Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

KAUAKUKALAHALE


 Print   Email   Comment | View 90 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Ka Lā Ho'iho'i Ea

By KEKEHA SOLIS

POSTED:



Synopsis: Sovereignty Restoration Day is evidence of the good morals and ethics of the crown of Great Britain.

———

Welina e nā makamaka heluhelu o Kauakūkalahale, 'oiai, ua hala iho nei ka Lā Ho'iho'i Ea, ka lā 31 ho'i o Iulai, e pa'i 'ia ana kahi mele i haku 'ia no ua lā nei i kapa 'ia 'o Mele Hoi Hou Ana a i pa'i 'ia i loko o ka nūpepa Ka Nonanona i ka lā 5 o Kepakemapa. Penei ia.

(Leo, E Ola ke Alii i ke Akua.)

1. E ko makou alii!

Mahalo ’ka moi, I keia la!

E mau kou ola nei!

E mau kou aupuni!

No na hanauna hoi, I oni paa.

2. Nani ka inoa maikai!

Me kona aina nae!

Toma ke koa!

Mahalo kou maikai, Kou wikiwiki mai!

Maluna o ke kai, E kuu ’na paa!

3. Hiilani i ke Lii!

Iehova ka Moi, E hapai no Nui ke kupinai!

Nui ke mele nae!

I mau ka pomaikai Ia oe no. Honolulu, Oahu Iulai 31, 1843.

A ua huki 'ia mai kahi 'ōlelo a 'Akimalala Kamaki i unuhi 'ia a pa'i 'ia i loko o ia nūpepa ho'okahi. Penei ia, “ke hai aku nei au me ka hoomaopopo, Aole no au e ae aku i ka haawi ana mai i ke Aupuni Hawaii i ka la 25 o Feberuari iho nei 1843; aka, ke hooia aku nei au i ke Alii Kamehameha III, oia ke Alii maoli nona ua pae aina nei. Ke hai aku nei no hoi au i ua alii nei, he aloha a he makemake wale no ka manao o Kealiiwahine o’u ia ia; a ke makemake nui nei ua Aliiwahine la e hanaia aku ai o Kamehameha III i Alii Kuokoa, e waiho ana i ka hoomalu aina ma kona mau lima, i hookupuia’i ka pomaikai o kona mau aina ma kana hooko kanawai ana mamuli o ka pono.” 'O ka hana ia i kū i ka pono. A no ke aha lā i hana like 'ole ai 'o 'Amelika. Mai hana like 'o 'Amelika, ma ka ho'ouna 'ana mai iā Blount no ka noi'i 'ana. 'A'ole na'e i ho'okō pono 'ia, 'oiai, 'a'ole i ho'iho'i 'ia mai ke ea ma hope o ka ho'omaopopo 'ana i ka hana hewa. Inā he aupuni mō'ī 'o 'Amelika, inā ua ho'i 'o Lili'uokalani i ke kū 'ana i ka moku. 'A'ole ho'i e hihi, he mau pegana ka hapanui o nā luna o 'Amelika i ia manawa, e like me Pelekikena Wiliama Makinalē, i huli kua i ka hopena o ka noi'i 'ana o Balauna a me ka makemake o Pelekikena Kaliwilana.

Nui ka mahalo o ko 'oukou mea kākau i nā kūpuna i ko lākou ho'omanawanui 'ana a me ka hana 'ana i mea e mau ai ka lāhui a me nā mo'olelo. A nui nō ho'i ka mahalo o ko 'oukou mea kākau i ka po'e nāna i mālama i nā hana o kēlā Pō'aono aku nei ma Kamaki Kuea a me ka Pō'akolu nei kekahi, a pēlā pū me nā hana like 'ole e a'o ana i ka lehulehu e pili ana i ua lā nei a me ka hana e pono ai i kēia manawa a e mau ke ea o ka 'āina i ka pono.

