Quantcast
  

Thursday, April 24, 2014         

KAUAKUKALAHALE


 Print   Email   Comment | View 104 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

I hewa paha i ka Paipala

By KEKHA SOLIS

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 01:41 a.m. HST, Feb 02, 2013



Synopsis: Perhaps misunderstanding the Bible or not knowing the Bible well enough is why former Honolulu City Councilman Gary Okino has no tolerance for homosexuals.

———

Aloha mai e nā makamaka heluhelu, ua piha hau'oli ka na'au o ko 'oukou mea kākau i ka lohe 'ana, ua huki 'ia aku ke koho 'ia 'ana o Gary Okino, 'a'ole 'o ia e lilo i lālā no ka papa wae i ka pono a me ka pono 'ole o ke kūlanakauhale. 'O kekahi mea e pū'iwa ai ka no'ono'o, he luna 'aha kūkā 'o Okino ma mua.

I ka hālāwai o ke Kōmike Kānāwai o ka 'Aha Kūkā o Honolulu, ha'i akula 'o Okino i ke kōmike, 'a'ole 'o ia 'olu'olu iki i ka moe aikāne 'ana, 'o ia ho'i, ka moe 'ana o ke kāne me ke kāne, a 'o ka wahine paha me ka wahine a 'a'ole ia he hana pono a me kekahi mau mana'o na'aupō hou aku. 'O ka mea 'āpiki, ua 'āpono ua kōmike lā i kona koho 'ia 'ana no ia papa wae pono.

A no laila, mahalo nui 'ia ka hana a ka Meia Kirk Caldwell i kona huki 'ana i ko ia ala inoa, 'a'ole 'o ia ala e lilo i lālā no ke kōmike wae pono. A he mau lā ma hope mai o ia hana hūpō, mihi a'ela 'o Okino i kāna mau 'ōlelo hō'eha.

E mahalo 'ia 'o Okino, inā i loli kona mana'o, akā, 'o ia mau nō paha kona mana'o kū'ē i ka moe 'ana o ke kāne me ke kāne a 'o ka wahine paha me ka wahine. I hewa paha 'o Okino i ka Paipala, a i ka ho'omaopopo 'ana paha i ka Paipala. Ua 'ike 'ia kekahi mo'olelo i loko o ka Palapala Hemolele, Lūnākanawai 19, 'a'ole makemake 'ia ka pu'e 'ana o ke kāne i ke kāne, akā, he ho'olele hauli kahi māhele o ia mo'olelo. Penei ka mo'olelo:

A i ko lakou hoolealea ana i ko lakou naau, aia hoi na kanaka o ke kulanakauhale, he poe kanaka hewa, hoopuni mai la lakou i ka hale, a kikeke i ka puka, olelo mai i ka mea hale, i ua kanaka elemakule nei, i mai la, E lawe mai iwaho nei i ke kanaka i hele mai i kou hale, i ike makou ia ia.

A o ke kanaka, ka haku o ka hale, hele aku la ia iwaho io lakou la, i aku la ia lakou, Ua oki, e na hoahanau, mai hana hewa oukou pela. Ua hele mai keia kanaka i ko’u hale, mai hana hoi oukou i keia mea lapuwale.

Eia hoi ka’u kaikamahine, he puupaa, a me kana wahine no hoi, o laua ka’u e lawe mai iwaho nei, e hoohaahaa oukou ia laua, a e hana hoi ia laua i ka mea i pono i ko oukou mau maka; aka, mai hana ia mea lapuwale i keia kanaka.

Aole hoolohe ia poe kanaka ia ia. Nolaila, lalau iho la ke kanaka i kana haiawahine, a lawe ia ia iwaho io lakou la, a ike mai la lakou ia ia, a hana ino lakou ia ia ia po a pau, a kakahiaka; a i ke ao ana ae, kuu mai la ia ia.

E nā makamaka heluhelu, ua 'ike 'oukou i ka hana a ia kanaka, 'o ia ho'i, ua mākaukau 'o ia e hā'awi aku i kāna kaikamahine a me ka wahine a ka mea kipa na ia mau kānaka e pu'e ai a e hana ai e like me ko lākou makemake. Pehea, ua 'oi aku ka maika'i o ka pu'e 'ana o ke kāne i ka wahine ma mua o kona pu'e 'ana aku i ke kāne?

A he mau mea hou aku ko ka Paipala no kākou e no'ono'o ai. Mai nō a poina, he loli ke au o ka manawa.

