Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

KAUAKUKALAHALE


 Print   Email   Comment | View 35 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

I pono ka pono i ka mana'o'i'o

Na Laiana Wong

POSTED:



Synopsis: Doing what one believes to be right must operate independently of the consequences of that action.

Aloha mai nō kākou e nā hoa o Kauakūkalahale. No 'oukou ku'u aloha 'āina a aloha lāhui nō ho'i. He wā huliau nō paha kēia e ala ai kākou a e nānā ai ho'i i nā 'ōuli e māhuahua nei ma ko kākou 'āina aloha nei a puni. 'A'ole mea na'auao nāna e hulikua. Aia ka pono i ke koho a 'a'ohe koho pono 'ole inā e koho 'ia me ka mana'o'i'o.

Kāka'ikahi nō paha ka po'e 'ike 'ole i ka lono no ka leka a Kamana'opono Crabbe o ka ho'ouna 'ana aku nei iā John Carey, ke kuhina nui o 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia. Aia ma loko o ua leka nei he nīnau iā Carey no ke kūlana o ko Hawai'i Pae 'Āina, he moku'āina no 'Amelika a i 'ole he aupuni kū'oko'a. He nīnau ko'iko'i maoli nō kēia e nīnau aku ai, ‘oiai ua ka'awale loa ka hopena o kahi ha'ina mai ka hopena aku o kekahi.

Ma kahi 'ao'ao, ho'i ka mana i o 'Amelika e noho ai ma ke 'ano he luna no kākou. Hele a he 'oia'i'o kēia, aia ko kākou pono i ka 'olu'olu mai o ha'i. Aia nō ke ola a 'olu'olu mai ko kākou luna. 'O ka 'îlio ko kākou hoalike, e makilo ana nā maka palupalu i kona haku. Ma kekahi 'ao'ao, aia ka mana iā kākou e 'imi ai i ko kākou pono. 'A'ohe mea nāna ko kākou lā pōloli e ho'ōla. 'A'ohe mea nāna kākou e ho'opakele i ka 'ino. Na kākou nō kākou e hana a'e.

'O ka lō'ihi o ko kākou noho 'ana ma lalo o ka malu o 'Amelika, ua hele a ma'a i ia 'ano a ua lilo ia 'ano nohona he mea e 'olu'olu ai ka na'au. Aia i laila ka mea 'āpiki. 'O ke kanaka piha mau o ka 'ōpū, hana nui kona ho'okē 'ana i ka 'ai. Mali'a o lohe 'ia mai ka nakulu 'ana o ka 'ōpū. He aha kona kumu e nahu ai i ka lima hānai? Ua 'ono loa ka 'ai. 'A'ohe mea nāna ia kanaka e ho'ohalahala. No ka mea, 'o ke 'ano nō ia o kākou kānaka. He hana aku nō e like me ko kākou mana'o he pono. 'O wai lā ka mea e mana'o nei ua hewa kona 'ao'ao e kūpa'a nei?

Pēia nō ho'i ke 'ano o ke kanaka e kū'ē'ē nei i ka lehulehu. Inā nō na ka pono 'o ia e alaka'i, 'a'ohe 'eha e hō'ole ai 'o ia i ia pono. Pēia nō paha ka hana a Kamana'opono. 'A'ole paha 'o ia i leka aku i ke kuhina nui iā Carey me ka mana'o ua hewa kāna hana. Na ka pono nō 'o ia i koikoi. Inā he hewa, he hewa nō ia i ka mana'o o nā kānaka i kū ma kahi 'ao'ao kū'ē. Wahi a ka po'e kahiko, hili hewa kahi mana'o lā ke 'ole ke kūkākūkā. Ua kūkākūkā ‘ia kēia ma mua o ka ho'ouna 'ia o ka leka? Koe aku ia.