[He ho'omaika'i kēia iā Kāhealani Lono, he haumāna laeo'o o Kawaihuelani, i hō'ike a'e nei i ka Pō'akolu nei, i kāna hana noi'i no kāna pepa laeo'o i kapa 'ia He Mana Ko Ka 'Ōlelo Makuahine: Ke Kū'ē 'Ana I Ko Hawai'i Ho'okolonaio 'Ia 'Ana Ma O Ke Ola A Me Ka Ho'omau 'Ana O Kona 'Ōlelo Makuahine, a me ke kūpale 'ana a puka akula.]

———

E ho'ouna 'ia mai na ā leka iā māua, 'o ia ho'i 'o Laiana Wong a me Kekeha Solis ma ka pahu leka uila ma lalo nei:

>> kwong@hawaii.edu
>> rsolis@hawaii.edu

a i ‘ole ia, ma ke kelepona:
>> 956-2627 (Laiana)
>> 956-2627 (Kekeha)

This column is coordinated by Kawaihuelani Center for Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 90 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(90)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Of course it's silly to compare the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 with the takeover by Paulet in 1843. In 1893 a militia of armed local residents took over government buildings, forced the surrender of a corrupt and ineffective Queen Liliuokalani, and replaced a monarchy with a republic. The Republic of Hawaii received international recognition as Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 20 nations, including Queen Victoria, personally signed letters in 1894 recognizing the Republic as the rightful government. Photos of the original letters can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/4wtwdz

By contrast, in 1843 a British gunboat took over the government even though there were no armed local residents demanding a revolution. Not a single foreign nation ever recognized the Paulet regime, which was disbanded when British Admiral Thomas came to the rescue. Note that Queen Victoria recognized that the revolution of 1893 was legitimate, even though the same Queen Victoria had ordered the undoing of Paulet's illegal gunboat regime in 1843. A wise Queen Victoria clearly understood the difference between the two situations, even though today's unwise Hawaiian sovereignty activists try to portray the events as similar.


on August 3,2013 | 02:48AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
stop making up history. Your assertions are incorrect. More fairy tales from you. At least this time you posted your nonsense under your real name. hmph
on August 3,2013 | 03:06AM
DiverDave wrote:
Personal attack with no substance Mr. Know Nothing, David Rogers.
on August 3,2013 | 05:21PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
No. A personal attack is what you did on January 5th 2013 in the comments of the Kauakukalahale column under your other name- KennyKKonklin. As you will recall, you launched an unprovoked personal attack against a dead man, Soli Niheu, and his family. Your hypocrisy discredits what minuscule iota of scholarship your PhD in Philosophy holds in a Hawaiian language forum. You continue to write incorrect historical accounts, which discredits you further to the point that it is a waste of time pointing out errors that are plain to see for all. I don't have to prove you wrong; you do that fine all by yourself.
on August 3,2013 | 10:51PM
DiverDave wrote:
You are a sicko. I have never posted anything under any other name than DiverDave. You are the one that has posted under several names however.
on August 4,2013 | 09:41AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Sure you have. You post simultaneously using DiverDave and KennyKKonklin (Ken_Conklin) AND as we found out in the comments under the Letters to the Editor on July 30th, you also post currently using peanutgallery too. For me, I never used more than one username at the same time as you have been doing. I switched usernames when my account payment was due and was upfront about it. Thus, I never had more than one username at a time. Show one place where my usernames overlapped on the same day. You can't. It never happened. You, on the other hand, deceitfully use 3, maybe more, usernames all at the same time to pretend like you have support and to post your more incendiary lies under fake names to TRY to protect yourself. (That ISNT working.)
on August 4,2013 | 12:54PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Not true, upon disagreeing with others like tiki886 in that same thread and on previous days, I know they are not you because their comments are much more intelligent than yours. and they never called me a red diaper dooper baby.... three times like you did. Thanks for allowing me to clarify that.
on August 4,2013 | 04:58PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You at least have the freedom of speech, AND as Gilda Radner and Candice Bergen proved on SNL, you also have the right to extreme stupidity, DiverDave. In the comments under the march 30 2013 Kauakukalahale column you tried to denigrate and discredit me for a completely unimportant and innocuous thing - reposting comments from my first username with my new username. HOWEVER, you ended up doing THE EXACT SAME THING just a few months later that you were making crybaby about. This is what you said----
on August 4,2013 | 02:49PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
DiverDave wrote: David Rogers is a joke. He goes back to columns he got scrubbed from and puts his new remarks under Terii_Kelii a year later. Go to 4-28-12 column to see his disgraceful actions. on April 2,2013 | 10:15PM /// DiverDave wrote: David rogers is a disgrace to the newspaper, the University of Hawaii, and all the commenters that have no idea he has done this. on April 2,2013 | 10:20PM /// DiverDave wrote: What type of unethical, and untrustworthy person does this? on April 2,2013 | 10:21PM /// Yet, there DiverDave is adding comments stealthily to three-week-old posts and columns thinking that he could get the last word in with his antagonism, as he did in the comments of the May 18th 2013 column - Terii_Kelii wrote: exactly. on May 21,2013 | 12:11PM /// DiverDave wrote: Come on now holokanaka and David Rodgers (sic), ... day. on July 2,2013 | 09:20PM /// THERE YOU GO: KennyKKonklin / DiverDave / peanutgallery is a hypocrite.
on August 4,2013 | 02:58PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Your hypocrisy speaks for itself. Your personal attack reinforces it. Are you going to call me a "red diaper dooper baby" .... again ..... FOR THE FOURTH TIME????
on August 4,2013 | 04:37PM
holokanaka wrote:
still at it eh konki "Hawaiian revolution of 1893" if anyone is interested in the true legal history of Hawaii I would suggest reading the Blount report, President Clevelands address to congress regarding us involvement in the "overthrow", executive agreements between Queen Lili'uokalani 1893, the fact that there is no annexation treaty by which america has claimed sovereignty of these Islands, and in spite of america claim of sovereignty over these Islands the ICC (international criminal court) has jurisdiction of "war crime violations" and war crime violations has already been filled with the ICC. you can learn all this and more just google-hawaiiankingdom.org/keanu sai. the information on this sight are supported by source documents and laws-us constitution and international law-and none of the information on this site has ever been disputed by any legal arguments from anywhere and especially not from the us. well there may be one individual who tries to dispute these facts the "konki" oh and maybe the joker and also, I guess allie (the three amigoes).
on August 3,2013 | 02:29PM
DiverDave wrote:
Same old same old from holokanaka. "we're not part of the United States, really!" Can you ever stay on topic?
on August 4,2013 | 11:24AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You cannot obviously. He can. You spammed an inaccurate historical account about Kamanawa ( ?) under a column for the contemporary issue of same sex marriage. Totally irrelevant, just like you.
on August 4,2013 | 03:02PM
DiverDave wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 4,2013 | 04:24PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Ah, so that is where you copied and pasted it from... without correcting the implicit, understood information didnt repeat in the middle of that story that renders your out of context blurb historically INACCURATE.
on August 4,2013 | 04:32PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Ah, so that is where you copied and pasted it from... without correcting the implicit, understood information the author didnt repeat in the middle of that story that renders your out of context blurb historically INACCURATE, a fairy tale, nonsensei. It is merely incomplete information you DO NOT KNOW, just viewed by your eyes long enough to paste it up. Kamanawa died a full 30 years before David Laamea Kalakaua was born. Surely you mean someone else.
on August 4,2013 | 04:36PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
inaccurate means wrong, you numbnuts.
on August 5,2013 | 03:49AM
DiverDave wrote:
For those of you that may not know Kamanawa was David Kalakaua's grandfather that was tried for murder by poisoning his wife Komo so he could marry another woman. Kam III signed his death warrant after being found guilty. Judge Matthew Kekuanaoa presided and there was a full jury.
on August 4,2013 | 05:21PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You copied and pasted another's work (read - plagiarized) without correcting the implicit, understood information the author didn't repeat in the middle of that story that renders your out of context blurb historically INACCURATE, a fairy tale, nonsense. He was not the grandfather. Kamanawa died between 1800 and 1805. You mean someone else.
on August 4,2013 | 05:38PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You do... often. The bit dog barks. And stop comparing me to you, parrot boy.
on August 5,2013 | 12:09PM
DiverDave wrote:
Oh really? When?
on August 10,2013 | 05:23PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Pololei e Kekeha. Ua like nō ā like nā hewa ‘elua.
on August 3,2013 | 03:10AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
50 years prior, Queen Victoria undid the evil deed of Paulet. Great Britain had a policy that its citizens follow the laws of the countries where they resided. The USA did not. Fifty years later, Queen Liliuokalani decided to wait for President Cleveland to undo the evil deed of the US government, just as Kamehameha III had done prior. Unfortunately her "friend" Cleveland did not have the same morals that Queen Victoria did. It was clear why - Hawaii was not a land of white people, and he followed public sentiment like a lost puppy. The same relief that Kamehameha III received never came. It just shows you how morals can differ.
on August 3,2013 | 03:39AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
There was an unauthorized communique just a couple days before the overthrow between the US Minister of the Interior Colburn to the US Minister of Hawai‘i Stevens requesting that the United States assist in maintaining the government against a new Constitution, NOT to protect lives and property as Stevens publicly lied, but to prevent a new Constitution. One only has to read the newspapers of the day, both pro-royalist and anti-royalist, to know that there was never any disturbance, unrest, protests, riots, etc. in the days prior to the overthrow. This is just proof that the US did indeed interfere unjustifiably in the affairs of a sovereign nation.
on August 3,2013 | 03:51AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
"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 HER REPEATED MENTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
on August 3,2013 | 09:07AM
DiverDave wrote:
Interesting how there is no evidence that the letter was ever sent to anyone in the U.S. government. That letter was only delivered to the leadership of the Provisional Government. But, no one contends that Liliuokalani was not a sly one.
on August 3,2013 | 11:42AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
irrelevant.
on August 3,2013 | 10:56PM
DiverDave wrote:
Another know nothing response.
on August 4,2013 | 09:43AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
from YOU, yes. Your risibly sophomoric contention you provided above is irrelevant. It is a legal document. period. I am not wasting my time refuting an argument that is in and of itself invalid. Again you are making things up as you go along, like a 7 year old who tries to add new rules in the middle of a game of tag.
on August 4,2013 | 12:23PM
DiverDave wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. You David Rogers say that Minister Stevens was a liar. If he was a lair why did the sailors that came ashore never point a gun at anyone, simply set up camp and go to sleep? It is you that are just a know nothing liar.
on August 3,2013 | 11:49AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
As I already said, you lack reading comprehension skills. From my comment above, "... US Minister of Hawai‘i Stevens requesting that the United States assist in maintaining the government against a new Constitution" Your stupidity is from either nature or nurture, either way it's your parents fault.
on August 3,2013 | 11:25PM
DiverDave wrote:
As it turned out the sailor's officers in charge did the right thing and did not get involved. They only stood by to protect American citizens and their property, which turned out not to be necessary. The public seemed to be relieved. The Polynesian-Hawaiians did not riot, as when her brother Kalakaua came to office, and overall were happy she was gone. As evidence 2 years latter when a counter revolution was attempted only 191 total Polynesians could be gathered for the attempt out of 40,000 Polynesians here at the time. They had a taste of Democracy and liked it!
on August 3,2013 | 05:33PM
holokanaka wrote:
oh thats good joker "The public seemed to be relieved". "They only stood by to protect american citizens and their property". but you did not mention what the "american citizens and property" needed protection from. so what was this "protection" for exactly?
on August 3,2013 | 09:15PM
DiverDave wrote:
Possible rioting that had happened before, DUH!
on August 4,2013 | 10:17AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
There you go again, making things up. "possible .... happened before." So which is it? MAYBE it happened or it did happen? Neither is correct. One only has to read any and all of the newspapers at that time to know what happened and did NOT happen. Stop making things up as you go along, and learn the difference between the numbers 1 and 2.
on August 4,2013 | 12:06PM
holokanaka wrote:
as I remember the only "possible rioting that had happened before" was Hawaiians on Hawaiians. so again joker I ask what the "american citizens and property" needed protection from. so what was this "protection" for exactly.
on August 4,2013 | 02:25PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
There was no rioting. period. not even Hawaiians against each other. It did not happen. There is no mention of it anywhere - not in pro monarchy or pro annexation documents, newspapers, anywhere. Possible means that DiaperDave does not actually know and he is just guessing, btw.
on August 5,2013 | 05:16AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Those are COMPLETELY incorrect assertions that you are using just to be antagonistic.... AS USUAL. not falling for it.
on August 3,2013 | 11:04PM
DiverDave wrote:
Mr. Know Nothing, David Rogers can only say "Those are completely incorrect assertions" yet cannot say why. That's because he is just a know nothing attacker.
on August 4,2013 | 09:46AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I do not need to say why. Anyone can research for five minutes and then know that you are wrong. I do not have to prove you wrong- your nonsense speaks for itself.
on August 4,2013 | 12:30PM
DiverDave wrote:
Poor attempt at blaming the United States for the revolution from within. The U.S. wasn't to blame so it was not up to them to undo it. Read the Morgan report know nothing. You just hate the U.S., admit it.
on August 4,2013 | 04:28PM
DiverDave wrote:
Please don't tell me how much Morgan was a racist. He was only one member of the Senate sub-committee that investigated the revolution of 1893 in public, out in the open, and never testified himself.
on August 4,2013 | 05:26PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You are not an expert. You have no diploma. You make numerous errors that are easily verified, like the HHCA nonsense from a few weeks ago. This is yet another example. 163 US soldiers were landed because the white foreigners who overthrew the queen knew they could not muster that much support within the island population. As you said under your real name, KennyKKonklin, if they hated Hawaii that much they should have left. They had the freedom to do so.
on August 4,2013 | 05:45PM
holokanaka wrote:
read the Blount report joker and get the real facts and truth.
on August 8,2013 | 09:04PM
DiverDave wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 4,2013 | 05:03PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Don't call me dummy. I am nothing like YOU or YOUR MOTHER. Again, you are editorializing and fictionalizing history here with your opinions that are based upon your own racism. Stop making history up. History is about facts, not your inaccurate fairy tales. Since you do not have any formal education in the subject, you should stop trying to put your narcissistic and arrogant self up to the same level as those with BAs, MAs, and PhDs in the field, people who have verified knowledge and qualifications. You do not even know the difference between 1 and 2. LAUGH
on August 4,2013 | 05:51PM
tim5fl wrote:
Are you people completely ignorant of History? Wow, "good morals and ethics of the crown of Great Britain?My god man - talk to the Irish and others around the world once under John Bulls tyranny. Auwe
on August 3,2013 | 10:28AM
DiverDave wrote:
Correct Tim, the sovereignty fringe members like Solis are actually forcing the students at the University to regurgitate this nonsense in order to receive good grades. Poor propagandized students. David Rogers, aka Terii under Kelii, is a graduate of the University of Hawaii's sovereignty propaganda machine and is just a brainwashed knothing.
on August 3,2013 | 12:04PM
holokanaka wrote:
joker, show me an annexation treaty. oh and you should also notify the ICC (international criminal court) that these Islands are legally part of america and therefore they (ICC) have no jurisdiction over war crime violations in these Islands.
on August 3,2013 | 01:54PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
The Treaty of Annexation was not an issue raised in the Solis essay, nor in any other comment here. Your issue is irrelevant. But since you raised it, I'll give you the same answer I've given before, even though you seem not to pay attention:

"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). FULL TEXT OF THE TREATY and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now."
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

Hawaii offered the Treaty and the U.S. accepted it. You might not like the fact that the U.S. used a joint resolution to accept the Treaty. But the method any nation uses to ratify a Treaty is up to that nation alone to decide for itself, it is not up to you and not up to any other nation.


on August 3,2013 | 03:11PM
holokanaka wrote:
as I said above konki no one disputes that that there is "NO" treaty of annexation except of course you and the joker (aka diver dave) and of course allie-the three amigoes-and not even the us justice department. so you can quit now directing me to your (angelfire) blogs which I have scanned and have concluded it is nothing but rubbish as anyone would conclude who is familiar with the true legal history of these Islands. konki, quit already. you are totally irrelevant.
on August 3,2013 | 09:27PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
ONE.... MORE.....TIME..... two different documents with two different groups of authors, two different bodies, two different titles, and most importantly two different means to pass them. The treaty failed, the Newlands Resolution passed. Regardless of the vote, the end does not justify the means. There is no treaty of annexation. Stop making up history, KennyKKonklin. You have no formal education in Hawaiian ANYTHING, and your posts just prove that. See above - no one has to prove you wrong; you do that fine all by yourself.
on August 3,2013 | 11:14PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
PS KennyKKonklin, I will reiterate that the US NATIONAL ARCHIVES CLEARLY DISAGREES WITH YOU, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, ABOUT THE FAILED TREATY OF ANNEXATION AND THE RATIFIED NEWLANDS RESOLUTION. It is right there in black and white on their website. THEY are a government institution full of professional who are educated and thus qualified in these matters. YOU have a PhD..... in PHILOSOPHY. Philosophy does not equal history. Philosophy does not equal Hawaiian language. Philosophy does not equal Hawaiian ANYTHING. YOU, KennyKKonklin, ARE UNEDUCATED AND THUS UNQUALIFIED IN THOSE FIELDS TO START ANY TYPE OF DISCUSSION ON HAWAII, ITS LANGUAGE, ITS PEOPLE, ITS CULTURE, ITS HISTORY. Stop trying to act like you are bigger than the amateur hobbyist that you are. The fact that you lack the ability to differentiate between those two documents is proof enough of that.
on August 4,2013 | 01:07PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
So, there you go again, not only inventing history but making up fairy tales about me. The ONE thing you got right is that I am a UH grad, and thank you for said acknowledgement. However, in the course of my degree I NEVER ONCE had to take a Hawaiian Studies course on sovereignty and certainly none from Haunani-Kay Trask and Lilikala Kameeleihiwa specifically, and never once here have I even made mention of my views on the matter. Wrong as usual you are. Stop making things up to try to justify your incorrect view of reality. It isn't working.
on August 4,2013 | 08:54AM
DiverDave wrote:
Propagandize: verb; the art of implanting false information and belief systems in a persons head without them realizing it has occurred.
on August 4,2013 | 09:55AM
DiverDave wrote:
David Rogers says: "I never once had to take a Hawaiian Studies course on sovereignty and certainly none from Haunani-Kay Trask and Lilikala Kameeleihiwa" so there you have it an admission that the U of H, using tax payer monies, are actively teaching the sovereignty fringe movement to the students. Of course David Rogers doesn't realize he has been converted too because the teachers he had were just more subliminal than Trask and Kameeleihiwa.
on August 4,2013 | 10:02AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You have a reading comprehension problem, AND you try to make things up as you go along. Here, let me explain this explicitly so that even YOU can understand- since my combining two things in one sentence was too much for you to handle. 1st -I never once had to take a Hawaiian Studies course on sovereignty ... because UH has never in the past or present offered courses on sovereignty. That is easily verifiable, as if UH course offerings are some sort of secret. LAUGH 2nd- "I never once had to take a Hawaiian Studies course ... from Haunani-Kay Trask and Lilikala Kameeleihiwa specifically." period. Can you understand that now? I can explain it again to you; I just cannot understand it for you.
on August 4,2013 | 12:42PM
holokanaka wrote:
so joker, what is wrong with "using taxpayer monies" for teaching truth and facts. does america use "taxpayer monies" to teach "truth and facts", for example these Islands was annexed in 1898?
on August 4,2013 | 02:39PM
DiverDave wrote:
LOL "Truth and facts" are what you avoid.
on August 4,2013 | 04:36PM
holokanaka wrote:
joker you did not answer my question.
on August 4,2013 | 08:56PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
He can't because he does not know.
on August 6,2013 | 08:14AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Excuse me tim but this is SPECIFICALLY about a single event that involved Queen Victoria directly. Unfortunately the entire history of the British Empire can be put forth in a single newspaper column.
on August 3,2013 | 02:52PM
DiverDave wrote:
Once again David Rogers is on another planet. Solis tried to make a comparison of two separate events in which the Queen Victoria was involved in both.
on August 3,2013 | 05:11PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
nope. what an inane stretch. stop making up history.... and not knowing the difference between I (1) and II (2).
on August 3,2013 | 11:21PM
DiverDave wrote:
Solis is the subject in which he was shown quiet easily to be wrong. He was the history maker upper.
on August 4,2013 | 10:07AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Quote his column where he is wrong. Oh, you cannot even read it to state whether he is wrong or right. Never mind.
on August 4,2013 | 12:59PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Nope. Again, I am nothing like you. YOU do not know the article nor the premise of the article because you cannot read it, KennyKKonklin. Type out as a quote the part of the article that is historically inaccurate. You cant - 1) because you can only read the English part and 2) because it is not historically inaccurate. YOUR version of history is historically incorrect. You cannot even read the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act's purpose correctly, AND that is in English. The fact that you repeatedly result to the word dummy indicates that you know you're in the wrong.
on August 7,2013 | 01:47AM
DiverDave wrote:
Sick kook.
on August 7,2013 | 10:56PM
holokanaka wrote:
I have to agree with your "good morals and ethics...of great britain" comment. I would also suggest your comment would also apply to america,
on August 3,2013 | 09:34PM
DiverDave wrote:
There is no doubt that long before we walked this earth man was different that today. However, while there is always room to make things better in the year 2013 there is no better place to live on Earth than the United States of America!
on August 4,2013 | 10:11AM
holokanaka wrote:
no better place to live "then the united states of america. well then why are you living in these Islands? just move to the united states.
on August 4,2013 | 02:18PM
DiverDave wrote:
I guess you just betrayed your state of mind, and exposed your island mentality which goes to the heart of you false historical interpretation in order to perpetuate the sovereignty silly fringe mentality.
on August 4,2013 | 04:39PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
YOU are not an expert in socioeconomic factors of developed countries. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's list of countries with the highest quality of life, AUSTRALIA is number one. They obviously know more about the topic than you do- they have education, qualifications, and experience in that field. YOU don't.
on August 4,2013 | 04:47PM
DiverDave wrote:
The population of Australia is estimated to be 23,107,746 as of 5 August 2013.
on August 6,2013 | 10:26PM
DiverDave wrote:
Admit it, David Rogers hates the United States and is brainwashed!
on August 6,2013 | 10:30PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Former Australian Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer told CNN's Piers Morgan, "People thinking of going to the U.S.A. for business or tourist trips should think carefully about it, given the statistical fact you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the U.S.A. than in Australia, per capita."
on August 22,2013 | 05:56AM
holokanaka wrote:
just truth and facts joker just truth and facts supported by source documents and u.s. law and international law. very simple joker very very simple.
on August 4,2013 | 09:01PM
DiverDave wrote:
Anyone may search Kamanawa II and will find it. Send back the diploma David Rogers you learned nothing. David Rogers= DUH!
on August 4,2013 | 08:50PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