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






 Print   Email   Comment | View 104 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(104)
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:
This article is a terrible mess. Instead of directly saying what's wrong with the article, let me say what's correct. Gary Okino's ranting and raving against homosexuality is an expression of his gut feelings, regardless of religion. He thinks homosexuality is really yucky, and anyone who engages in it is depraved. He-hes are supposed to go into hoo-hahs, not into ho-hos; and anybody who thinks otherwise must be an excrement-eater. Okino is also a Christian fundamentalist; therefore he cites religion and the bible to justify what he says, in the same way as a student who wants to carry a loaded gun to school might cite the Second Amendment. Kekeha Solis would like to think it's OK to be homosexual (after all, homosexuality and bisexuality were widespread and normal behavior in ancient Hawaii and among ethnic Hawaiians today). Solis would also like to think the bible is a good book (after all, nearly all native Hawaiians became Christians and embraced the bible after the missionaries arrived). So Solis feels a need to reconcile homosexuality with the bible. So Solis needs to say that the bible isn't as anti-homosexual as everyone makes it out to be. But Solis is wrong about that. The bible is clearly and strongly anti-homosexual. I'm reminded how Kauikeaouli deeply loved his own sister Nahi'ena'ena and made a baby with her, not only to fulfill his duty for an ancient Hawaiian ni'aupi'o mating to enhance the royal genealogy but also because they really loved each other. Yet Kauikeaouli also wanted to be a Christian, and his close advisors Rev. Richards and Rev. Judd told him very clearly he must give up Nahi'ena'ena. So Kauikeaouli constantly struggled with the contradiction and vacillated between Christianity vs. his sister. But at least he was not intellectually dishonest. He did not try to claim that the bible said it's OK to have sex with your sister. He faced up to the reality that Christianity required him to give up his sister. He fornicated and repented, back and forth, deeply sincere in both directions, agonizing over the choice, but never fooling himself that he could somehow have both. Today there are a lot of Hawaiians who desperately want to say there's no contradiction between Christianity and the old Hawaiian religion. They say you can believe in both. I have heard this directly from the Hawaiian Protestant pastor of a church in Waimanalo and a Catholic brother at St. Louis School, and from a lot of non-ordained Hawaiians. This attitude fits right in with the historical revisionism of Hawaiian intellectuals who routinely twist history and logic to draw whatever conclusions they want. Kauikeaouli, Richards, and Judd knew that there are irreconcilable differences between Christianity and the old Hawaiian religion; irreconcilable differences between native Hawaiian cultural customs and what the bible allows or prohibits. By the way, do not call me anti-gay. I'm a civil rights activist, and have publicly defended equal rights for gays, regardless of my personal revulsion at what they do in bed. See my essay on this topic, written about 5 years ago: http://tinyurl.com/l8qas2
on February 2,2013 | 05:59AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You lie on your online biography when you say that you "speak Hawaiian with moderate fluency." What a total L-I-E !!! As someone who is certified to teach it, I can safely assess your rudimentary ability to be less than a UH Hawaiian 102 level. That is NOT moderate fluency. You cannot even read the article well enough to state if it is a "terrible mess" or not. That is why you address NOTHING in the article itself, just the English language synopsis, as you do every time you post, and furthermore you stray off topic to bring up some irrelevant and incomplete piece of history that has nothing to do with what is said in the article. When you lie once, KennyKKonklin/DiverDave, everything else you say loses credibility. And that lie on your online bio was that ONE LIE. Save your words for people who care what you think and are naive enough to believe you.
on February 2,2013 | 10:06AM
holokanaka wrote:
Solis article and Okino's ranting about homosexuality and your post seems to me to fit in the opinion category. you know everyone has an opinion. homosexuality in these Islands and throughout Polynesia was and in some places still is part of their culture. I for one am tired of some people putting christianity and the bible on a pedestal. remember people say america was established on christian values and we all know how america obtain their land from the Indians to establish their nation of christian values. even religious people don't always agree as to what a particular part of the bible says or means. question: does the bible prohibit slavery and what is the punishment for breaking the sabath. I have no problem who and what god one believes in, but I think some bible thumpers are hypocrites because they only talk about sections which fits their views and not about the whole bible. as far as historical revisionism in these islands, there may be some truth to that but but the fact is that most of what you call revisionism is actually fact. america's history books say these Islands was annexed by america in 1898 which ofcourse is a lie. is it revisionism exposing that lie? where in Dr. Keanu Sai's writtings is there revisionst history?