Pehea lā ka ha'ina o ia mau nīnau, ua 'ike 'ia kahi hana akamai loa a ua 'o Kamana'opono. Ma o kāna leka 'o ia i ho'opau ai i ko kākou kuleana no ka hō'oia'i'o 'ia o ko Hawai'i kūlana he aupuni kū'oko'a a i 'ole he māhele wale nō no 'Amelika. I ka hāpai 'ia o kā ia ala nīnau, ua ho'oili akula 'o ia i ia kuleana ma luna o 'Amelika, na lākou ia e hō'oia'i'o i ka pono o ka ho'ohui 'āina. He hana kū 'ole ho'i ia i ke kānāwai o ka 'aha ho'okolokolo o ke ao nei.

———

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 35 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(35)
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.
DiverDave wrote:
What Crabbe did had nothing to do with what is "right", it had to do with what his beliefs are after being taken in by the convicted scam artist David Sai. Crabbe is a Royalist, the majority of the board are Indian Tribalists, plain and simple. The Indian Tribe idea was moving along to fast. Crabbe knew that if he didn't try to derail it that the board would push the "roll" voters towards that. (The whole idea that OHA is neutral on the outcome of the "roll" is a crock as they are funding it and facilitating it). Now that he has exposed himself for what his true beliefs are he must be pushed out, or he will continue to be the wrench in the gears. He has become odd man out.
on May 17,2014 | 05:11AM
holokanaka wrote:
"What Crabbe did had nothing to do with what is "right"". joker what is the problem with requesting a legal opinion of the legal status of these Islands especially from a country who claims title to these Islands??? I mean what is wrong with that?? can anyone tell me what is wrong with requesting this legal opinion?? any body!!!
on May 17,2014 | 01:31PM
DiverDave wrote:
Gee holokanaka(David Sai) that's not what Wong said: "Doing what one believes to be right must operate independently of the consequences of that action." Is Wong wrong?
on May 17,2014 | 06:45PM
holokanaka wrote:
Joker, I responded to your claim of "What Crabbe did had nothing to do with what is "right"". What does your "that's not what Wong said" have to do with my point of "what is the problem with requesting a legal opinion?" I am totally confused by your post....
on May 17,2014 | 08:24PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Pono'ole ka mana'o o ke kanaka me ka inoa 'o Kamana'opono Crabbe. Aia ma loko o ua leka nei he nīnau iā kuhina nui Kerry no ke kūlana o ko Hawai'i Pae 'Āina, he moku'āina no 'Amelika a i 'ole he aupuni kū'oko'a. Ina e pane o Kerry "'Ae, he moku'aina no 'Amelika o ko Hawai'i Pae 'Aina" -- e 'apono o Crabbe kela pane? 'Aka'aka! No laila, he 'olelo pa'ani kela ninau. A he kanaka pa'ani 'o Kamana'opono'ole Crabbe.
on May 17,2014 | 07:15AM
holokanaka wrote:
of course kerry's answer will be these Islands are part of america duuuuhhh. I for one am very curious as to what the official answer will be. aren't you konki even a little curious??? it certainly would open up the conversation on the issue of whether these Islands is legally part of america or- "occupied"- by america to a much larger population. just think konki, you can make your "arguments" as to the legality of america's claim of title to these Islands to a much wider audience. I think you would like that..
on May 17,2014 | 01:46PM
DiverDave wrote:
"of course kerry's answer will be these Islands are part of america", then why ask? You disrespect another culture by not capitalizing Sec. of State John Kerry, and the country's name. Did you really graduate from the U of H?, David Sai?
on May 17,2014 | 06:50PM
holokanaka wrote:
