The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

Reminder: The resolution is “The United States needs to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii,” not “the United States would really like the Hawaii to stay illegally part of this Union” or even “The people of the United States doesn't want the United States to vacate Hawaii” Any points not based on the needs of the Kingdom of Hawaii, are irrelevant to this resolution."Please list the insults aimed at you, as opposed to merely not agreeing with your viewpoint?"Insult means to "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse." You have continually referred to the Kingdom of Hawaii as a legal state. "The grounds for dismissal are groundless. The resolution clearly states the country with a need is the United States."'Needs' means that the United States " cannot avoid or help doing something" , they cannot aviod the Hawaiians, nor can they help them. So they need to vacate. "By numerous of pro’s own sources, Hawaii is a state, thus either pro is willingly throwing out her own evidence (lowering her arguments to mere unwarranted assertions), or else is not challenging any of the points I made under the Civil War heading."The Kingdom of Hawaii is not legally a state, I have already proven this. Unlike the other states in this Union, Hawaii is a sovereign country.[1] You have also insulted my sources."Again claims of special blood trumping all else, which I already pointed such leads to genocide (as seen in “Germany… 1940’s”), which is quite harmful for everyone."The Kingdom of Hawaii is not Germany, nor is the Kingdom of Hawaii a republic. You can't base a situation on something completely different. "Adolf Hitler, already chancellor, is also elected president of Germany in an unprecedented consolidation of power"[2] The German Army was generally superior in terms of equipment, training and tactics, but that was mainly because the UK, France and US had slacked off and cut defense budgets in the decade leading up to the war."Also no source backs this claimed majority. However from pro’s own source “The federal government posed a series of questions to Native Hawaiians, with whom it's seeking to reestablish nation-to-nation status. The answer it received, to all, was a resounding ‘no.’” Pro’s own source insists Hawaii does not want to be treated by the United States as an independent nation."That's not true. View it look like this: Should the Secretary propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community? NOTE: This question says "reestablishment" which would seem to acknowledge that there was once a government to government relationship, i.e. the Kingdom and the United States. Then the question says "relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." There was never a relationship between the United States government and the Native Hawaiian community, so such a relationship cannot be reestablished. The framing of the question simply continues to deny the existence of the Kingdom and the occupation by the United States. The questions which should be asked are: 1. Why is the Secretary of the Interior coming to Hawai'i to ask questions about sovereignty when the Secretary of State is the proper representative to talk about government to government relations? 2. Having apologized for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom government, what steps should the United States now take to cease its occupation of the Kingdom and facilitate the restoration of the Hawaiian nation? 3. What should be the timetable for the United States to cease its illegal occupation of the Kingdom? "Kale Gumapac was one of the 130 people who signed up to speak in Hilo on the island of Hawaii. “[On] the questions that you raised for everyone to answer. It’s a trap," said Gumapac. "But I’m going to answer it anyway. ‘A‘ole [No]. No to everything that you guys are wanting and everything you are wanting to do. Because we can do it ourselves. We have our own government. We have the Queen, Liliuokalani, and the constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist. You need to learn that constitution so that you can know when to ask permission to come into the Kingdom of Hawaii.” “The Kingdom of Hawaii was never a tribe,” Francis Moku Malani, Jr. testified at the Hilo hearing last week, “We are a sovereign nation.”[3]"Again, this is disagreeing with your own sources, including fresh ones from this round." The Kingdom of Hawaii is not legally a state. I have already proven this. But let me continue.... "Hawaiians submitted a petition to Congress with 29,000 signatures opposing annexation, and petitions to the Republic of Hawaii, asking that annexation be put to a public vote. They were never permitted to vote on the issue."[4] "A queen to the end to her people, Lili`uokalani died in 1917, her plea for justice unanswered."[5] "Justification is not needed in this debate, it is about if the United States needs to take an action. Further, claiming the needs of Hawaiians for such things as “drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture…” as “irrelevant” pretty much concedes any points based around their needs." Justification is needed in this debate, even though this cannot be justified. The Kingdom of Hawaii has international trade. The Kingdom of Hawaii would be fine. )"The Kingdom of Hawai’i was an internationally-recognized monarchy that entered into bilateral treaties of trade and friendship with other countries including the United States (1826), Great Britain (1836), France (1839), Denmark (1846), Hamburg (1848), Sweden and Norway (1852), Tahiti (1853), Bremen (1854), Belgium and Netherlands (1862), Italy and Spain (1863), Swiss Confederation (1864), Russia (1869), Japan (1871), New South Wales (1874), Portugal (1882), Hong Kong (1884), Samoa (1887."[6] Unless you can prove that the Hawaiians weren't doing good without the United States, then I will continue to call your statement irrelevant. The Kingdom of Hawaii is not Rome."Zero relevance to the resolution has been demonstrated, mere insistence without reason."The overthrow in 1893 was illegal and is not irrelevant to this debate, nor its resolution."No defense of the source as anything other than being “designed specifically to spread anti American propaganda.” No backup source from any international authority to support the claimed violations. Merely a request not to insult it, or call it out on being biased… As for actions of the United States being biased, this only proves the United States needs to continue on that path."Propaganda means "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." Unless you can prove that my source is misleading and not true, I'm just going to ignore your insult to my source."That sounds a lot like a need to me, as love contributes to happiness."Again, this is not about the United States wanting to keep the Kingdom of Hawaii. This is about the United States needing to vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii. I have already proved that the Kingdom of Hawaii is illegally a state, and now things are getting heated with the Hawaiians and the Americans. So unless you can prove that the Kingdon if Hawaii is legally a state, this debate will not get far on arguments from you. If the United States doesn't vacate, a civil war might break up between the Americans and the Hawaiians. So either way, it's still an upset for the Americans. The United States would rather to do this peacefully, it's 2014."And such pointless bits as “…Tanning, certain material used in - Oak bark, catechu and other substances containing…” remain irrelevant to the resolution, not to mention any possible related resolution I can think of."So far I have already proved that the United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii due to its illegal occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I have already proved that the Kingdom of Hawaii is being illegally occupied by the Untied States, I have proved the Civil Code of the Kingdom of Hawaii, I have also proved that the Kingdom of Hawaii has international trade, so there's no doubt in my mind they won't be unsuccessful without the United States. Unless you can prove otherwise, this debate will continue to run in run in circles. I ask for you to stop ignoring my arguments.Sources: [1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...