on February 2,2013 | 01:12PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Revising incorrect history is not a wrong or bad thing to do. So why complain about it, yeah???
on February 2,2013 | 01:45PM
DiverDave wrote:
Sovereignty kook fringe history is not only incorrect, but is designed to divide, cause ill will, and vicitmize. That is "wrong and a bad thing to do".
on February 4,2013 | 08:50AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Nope. Wrong again. HOWEVER .......Thanks again for the fodder in the campaign to have you and your account banned.
on February 4,2013 | 09:04AM
DiverDave wrote:
Ya, in your twisted world there would be no free speech. That is why you don't like Okino speaking his mind. Free speech is OK with the fringers as long as it agrees with theirs. If not that person shouldn't be allowed to speak, right?
on February 4,2013 | 12:49PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
In the United States Supremem Court ruling of the case, Chapilinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942), fighting words are not a part of the First Amendment right of free speech as noted in the unanimous decision here in part - " There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "
on February 5,2013 | 10:05AM
DiverDave wrote:
And your point is? Oh your talking about when you made terroristic threats to Ken Conklin when you said, "Don't think I won't show up at your door". Is that the kind of speech you're talking about? You are just full of nonsense, David Rogers.
on February 5,2013 | 12:52PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I know your address, Kenny, but you don't know mine. A threat must include some sort of harm, which arriving at someone's door to discuss his ineptitude face to face does not include. He is the stupid one to put his address on his online bio, and he is the stupid one for calling me a coward. My point is, so who is the real coward? YOU and your other personality. BOO-YAH! ( Knock Knock! Who's there? The truth that you can no longer run from. )
on February 5,2013 | 01:59PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Your online bio gives 3 ways to contact you, Kenny/Dave - physical address, telephone, and email. I choose physical address. Next time, don't give out your physical address as a way to contact you! Derrr!!!! //// CONTACT: Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. 46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205 Kane'ohe, HI 96744 tel/fax (808) 247-7942 e-mail Ken_Conklin(at)yahoo.com
on February 5,2013 | 04:59PM
DiverDave wrote:
Wow! I rest my case. You are dangerous! More written threats.
on February 5,2013 | 09:07PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
That is coming from someone who uses the epithet "red diaper dooper baby" and thinks a modern dictionary of translation defines an ancient culture. I am still waiting on the lawsuit to be served on me, Kenny. Yàwn. NEXT!
on February 6,2013 | 10:51AM
holokanaka wrote:
this stupid sovereignty kook fringe would like you to show me a legally ratified annexation treaty.
on February 4,2013 | 01:34PM
DiverDave wrote:
You mean a final ratfied treaty? There was one. As shown below. It received 2/3 of the Senate vote in favor of it. Remember now?
on February 4,2013 | 09:38PM
holokanaka wrote:
joker, read my reply to konki at 7:42 AM.
on February 5,2013 | 06:54AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
holokanaka saya "where in Dr. Keanu Sai's writtings is there revisionst history?" I wrote a webpage about it. See "So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai" at http://tinyurl.com/3vdttyp Sai's only response was to restate his nonsense without answering my criticisms, and to make silly personal attacks instead of a logical rebuttal.
on February 2,2013 | 06:42PM
holokanaka wrote:
konki, have you had your "So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland--the new Hawaiian scam by Keanu Sai" published by International Legal Journals? have you taken your -so called executive agreements arguements to the World Court of arbitration, UN Security counsel, UN General Assembly and has you arguements been accepted by those bodies? if tour answer to both questions is no, than as Keanu Sai has said when it was suggested that there be a debate between you and him, "you are not qualified to debate him" and therefore any suggestion to read your blog does not interest me at all. question to konki-is their an annexation treaty annexing the Hawaiian Kinsdom to america?
on February 2,2013 | 07:33PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
ho'okukae says "question to konki-is their an annexation treaty annexing the Hawaiian Kinsdom to america?" Yes, and I have proved it. See webpage "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://tinyurl.com/2748fgg I know the history twisters love to say there was no Treaty of Annexation. But there clearly was a Treaty of Annexation, and I have provided the full text of it. Now the history twisters will say it was only a joint resolution, not a treaty. They'll say the U.S. reached out and grabbed Hawaii by merely passing a bill inside the U.S. But again, it was Hawaii that offered the treaty, it wasn't the U.S. unilaterally reaching out and grabbing. It's up to the U.S. to decide what method the U.S. will use to ratify a treaty offered by another nation -- it's not up to that other nation (and certainly not up to a modern-day history-twister) to decide what method the U.S. will use to ratify a treaty.
on February 3,2013 | 05:20AM
holokanaka wrote:
eh konki, I guess ho'okukae is refering to me so I will respond. I have seen this arguement before maybe from one of your posts or your jr the joker(aka diver dave) I guess not everyone has been enlightened with your "proof there is an annexation treaty". I would suggest you inform a Ronald Winfrey, Principal Staff Judge Advocate of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith, Island of Oahu when discussing no treaty of annexation with an Police Officer Pa stated "Oh yes, there is no treaty". now if this gentleman does not know of any annexation treaty I think its your duty as an american to apprise of you you "proof".
on February 3,2013 | 07:42AM
DiverDave wrote:
Why holokanaka, you act like you have never been lied to before. When you come to the truth and realize you have been hoodwinked by the likes of this felon Sai you may start screaming and never be able to stop! What are you saying? That some Police Officer said there is no treaty? Well, now you can print a copy and tell him next time he stops you for drunk driving that there is, and you can show him.
on February 3,2013 | 09:16AM
holokanaka wrote:
joker, you need to read my post again.
on February 3,2013 | 11:33AM
DiverDave wrote:
Holokanaka(the name caller), send one to this Ronald Winfrey too.
on February 4,2013 | 08:55AM
holokanaka wrote:
who is Ronald Winfrey?
on February 4,2013 | 12:51PM
DiverDave wrote:
You have really lost your mind, haven't you.? Ronald Winfrey is the hear-say evidence guy you qouted above. You know, the guy you said is so educated and learned that he said to someone that there was no treaty so that is enough for you!
on February 4,2013 | 09:47PM
holokanaka wrote:
I admit I forget sometimes but I guess I don't know what your point is at 8:55AM
on February 5,2013 | 06:58AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
HOLOKANAKA said - konki, have you had your "So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland--the new Hawaiian scam by Keanu Sai" published by International Legal Journals? have you taken your -so called executive agreements arguements to the World Court of arbitration, UN Security counsel, UN General Assembly and has you arguements been accepted by those bodies? ///// ME - no, because they are full of fallacies as I have proven below. I do not divulge my knowledge flippantly, and so I choose not to respond to blatant lies by KennyKKonklin in kind with specifics, but I made an exception today. I strongly suggest that Kenny quit while you and I are ahead.
on February 5,2013 | 01:28PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
YOU, KennyKKonklin, once stated IN WRITING that the family ( ‘ohana ) was not as important to ancient Hawaiians as contemporary Hawaiians state because the Puku‘i-Elbert Hawaiian-English dictionary entry for ‘ohana is only 3 lines long. When you show your lack of true education and intelligence with remarks like that, then there is no genuine need to respond with any information-specific rebuttal to your ridiculously uninformed webpages.
on February 4,2013 | 09:25AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
By the way, on a different topic. I'm surprised to see the word spelled "Paipala." The customary spelling back in missionary days and also nowadays is "Baibala." As in Baibala Hemolele. And then there was the famous Buke Mahele. I know there are purists who say there is no "B" in Hawaiian. They also say there is no "T" in Hawaiian (except on Ni'ihau). I guess they would have us say "kuku" instead of "tutu." *LOL
on February 2,2013 | 08:10AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
REAL speakers of the language, which obviously does NOT include YOU, can do as they wish with the language, and they certainly do not need YOUR permission to evolve the language. Fershnizzle!!!!!
on February 2,2013 | 09:48AM
DiverDave wrote:
Right Ken, this reconciliation between old Polynesian-Hawaiian paganizm and Christianity is interesting. Perhaps never more glaring than when the Volcano Mauna Loa erupted during King Kalakaua's visit to Japan to attempt to bring more immigrants to Hawaii. (He believed the Japenese and Hawaiians sprung from a cognate race and the mating of Japenese and Polynesian-Hawaiians would "produce a new and vigorous race".) While traveling a smallpox outbreak occurred in Honolulu. Princess Regent Liliuokalni called for prayer in the Christian churchs, and when the outbreak subsided many Polynesians said "God is with our Princess Regent". Chieftess Ruth Keelikolani opposed this conclusion, and so did many in Hilo that feared that anything but appeasing Pele would bring the sure distruction of Hilo. Ruth went to Hilo, with an entourage of about 20 retainers that included a half dozen well hung young men as bed warmers, to prove that her god was greater than Liliuokalani's was. When Liliuokalni heard of Ruth's trip to Hilo she decided she must also make the trip in order to prove the power of the Aikanakas by a miracle even greater than stopping the smallpox in Honolulu. When Liliuokalani arrived Ruth's reaction was, "The God loving bxxch finally came did she? Now let her kneel and pray so the pillars of heaven will rattle" The next morning, with eighty equestrians Liliuokalani rode out to the lava flow approaching Hilo. When she found Ruth's tent there Liliuokalani called out, "Ruth, Ruth Keelikolani! You fat axx with your gods, come out!"
on February 2,2013 | 01:07PM
DiverDave wrote:
The taunt was a success and the old Kamehameha Chieftess, naked, filled the tent entrance. Ruth yelled, "This is for you and your Thurston-God". Next Ruth hawked her throat and spat loudly. "When you are through with hxxle-puling, I will talk with Pele." That night the church in Hilo was overflowing with people. Liliuokalani spoke of the smallpox outbreak in Honolulu and how "only after confessing our sins and prayed to God...was the curse lifted from us". A week passed and the flow kept coming. Liliuokalani called for another church prayer session, but the flow continued. So, Liliuokalani ordered the Minister of the Interior to use dynamite to create a barrier that might divert the flow past Hilo and into the ocean. When Ruth heard the expolsions she said, "So the Kalakaua bxxch has prayed herself out and used all the science those white devils posses. That night Ruth went to the lava. She tossed in a handful of ohelo berries. They lava consumed them so quickly not even smoke was seen. She repeated "Mai huhu oeia makou, Pele" over and over. That night the erruption stopped.
on February 2,2013 | 01:08PM
DiverDave wrote:
Read the above story at length in book The Last King of Paradise by Eugene Burns.
on February 2,2013 | 01:18PM
DiverDave wrote:
My point, as always, is that the people in charge of Hawaii, ie the Kings and the Queen promoted a cultural change, and had the power to enact it. Their influence was paramount! They called the shots. So, if anyone wants to say something was "stolen" then the only suspects can be easily rounded up.
on February 2,2013 | 04:20PM
holokanaka wrote:
"So if anyone wants to say something was "stolen"..." show me an annexation treaty. if you cannot show me an annexation treaty then in fact a Sovereign Nation was stolen. oh and joker, calling me a "stupid sovereignty kook fringe" is not a legitimate response. if you have more character that me as you have stated before you will answer my question honestly.
on February 2,2013 | 07:45PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
ho'okukae says "show me an annexation treaty" OK. I'll show it to you since you're too dumb to find it for yourself. See webpage "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://tinyurl.com/2748fgg I know the history twisters love to say there was no Treaty of Annexation. But there clearly was a Treaty of Annexation, and I have provided the full text of it. Now the history twisters will say it was only a joint resolution, not a treaty. They'll say the U.S. reached out and grabbed Hawaii by merely passing a bill inside the U.S. But again, it was Hawaii that offered the treaty, it wasn't the U.S. unilaterally reaching out and grabbing. It's up to the U.S. to decide what method the U.S. will use to ratify a treaty offered by another nation -- it's not up to that other nation (and certainly not up to a modern-day history-twister) to decide what method the U.S. will use to ratify a treaty.
on February 3,2013 | 05:22AM
DiverDave wrote:
Correct again Ken, What's even more telling is that only a couple years after Hawaii became a Territory, the Polynesian dominated Legislature unanimously requested full Statehood. They didn't unanimously ask to withdrawl from the Union. They wanted more than just Territorial Status.! Does that sound like they felt something was "stolen" as the sovereignty kook fringers like to repeat like a parrots over and over? It's also very arrogant of the fringers to try and tell the people of Hawaii that lived 150 years ago what they should have wanted with falsity, half truths, and race baiting. Price Kuhio Kalaniana'ole would laugh at this whole group.
on February 3,2013 | 07:19AM
holokanaka wrote:
konki and joker see my above comment. and I again here state my arguement at 07:33PM and 08:08 AM.
on February 3,2013 | 08:13AM
DiverDave wrote:
Why holokanaka, first you claim there is NO treaty, now you have conceeded that there is a treaty, but that it was not approved to your liking. LOL It's funny that no one complained at the time on either side of the ocean. I think the statute of limitations has run out on that one. What the facts show is that the peoples of Hawaii, especially the Polynesians that were the largest voting block in Hawaii until the 1940's, totally embraced Democracy.
on February 3,2013 | 10:18AM
holokanaka wrote:
ok ok joker let me try this. There has never been a legally ratified annexation treaty.
on February 3,2013 | 11:37AM
holokanaka wrote:
yes it is konki "up to the U.S. to decide what method the U.S. will use to ratify a treaty offered by another nation" and is clearly provided for in the U.S. Constitution. a joint resolution an domestic/internal law, does not provide for in the U.S. Constitution as a lawful means to annex another sovereign nation.
on February 3,2013 | 09:13AM
DiverDave wrote:
I don't recall calling you stupid holokanaka. You and your boy David Rogers are the name callers. But you are a member of the sovereignty kook fringe.
on February 3,2013 | 06:56AM
holokanaka wrote:
eh joker, I think you should rethink your "I don't recall calling you stupid holokanaka" statement. maybe go back and look at some of your older posts. oh and as I have stated before it doesn't really bother me. name calling is not an arguement.
on February 3,2013 | 08:08AM
DiverDave wrote:
Really? Is that why you call me Joker? Because you are not a name caller holokanaka? You are full of nonsense.
on February 3,2013 | 09:20AM
holokanaka wrote:
I have never denied I called you joker.
