https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sm-bU6w7qI Turning your stomach..............share, interesting info...........if not GMO's....crushed bugs, maggots........etc. Yikes!
News Feed
Kealoha Kahunaaina Iona is with Debra Kekaualua and 98 others.
It is most important to note that Hawaii lands were NEVER ceded and the normalized use of the term "ceded" is incorrect and the precedent set in this otherwise accurate summary of Mauna Kea and land ownership is FALSE.
It is also MOST IMPORTANT to note that the "overthrow" of Hawaii is and was an UNLAWFUL OVERTHROW being that treaties existed between the U.S. and Ko Hawaii Pae Aina (The Hawaiian Kingdom).
Therefore the term unlawful, as opposed to illegal should ALWAYS proceed overthrow in regards to Hawaii.
To say overthrow without unlawful or with illlegal or with nothing proceeding this term is an enablement of, and collaboration with, the unlawful occupation, the economic genocide of all of Hawaii, and the ethnocide of kanaka and Ko Hawaii (Hawaii's National Subject Body and its descendants) past, present, and (hopefully not, but...) future.
"Illegal" should never proceed the term "overthrow" in regards to Hawaii, once you are made aware. The term "overthrow" should never be used in regards to Hawaii witout being proceeded by "unlawful." In other words to just state "the overthrow of Hawaii" is false, innacurate and wrong. So is "the illegal overthrow."
Why? "For something to be considered ‘illegal’, there has to be a specific law passed by a legislative authority, such as a local or national government that expressly makes it illegal. Something that is ‘unlawful’ is contrary or goes against the established law, without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative authority. So it seems illegal has more to do with internal laws and unlawful has more to do with external legal agreements like treaties.
On a separate note, although I am not a despicable lawyer but act as my own lawyer as Sacred Mauna Kea Hui's founder, I want to clear up some confusion in the case of what is called "common law." These set of mandates and regulations, called "common law," if adopted by a country's legislative entity, would fall under legal and not lawful.
(Source: http://www.differencebetween.net/…/difference-between-ille…/)
"The boundaries of Hawaiสฟi as promulgated by Kamehameha III were clear. The 1846 law named the islands and the channel waters as the dominion of the Kingdom. After the overthrow in 1893, the Provisional Government claimed the same dominion as belonged to the Kingdom. Likewise, the Republic of Hawaiสฟi in 1894 as successor to the Provisional Government held the same dominion as both the Kingdom and the Provisional Government. the Territory in 1898 could not claim the dominion of its predecessor, the Republic of Hawaiสฟi. The Republic had never ceded its dominion to the U.S. Unlike the Provisional Government and the Republic there was no basis by which the U.S. could claim the dominion held by the Republic of Hawaiสฟi." (2015, Chang, pdf pp. 34-35 http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/…/09/APLPJ_16_2_Chang.pdf)
#OverthrowOHA
It is also MOST IMPORTANT to note that the "overthrow" of Hawaii is and was an UNLAWFUL OVERTHROW being that treaties existed between the U.S. and Ko Hawaii Pae Aina (The Hawaiian Kingdom).
Therefore the term unlawful, as opposed to illegal should ALWAYS proceed overthrow in regards to Hawaii.
To say overthrow without unlawful or with illlegal or with nothing proceeding this term is an enablement of, and collaboration with, the unlawful occupation, the economic genocide of all of Hawaii, and the ethnocide of kanaka and Ko Hawaii (Hawaii's National Subject Body and its descendants) past, present, and (hopefully not, but...) future.
"Illegal" should never proceed the term "overthrow" in regards to Hawaii, once you are made aware. The term "overthrow" should never be used in regards to Hawaii witout being proceeded by "unlawful." In other words to just state "the overthrow of Hawaii" is false, innacurate and wrong. So is "the illegal overthrow."
Why? "For something to be considered ‘illegal’, there has to be a specific law passed by a legislative authority, such as a local or national government that expressly makes it illegal. Something that is ‘unlawful’ is contrary or goes against the established law, without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative authority. So it seems illegal has more to do with internal laws and unlawful has more to do with external legal agreements like treaties.
On a separate note, although I am not a despicable lawyer but act as my own lawyer as Sacred Mauna Kea Hui's founder, I want to clear up some confusion in the case of what is called "common law." These set of mandates and regulations, called "common law," if adopted by a country's legislative entity, would fall under legal and not lawful.
(Source: http://www.differencebetween.net/…/difference-between-ille…/)
"The boundaries of Hawaiสฟi as promulgated by Kamehameha III were clear. The 1846 law named the islands and the channel waters as the dominion of the Kingdom. After the overthrow in 1893, the Provisional Government claimed the same dominion as belonged to the Kingdom. Likewise, the Republic of Hawaiสฟi in 1894 as successor to the Provisional Government held the same dominion as both the Kingdom and the Provisional Government. the Territory in 1898 could not claim the dominion of its predecessor, the Republic of Hawaiสฟi. The Republic had never ceded its dominion to the U.S. Unlike the Provisional Government and the Republic there was no basis by which the U.S. could claim the dominion held by the Republic of Hawaiสฟi." (2015, Chang, pdf pp. 34-35 http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/…/09/APLPJ_16_2_Chang.pdf)
#OverthrowOHA
No comments:
Post a Comment