"Of course Kerry's answer will be these Islands are part of America"' then why ask?" Because the question of whether these Islands are part of America or "occupied" by America has not been settled. It certainly cannot be settled by people like who "refuse" or ""ignore" legal publications that clearly show the issue is not "settled". What is your problem with an official legal opinion on the legal status of these Islands??? Wouldn't it be nice if a larger audience is aware of the legal issues in regards to these Islands??? Maybe you are afraid for if more people of this planet learn of the true legal status of the Islands which is totally opposite of what America has been claiming!!! Are you afraid joker???
on May 17,2014 | 08:13PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
You nitpick my typing and holokanaka's typing, but you make mistakes yourself - your extra question mark above, the " moving along >>to<< fast " error, your inability to use correctly the words there their and they're, as well as your inability to conjugate the verb to be with accuracy. You disrespect your own culture with your consistent errors, and yet you make arrogant posts like that questioning if he graduated or not. THEN you say everyone is making personal attacks on you but there you are making a personal attack on him. Hypocrite much? >>too<< much, obviously.
on May 18,2014 | 07:41PM
DiverDave wrote:
You didn't comment before Terii_Kelli. Unless you are also holokanaka. Is holokanaka an account that all the sovereignty fringe uses? David Rogers?
on May 19,2014 | 09:51PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I have been posting comments under these columns for over 4 years, first when they were Topix based up to now when they are attached to columns. So you are saying I did not comment before. So you are saying this is the first comment you have ever seen of mine. sad. Alzheimers.
on May 19,2014 | 11:36PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Kamana‘opono Crabbe believes the same as Laiana Wong, that being I pono ka pono i ka mana‘o‘i‘o. Go ahead and explain that sentence to everyone here.
on May 18,2014 | 06:49PM
holokanaka wrote:
drum roll please----------and now here they are ladies and gentlemen the the one and only konki and the joker,....... right on time!!!!!!!
on May 17,2014 | 07:28AM
DiverDave wrote:
Oh, just in case anyone doesn't understand, David Sai and Crabbe believe that the "Kingdom" still lives. Yah, and so does his "beloved" Liliuokalani. Yah, everyone will be better off under a "Kingdom". How delusional!
on May 17,2014 | 06:55PM
holokanaka wrote:
Joker, show me the legal procedure where in the Kingdom has been extinguished joker??? Cite your sources for your legal conclusions.
on May 17,2014 | 08:28PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
As requested: "evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom has been legally extinguished": The independent nation of Hawaii had a revolution in which the Kingdom government was overthrown and replaced by a revolutionary Provisional Government followed by a permanent Republic of Hawaii government. The Provisional government was immediately recognized de facto by every foreign nation which had a local consulate in Honolulu. More importantly, the permanent Republic government was recognized as the rightful (de jure) government during the Fall of 1894 by letters in 11 languages personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations on 4 continents. I have photos of the original letters as found in the Hawaii archives, at
http://tinyurl.com/4wtwdz