on February 3,2013 | 11:35AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Dave Dave Dave, In terms of the name calling, you started it all under your other account (KennyKKonklin) when you commonly called others, including me, íidíõts and móróns among other things. Not only have you used the word stupid, you called him dumb in a post above. Sp. if you cannot take the heat, then don't start the fire, Kenny/Dave. I will locate that stupid post and have it along with the dumb post above both deleted. That is what I did with the rédnéck cràckér post from November 2011 and your ridiculously immature red diaper dôôper baby posts from October 2012. They're just one more step towards getting your account closed and you banned for your violations of the TOS:
on February 4,2013 | 09:16AM
DiverDave wrote:
David Rogers, for the millionth time I am not Ken Conklin. Now it has been established that you have signed in under different names, but I have not, ever. But, your current handle is interesting. Terii under Kelii. Does that mean you like it on bottom?
on February 4,2013 | 12:19PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Again, thanks for the extra help in getting you banned. You make it so easy.
on February 5,2013 | 10:18AM
DiverDave wrote:
This story also shows that not "all the Polynesian people were in love with Liliuokalani" as the fringers like to claim.. Polynesians rioted when her half brother became king, requiring the Monarchy to request the U.S. Navy to come ashore to quell the violence.
on February 3,2013 | 07:45AM
holokanaka wrote:
joker are you familiar with the reasons the Polynesians rioted? you only state part of the story, ofcourse the part that supports your view of history. that is not in being with your so called "superior" character.
on February 3,2013 | 07:22PM
DiverDave wrote:
You ask me, do I know why? Google: "Emmaites" It is you that refuses to read any REAL history.
on February 4,2013 | 08:46AM
holokanaka wrote:
thank you joker for steering me to that article by a guy who works in the publishing industry and is an expatriate of these Islands who wrote this article in 2011. I wonder how his credentials would stand up against history experts in these Islands like Dr Keanu Sai, Tom Coffman, and Noe Noe Silva and others. I like especially the part where it notes the part where the Queen was against america and about one of the anti american persons-Nawahi. these two among many others were well aware of the treasonous goals of the americans and gee,guess what, they were absolutely correct.
on February 4,2013 | 01:18PM
DiverDave wrote:
"History experts like Keanu Sai", the FELON! And, all along I believed that these thoughts you comunicated were yours. I'm so disappointed! It's not too late. You can still go to a library and find the REAL truth.
on February 4,2013 | 10:14PM
holokanaka wrote:
joker, I learn from people who have done extensive research on the true and legal history of these Islands not some guy who works in the publishing industry.
on February 5,2013 | 07:03AM
DiverDave wrote:
You mean you have been force fed pablum from the sovereignty kook fringe.
on February 5,2013 | 09:47AM
holokanaka wrote:
eh joker all your arguements-sovereignty kook fringe, Sai is a felon, you are all racist-is getting old. can't you come up with more original and substantial aeguements?
on February 5,2013 | 01:10PM
DiverDave wrote:
This story is told at length in "The Last King of Paradise", by Eugene Burns, 1952.
on February 2,2013 | 01:15PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I love it when people prove my own points about THEM. It just means a lot less work for me.
on February 2,2013 | 01:44PM
DiverDave wrote:
Sorry, but I am for sure not the least concerned with you. And, no one else is either.
on February 2,2013 | 04:14PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
oooooohhhhhhhh! So that explains the ridiculous lawsuit you keep threatening me with. Yeah, I'm still waiting for that. Yet again, your sense of logic lacks both sense AND logic.
on February 2,2013 | 04:41PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Oh yeah, I forgot to add that you are still a White Is Right racist. Actually, both of your personalities are.
on February 2,2013 | 04:56PM
DiverDave wrote:
Why David Rogers, that's simply an awful thing to call someone. Just because you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation you call me a bad name. Poor you.
on February 5,2013 | 09:37AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
It is the truth and more thoughtful and intellectually put than you and your "red diaper dooper baby" commments that got deleted. You say this above because your futile bluff about a lawsuit failed epically. When are you going to post my address in Mexico?
on February 5,2013 | 10:13AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Ua huli ka mana‘o o nā molemona a me nā kakolika e pili ana i ka po‘e māhū i kēia au. ‘Ae lākou i ka po‘e māhū ma ke ‘ano he lālā molemona a kakolika lākou, koe kēia mea e pāpā ‘ia - pāpā ‘ia ka moe ‘ana o ka po‘e māhū kekahi i kekahi. ʻĀpono nā molemona a me nā kakolika i ka po‘e māhū koe ka moe kolohe. ‘A‘ohe na‘e ‘olu‘olu o Gary Okino i ka po‘e māhū, akā na‘e, he "Kalikiano" ‘o ia (wahi a ka lohe). No ke aha lā e ʻāpono ‘ole ai ‘o Gary Okina i ka po‘e māhū inā he Kalikiano ‘o ia?
on February 2,2013 | 04:31PM
DiverDave wrote:
Oh Brutus, You protest too much!
on February 2,2013 | 07:43PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Translate what I said from Hawaiian to English. You can't by yourself.
on February 4,2013 | 08:52AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Don't forget that you said unequivocally that you do NOT speak Hawaiian at all and you have no intention of learning it, Dave. Your lack of memory is showing.
on February 4,2013 | 11:20AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
