAL complaint by the people of Hawaii. Only a cheap attempt to embarrass the US in the UN. But if they reeeaaaally want to go....let 'em. Their socialist house of cards will crumble in a year without the money from the RED ZONE to finance their lunacy.
Isn't it militarily advantagous to keep Hawaii?
Let's watch that Republic of Texas (ROT) sarcasm sir. Just because those lunatic guys called for a Republic of Texas doesn't mean it's a bad idea, it just means THEY were lunatics.
Actually, I'd be perfectly happy living in the state of Texas, in a USA that lived by IT'S Constitution, as a limited government Republic.
Isn't it militarily advantagous to keep Hawaii?
Of course it is, which is why it will remain a state.
Michael is just using this issue as another arrow in his anti-American quiver.
Unfortunately, you and I and others are taking him seriously. He knows very well that Hawaii ain't going anywhere.
"Yes or no; do you think the US Government must obey its own laws?"
Yet again, you dodge my question. I say, no, the government does not ALWAYS have to obey the letter of the law. Sometimes it is in the best interest of the nation to break it. You again dodged my question about the Native Americans. If the government honored its agreements with the native tribes, the country would be split up into large and independent Indian nations, instead of united with isolated pockets of reservations. Your argument is asinine. Call me an imperialist, but nations are not built through goodwill and brotherly love, they're built by rivers of blood. That's how it has always been, and that's how it will always be. If people like you ever achieve influence (and they're gaining every day), the US will be splintered, followed by every other successful nation. Go to The Onion and read about your dream nation, Ethniklashistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |
The Honolulu Rifles.
Iolani Palace, home of the Hawaiian monarchs. This building had electricity and
telephones ten years before the White House did. 
Troops come ashore.
One of the many petitions signed against annexxation. Never shown
to the congress that voted to annexx Hawaii.
Detail of one of the many petitions signed against annexxation. Never shown
to the congress that voted to annexx Hawaii.