This is how new governments have always gotten international recognition as having extinguished old governments following revolutions -- when the heads of state of other nations having treaty relations personally recognize the change in government.


on May 17,2014 | 09:02PM
holokanaka wrote:
If what you say is legally true and binding konki, then why did america apologize for stealing these Islands and why did the u.s. justice department legal division state "it is unclear what constitution provision" was used to claim title to Hawaii???
on May 17,2014 | 10:23PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
The apology resolution had no committee hearings in either the House or Senate where historical issues could have been debated. And the letters of recognition from 1894 had kong been forgotten by the time the apology resolution came up a century later. But I assure you I will not allow those letters ever to be forgotten again.
on May 18,2014 | 08:27AM
holokanaka wrote:
konki, are you saying the apology resolution has no legal authority whatsoever???
on May 18,2014 | 02:47PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
The Hawaii Annexation Resolution (1898) and the Hawaii Apology Resolution (1993) -- Do they have the force of law? Every joint resolution is indeed a law, just like every bill that passes both chambers and is signed by the President or vetoed with a veto override. The difference between a joint resolution and a bill is that every bill has real consequences, whereas some resolutions have merely sentiments but no real consequences. Resolutions having no real consequences are sometimes called resolutions of sentiment: such as congratulating a little league team on winning a world championship, acknowledging that Connecticut is known as the Nutmeg State -- and the apology resolution. Such resolutions begin with a (sometimes lengthy) recitation of alleged historical fact or commonly-held opinion, and end with a short conclusion having no legal consequences but merely acknowledging, commemorating, praising, urging the President, etc.
on May 18,2014 | 05:40PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Every resolution says: WHEREAS [describing Congress' motives, intentions, and opinions]; NOW THEREFORE [what is hereby enacted into law]. The "whereas" preamble is a recitation of history or purpose to explain why the conclusion that follows it is being enacted. The only part of a resolution that is enforceable law is the "therefore" or "now therefore" part.
on May 18,2014 | 05:41PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
The apology resolution is merely sentiment. Following a long list of false and distorted "whereas" opinions about history, the apology resolution's only legally enforceable "now therefore"s are to "acknowledge historical significance", "recognize and commend efforts", "apologize", "express commitment to acknowledge", and "urge the President." That's it.
on May 18,2014 | 05:41PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
By contrast the Newlands annexation resolution (named after Congressman Francis G. Newlands who formally introduced it) says that whereas the Republic of Hawaii has offered to give its sovereignty and lands to the U.S., now therefore here are the things enacted into law: Hawaii's sovereignty and lands are hereby annexed; the lands shall be held in trust solely to benefit the people of Hawaii; Hawaii's treaties with other nations, and local laws, are replaced by U.S. treaties and laws; the U.S. hereby pays the national debt of Hawaii; money is appropriated to carry out annexation; etc.
on May 18,2014 | 05:42PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
The difference between the two resolutions will be quite obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to read them. That's why the full text of both resolutions is provided below. The apology resolution was merely an expression of sentiment, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the revolution that overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy; it has no real-world consequences except to express an opinion and suggest that consideration should be given to doing some things. The Newlands resolution for annexation very clearly made laws that produced major changes in the way Hawaii was governed.
on May 18,2014 | 05:42PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
See my webpage on this topic at
http://www.angelfire.com/bigfiles90/2ResosCompared.html
on May 18,2014 | 05:43PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
KennyKKonklin says - "That's why the full text of both resolutions is provided below. " I say - I see no text of any resolutions below. Oh by the way, one resolution that you say has no legal binding cannot be overlooked when you say the other HAS legal binding. A resolution is a resolution. There are no different forms or levels of a Congressional resolution. It either holds power or it doesn't. period. So pick a story and stick with it. And no resolution makes laws. Congressmen make laws. just fyi.
on May 18,2014 | 06:52PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Read the webpage. The full text of both resolutions is provided there for comparison.

Teri, apparently still on the lamb in Mexico, can't read English. Teri says "A resolution is a resolution. There are no different forms or levels of a Congressional resolution. It either holds power or it doesn't. period. So pick a story and stick with it. And no resolution makes laws. Congressmen make laws. just fyi."

But I explained all that above. Both the apology resolution and the annexation resolution are full-fledged laws. The difference is that annexation has numerous specific actions enacted into law in the "therefore" portion, whereas the "therefore" portion of the apology resolution is vague, non-substantive, says nothing enforceable. I know it's hard for Teri to grasp some concepts; try again.


on May 18,2014 | 07:38PM
holokanaka wrote:
wow konki, that is is a looooong post. by the way does the authority/jurisdiction of a---"joint resolution"---extend beyond the borders of america??? it seems the u.s.supreme court does not believe that the law extends beyoud its borders. what do you think konki? see u.s. v curtiss wright export corp., 299 u.s. 304,318
on May 18,2014 | 09:18PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Below does not equal there on another website. A different website is not below. Down below is still the same webpage. And who is Teri and why is she on a lamb? Ohhhhhh, you mean on the LAM. You know, I thought people with PhDs are supposed to be smart. My mistake.
on May 19,2014 | 09:01PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Teri knows that hawaiian language often uses words with more than one meaning. Well, I can do that in English too. I spelled the word "lamb" exactly as I intended. It's a lovely furry animal. And I'm guessing you are still on the lamb, as well as on the lam. So the yoke is on yew.
on May 19,2014 | 09:31PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
and so what other meaning of lamb is there? It is a clear error that you just cannot admit you made, like when you inaccurately cited your own website in regards to the doctorate that Haunani-Kay Trask earned.
on May 19,2014 | 09:48PM
Bdpapa wrote:
Who is John Carey?
on May 17,2014 | 10:56AM
DiverDave wrote:
Bdpapa, I think we're in trouble here.
on May 17,2014 | 06:51PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
With that spelling, I'm guessing John Carey must be Mr. Mariah Carey
on May 17,2014 | 09:03PM
DiverDave wrote:
LOL!
on May 19,2014 | 09:57PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs