Saturday, November 24, 2018

Royal Tidings No. 2018-1124 Royal Families news on the web - Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Since 1820 Mercenaries/Missionaries, Presidents, et. als. --share far and wide....

image.png
Amelia Gora



































































































































































































































































































































































































































Royal Tidings No. 2018-1124 Royal Families news on the web - Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Since 1820 Mercenaries/Missionaries, Presidents, et. als. --share far and wide....

Amelia Gora Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:22 AM

To: Amelia Gora













Royal Tidings No. 2018-1124 Royal Families news on the web - Sharing a Preview of What's to Come...



Royal Tidings No. 2018-1124 ROYAL FAMILIES news on the web

Greetings,
Breaking down General John Foster's article, and Reverend Sereno Bishop under the pen name "Kamehameha" exposes....there's more to come including the fact that Princess Kaiulani was on the take, on payroll, Bernice Pauahi was half white, Charles Reed Bishop was a conspirator, etc.




More Premeditation Evidence: Plans To Take Over the  
                                  Hawaiian Kingdom

                                               or

                     Exposed:  The United States, England,  etc. Pirate 
                                         Eyes and Goals to Annex
                          a Neutral, Friendly, Non-Violent Nation
                                                                         
                                                 Review by Amelia Gora (2018)

The Hawaiian Kingdom has been wrongfully, criminally assumed by nations whose goals are to  plunder, pillage, assume others properties, lands, assets, water, minerals, etc. in a lawless manner.

In reviewing the article below, you'll find that there are deliberate lies documented which makes it appear to be truthful, but it really is an ongoing indoctrination of lies pursued by the planners, usurpers of an honest nation vs. a bankrupt thieving alien population who arrived at our shores to assume, squat, pirate, pillage, a  paradise on earth. 

The following are some of the characters involved in illegally assuming a foreign nation well outside of legal limits and failing to follow rules of law, the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom:



1820 - Mercenaries/Missionaries arrived with the intent to annex Hawaii to the United States.

1892 - The following U.S. Presidents and U.S. Secretaries of State desired to annex Hawaii to the United States:

U.S. President Tyler

U.S. President Taylor

U S. President Fillmore

U.S. President Pierce

U.S. President Johnson

U.S. President Grant

U.S. President Harrison

Secretaries of State:

Daniel Webster 1850 - 1852 under U.S. President Millard Fillmore

John C. Calhoun 1844 - 1845 under U.S. President John Tyler

James Buchanan 1845 - 1849 under U.S. President John Polk

John M. Clayton 1845 - 1849 under U.S. President John Polk

William L. Marcy 1853 - 1857 U.S. President Franklin Pierce

William H. Seward 1861 - 1865 U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and U.S. President Andrew

Johnson - (not found but documented in the news article)

Hamilton Fish 1869 - 1877  U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant and U.S. President Rutherford Hayes

Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen 1881 - 1885  U.S. President Chester A. Arthur

James G. Blaine 1881 - 1881  U.S. President James A. Garfield and U.S. President Chester A. Arthur

John W. Foster/General John W. Foster, Secretary of State, 1892 - 1893  U.S. President Benjamin  
         Harrison

DISCUSSION

The use of lies are heavily applied in this article.  This is called indoctrination or disinformation:



The 25 Rules of Disinformation

Published
8 years ago
on
May 24, 2011

The 25 Rules of Disinformation

From Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney. These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political debates, to television shows, to comments on a blog.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.





 https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/


Fraud, deceit, racketeering, piracy, pillaging, conspiracies, convoluted information where employed by Foster/General John Foster and many others over time.

The truth, applications of rule of laws, Constitutions are what keeps everything anchored.  

Father Damien of Kalaupapa, Molokai, the priest who took care of the lepers said that the usurpers were a 'bunch of belials' and that's putting it in a nice way.

Research incomplete.

aloha.



References

Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, March 27, 1897, Page 17, Image 17

Image provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1897-03-27/ed-1/seq-17/


Page
Page

Page

Page
Page

Page

Page
Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

United States Secretary of State John W. Foster "helped direct the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy



United States Secretary of State John W. Foster "helped direct the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy

                                                                 or

                                         JOHN W. FOSTER:   LOADS OF LIES OUT OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
                             As Secretary of State, Foster "helped direct the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy."[


                                                                                           Review by Amelia Gora (2018)


The following article shows Loads of Lies, Premeditation Evidence of the United States Secretary of State who did actively play a role in taking over a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation.

Failure to follow the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution is documented.

Appears that U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President Grover Cleveland, U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and U.S. President Donald Trump moved to follow the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.

The other U.S. Presidents did engage in the FAIL to follow rule of law and the U.S. Constitution and subject to charges of treason by the American people, other nations including the Royal Families of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, March 27, 1897, Page 17, Image 17

Image provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1897-03-27/ed-1/seq-17/



References:
U.S. Presidents
U.S. Secretaries of State  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States

************
facebook:

https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/…/more-premeditati… Mercenaries or Missionaries were the beginnings of Greed, animosities against a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation...……..documented...…...



More Premeditation Evidence: Plans To Take Over the Hawaiian Kingdom ...



*******************
facebook:


No comments:

Post a Comment