The topic of the article is Okino, not the unused piece of paper that is entitled Treaty of Annexation, which the Newlands Resolution replaced.
on February 4,2013 | 09:02AM
DiverDave wrote:
The joint resolution garnered over 2/3 majority in the Senate, so no one ever challenged the annexation, in fact it was welcomed by most all. Of course, you David Rogers, "The Mind Reader" know more about what the majority of the folks that lived at the time wanted, even though all their actions and words say something different. You da man! Or, maybe the woman, Terii under Kelii!
on February 4,2013 | 12:36PM
holokanaka wrote:
joker, you need to educate yourself about "so no one ever challegged the annexation". I have already mentioned the Ku'e Petitions. since you cannot read and comprehend Hawaiian then you cannot read the Hawaiian newspapers of that time which was full if "challenges" to the annexation or in the alternative read a book which has translated some of those newspapers. I would suggest Aloha Betrayed by Noe Noe Silva. oh and Queen Lili'uokalani most vehemently and legally "challenged" the annexation.
on February 4,2013 | 01:31PM
DiverDave wrote:
Not those again? The Kue Petitions simply don't add up mathematically, and most all the signatures were done in one of three hands. You just go around in circles don't you?
on February 4,2013 | 10:34PM
holokanaka wrote:
eh joker are you a handwritting expert or are you just repeating the words of your hero lorren thursten?
on February 5,2013 | 07:06AM
DiverDave wrote:
It doesn't take a hand writing expert. There wasn't 38,000 voting age Polynesians in the islands at the time, duh. It would have taken nearly every man of full and part Polynesian, as well as every Polynesian woman and child in the islands to come up with that many signitures. As far as the signitures themselves, they're not even signitures. Those petitions are avaiable on line for anyones examination. Many first names with no last, most with no addresses. It can hardly be called a "petition" by any standards. Just names on a page. Today the list would be laughed at and called a fraud.
on February 5,2013 | 09:33AM
DiverDave wrote:
Additionally, the "petition" was presented before the vote, not after.
on February 5,2013 | 09:41AM
holokanaka wrote:
you need to educate yourself joker on the Ku'e Petitions. not only Hawaiians and part Hawaiians signed the petition many non Hawaiians also signed.
on February 5,2013 | 01:14PM
DiverDave wrote:
It wasn't passed by the Senate the first time, but was on the second, by the required 2/3rds vote.
on February 6,2013 | 10:31PM
holokanaka wrote:
of course the Petition was presented before the vote DUUUH. why do you think the annexation was not passed DUUUH.
on February 5,2013 | 01:16PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
This is 100% off topic. To move the topic back to Okino, I will say only this - according the United States' own government archives<---------- This is how the Treaty of Annexation never happened and the newlands Resolution DID. I did what is called education of the events, not interpretation ofwhat little one learned quickly. From the US National Archives verbatim = "President Benjamin Harrison submitted a treaty to annex the Hawaiian islands to the U.S. Senate for ratification. In 1897, the treaty effort was blocked when the newly-formed Hawaiian Patriotic League, composed of native Hawaiians, successfully petitioned the U.S. Congress in opposition of the treaty. The League's lobbying efforts left only 46 Senators in favor of the resolution, less than the 2/3 majority needed for approval of a treaty. The League's victory was shortlived, however as unfolding world events soon forced the annexation issue to the fore again. With the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in February of 1898 signaling the start of the Spanish American War, establishing a mid-Pacific fueling station and naval base became a strategic imperative for the United States. The Hawaiian islands were the clear choice, and this time Congress moved to annex the Hawaiian islands by Joint Resolution, a process requiring only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. On July 12, 1898, the Joint Resolution passed and the Hawaiian islands were officially annexed by the United States." If you disagree with that then take it up with the US government and its National Archives, not me and not holokanaka.
on February 5,2013 | 11:04AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1 866 272 6272
on February 5,2013 | 11:08AM
DiverDave wrote:
As I stated above the resolution to approve the treaty received 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate, and it was signed by the President McKinley. When it received 2/3rds of the Senate and was signed by the President it was all legal per the Consitution. You may have a case if it hadn't been ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, but sad for you it was.
on February 5,2013 | 01:04PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Per the US National Archives as stated above- " The League's lobbying efforts left only 46 Senators in favor of the resolution, less than the 2/3 majority needed for approval of a treaty. " If you have aproblem with that statement then you need to call the telephone number provided and not post any dishonest rebuttal here.
on February 5,2013 | 01:53PM
DiverDave wrote:
Right, some cub lawyer's "opinion", that's meaningful.
on February 6,2013 | 09:56AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
US National Archives is not the US Attorney General's office. It is an ARCHIVE. I will alllow your lack of comprehension of an "archive" to speak for itself.