you said - Anyone may search Kamanawa II and will find it. /// That's right. Your error is that easy to find. You never said it was Kamanawa II but Kamanawa. I was the one who said you're incorrect and that you do not know the difference between I (1) and II (2) for weeks now. Only now you realize your error because only now you figured out the multitude of hints I had to throw to get you to that point. You do not know Hawaiian history. You only copy and paste it out of books. That is different. You can also copy and paste a text in German into these comments, but that does not mean that you know German. In fact that is what you did aover a year ago when you pulled out some Bible verses in German and posted them up under your real name KennyKKonklin. You don't speak German, Kenny. You can only copy and paste it. You don't know Hawaiian history either, Kenny. You only copy and paste it. The fact that you have no diploma in Hawaiian ANYTHING just proves that.
on August 5,2013 | 03:57AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
and PS - thanks for proving that you are too narcissistic and arrogant to admit you are wrong.
on August 5,2013 | 04:58AM
DiverDave wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 5,2013 | 07:39AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I do know the story which is why --> I <--- know the difference between I and II. You had no idea that there were even two alii with the same name until I pointed it out. You copied and pasted Burns' book out of context. He wrote Kamanawa when it was clear that it was Kamanawa II. If I were to say Kamehameha was the pioneer of the mahele, that would be wrong. Kamehameha refers solely to Kamehameha I, not to all five. And another thing- The lady who ws killed was name Kamokuiki, but you referred, oh I mean Burns referred and you copied & pasted, to her as Komo instead. Please explain BURNS' use of Komo, when the lady was known as Kamokuiki.
on August 5,2013 | 09:07AM
DiverDave wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 5,2013 | 11:39AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Why yes your nickname IS dummy. Thank you for admitting that. Now back to Kamokuiki's real name ....
on August 5,2013 | 12:14PM
Lanikaula wrote:
KKK, guess dis da only time and way you can get attention, eh? wat a worm...back to po ele'ele 'olu'olu!
on August 5,2013 | 03:51AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
The only good use for him here in Hawai‘i is to fertilize a 4' x 6' plot of grass. I keep inviting him to start on that, but he hasn't taken the offer.
on August 5,2013 | 04:59AM
DiverDave wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 5,2013 | 07:16AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
again, I am not you. As for personal attacks-- Anyone and everyone can page back through the archived Kauakukalahale columns and see that you were the one initiating the attacks. There is a difference between what you do and the self-defense that your victims must use to stand up to you. Like Ariel Castro, the Cleveland kidnapper, you are a monster sociopath who terrorizes others and then blames the victims for fighting back.
on August 5,2013 | 10:48AM
DiverDave wrote:
Can't speak either language, eh Lanikaula?
on August 5,2013 | 07:15AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
But she wasn't talking to you, Diverd.... Oh on second thought she was, since you and KennyKKonklin are the same person.
on August 5,2013 | 09:09AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Your antagonism speaks for itself, Diverdave, as does your refusal to admit that you're wrong.
on August 6,2013 | 08:14AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Your antagonism speaks for itself Diver Dave as does your refusal to admit that you are wrong.
on August 6,2013 | 08:15AM
DiverDave wrote:
The phone is ringing again David Rogers, the University still wants their diploma back! LOL
on August 6,2013 | 09:43PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I have one. You don't. You are an amateur. You can only copy and paste others' work and pretend it is your own. When your fantasy history is pointed out for what it is, you cannot even admit you are wrong. As evidenced by your wrong argument that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was solely for farming, you clearly cannot even copy and paste well, much less read a historical document correctly. You are not fooling anyone. PS learn what "understood" information really means.
on August 7,2013 | 01:53AM
DiverDave wrote:
"The Rehabilitation Act" as Hawaiian Homes Commission Act" was original known was exactly for the purpose of family farming know nothing. It was not a "Buy a Polynesian a Condo in Kona Program". Give back the diploma David Rogers, you learned nothing!
on August 7,2013 | 07:20AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
HHCA has a clearly stated purpose, one that you have NOT read.
on August 11,2013 | 01:27PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Deedy back on the stand  - 08:51 a.m.