on February 6,2013 | 10:52AM
DiverDave wrote:
Yes, an archive of the fringe.
on February 6,2013 | 10:17PM
holokanaka wrote:
eh joker, do I have to remind you of the u.s. justice department, legal division opinion regarding the annexation of these Islands. google- u.s. justice department, legal division opinion on annexation of Hawaii.
on February 5,2013 | 07:40PM
DiverDave wrote:
The vote in the Senate was 42-21. Exactly 2/3rds. The rest did not vote. Not voting is not registered as a no vote. There was a quorum, and the vote received 2/3rds. End of story. End of the line. Game over!
on February 5,2013 | 09:17PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1 866 272 6272
on February 6,2013 | 06:31AM
holokanaka wrote:
and a joint resolution, a domestic and internal law has been shown to not be a legal avenue for annexing a foreign sovereign nation.
on February 5,2013 | 01:21PM
DiverDave wrote:
holokanaka, Once the Senate voted and it received 2/3rds of the vote, and the President signed it what the house did was moot. The constitution says must be ratified by 2/3rds majority vote of the Senate. Game, Point, Match!
on February 5,2013 | 09:22PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1 866 272 6272
on February 6,2013 | 10:53AM
holokanaka wrote:
it was a "JOINT RESOLUTION", a "JOINT RESOLUTION" not an annexation treaty DUUUHH. there must be something wrong with me to keep argueing with this effing idjut. joker have a good life in your-white is superior, sovereignty kook fringe, Sai is a felon, everyone who disagrees with you is a racist-world. I'm otta here!!!!
on February 6,2013 | 07:10AM
DiverDave wrote:
Holokanaka, It's been a big week for you hasn't it? You've gone from not believing that there was a treaty to discovering that there was one, and it passed the Senate by 2/3rds vote and was signed by the President McKinley. Kind of like being the last to know that your girlfriend is cheating on you, eh? Get some rest. It will pass.
on February 6,2013 | 09:19AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
One more time - for any disagreements, contact The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1 866 272 6272
on February 6,2013 | 10:54AM
DiverDave wrote:
I did. They confirmed the vote tally, and agreed that the resolution method was because they thought it might not get enough votes to pass the Senate with 2/3rds. But when it did get 2/3rds, it didn't matter that it had passed the House, or not. They didn't need the House at that point. It was as if the Senate had done their own resolution. By the way, the vote in the House was 209 in favor to 91 against. Well over 2/3rds. Not just 50% plus one.
on February 6,2013 | 12:52PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Okay, now tell the truth. You never called. Again per the US National Archives, the treaty of annexation that was created by the Republic of Hawai‘i and the US Government was signed by President McKinley, Thurston, Kinney, and Hatch and submitted to the US Senate. Verbatim from the US National Archives - "The treaty was defeated in the Senate." THEREFORE, no matter what the vote for the Newlands Resolution was, the said treaty of Annexation was, is, and always will be a discarded piece of paper. Value = nothing. IF you still dispute this, then take it up with The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1 866 272 6272
on February 6,2013 | 01:22PM
DiverDave wrote:
It was defeated firs timet and then passed on the second time around by 2/3rds.. You are deceiving again.
on February 6,2013 | 01:27PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Nope. The Newlands Resolution has a different title, different wording (the 7 articles from the treaty are glaringly missing), and different people named on it. One .... more .... time ...... IF you dispute this, then take it up with you still dispute this, then take it up with The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1 866 272 6272.
on February 6,2013 | 01:41PM
holokanaka wrote:
Terii a question-what did you google to get the archive information?
on February 6,2013 | 01:03PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I posted my source. They didn't. I rarely post specific information, especially when it comes to Kenny/Dave. Knowledge is a thing of value, not to given out to everyone and certainly not to those who abuse it, not mentioning any names ..... KENNY/DAVE!!!! So, I will give it to you and you only. Look for a reply to one of your posts in your email inbox.
on February 6,2013 | 02:07PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
okay, maybe not. The system doesn't work that way anymore. I'll try another way.
on February 6,2013 | 02:54PM
holokanaka wrote:
Mahalo E Terii for your effort. If cannot, cannot, but again mahalo for your effort.
on February 6,2013 | 07:25PM
DiverDave wrote:
holokanaka, go to sovereigntywacko.com. They have pure and unpartial history to show you! LOL
on February 6,2013 | 09:11PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
President Oscar Temaru from French Polynesia recently returned from the UN-NY and has made a strong push to reinstate French Polynesia on its list of non-autonomous nations to decolonize. This reinstatement is predicted to occur within the next few weeks.
on February 7,2013 | 11:27AM
holokanaka wrote:
interesting!!!
on February 7,2013 | 05:34PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs
Political Radar
Wait

Political Radar
Second request

Political Radar
Tipped

Warrior Beat
One last fling

Political Radar
Phased in

Political Radar
Palolo v. Pauoa