Comment

Comment by Tina matildo botelho on December 18, 2010 at 7:33pm

Hawaiians like us get angry for all kinds of reasons, when we show love to one another and not hate we get alot of things done , as hoponopono we as a country need to promote love here we are aloha and thank you pomai and allo f you merry christmas and a happy new year. This year lets win.

Comment by Pomaikaiokalani on January 9, 2010 at 1:42pm

ALOHA Kakou, e Ke Aupuni Moi O Hawaii, The AKaKa BILL is just as Illegal as the "Joint Resolution of Annexating The Hawaiian Islands." In that that the AKaKa BILL is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not a Tribal nation as the Indian Tribal nations. The only way lawfully that the United States can recognize Native Hawaiians is as a Foreign nation. A Foreign nation where our Kanaka Maoli people along with other people not of our blood were a Nation among the nations of the world. Queen Liliuoklani was not only the Queen of our Kanaka Maoli people but she was Queen of all of the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom nation.
Ke Ola Mau Ke Aupuni Moi O Hawaii, o Pomai

Comment by Donna Burns on January 5, 2010 at 7:06pm

NoeNoe,
E kala mai...you ARE signed up and are now part of the group: Hui Kai 'Ula. We strongly oppose any form of the Akaka Bill including the one being "pushed" right now in US Congress. The saddest thing is that most Hawaiians think the Bill is designed to GIVE us RIGHTS, when in reality...IT IS TAKING THEM AWAY...FOREVER
Mahalo NoeNoe for adding your name to Hui Kai 'Ula
Donna

Comment by Tina matildo botelho on July 26, 2009 at 9:17pm

i refse to be alled only indian hanakahis not indian only I AM AN HAWAIIAN AND ALWAYS GOING BE HAWAIIAN, JUST LIKE POMAKAI SAYI AM NOT SURRENDERING MY FREEDOM TO ANY ONE I RESPECT EVER ONE CHOICE IN KINGDOM AND IN THE UNITED SATES TO TAKE FROM MY FAMILY AUWE IS INVIOLATING EVERY ONES RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY, PEOPLE SULD HAVE THE FREEDOM OF THEIER RIGHTS AND EXERCISE IT. WY GO INTO SOME THING THAT IS NOT YOURS TO BEGIN WITH YU NEED THE RIGHT PEOPLE WHO IS THE REAL BLOOD TO DO IT NOT THEONES WHO SAY THEY ARE OF THE BLOOD.

Comment by Janos (Keoni) Samu on May 16, 2009 at 9:21pm

Aloha e Donna,
Anger management? Another haole distraction! Let's try ho`oponopono instead.
Keep it in mind that fighting their rules using their techniques may prove to be inefficient. We need our pu`uwai and our mana`o`i`o. Don't let them teach you how to do things in the Hawaiian homeland, it is up to us to teach them how to do things in our ‘āina.

Me ke aloha
Janos Keoni Samu

Comment by Donna Burns on May 16, 2009 at 4:47pm

If we had a petition for EVERY issue that Hawaiians are facing
this site would be bulging with them. There are so many issues that have inherant in them...a damned if you do...damned if you don't element to them.

And, you wonder why Hawaiians are angry? You tie our hands behind our backs, tape our mouths, and say we have no right to be angry. Guess they think we should go to anger management and learn how to turn the other cheek. Sorry, we tried that already...and it didn't work. Any other ideas? Donna

-----------------------------

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Excerpt from Joan Conrowʻs Musing blog on Naue construction

Musings: Why Are You Here?

......That seems to be a fitting segue to the ongoing dispute over Joe Brescia building a house atop burials at Naue. While in Honolulu, I discussed the resumption of construction with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp director and a staff attorney who is representing some of the folks that Bescia is suing. We talked about the personal and financial toll that is often exacted upon citizens who speak up and get involved in community and cultural issues, which is especially tragic in this case, because the courts found that the State Historic Preservation Division failed to properly do its job.

Then in today’s Garden Island I see state archaeologist Nancy McMahon defending the move to build atop burials, saying it happened in pre-contact times:

“The Hawaiians did it all the time,” said McMahon, explaining that Hawaiians used to bury their family members and then build their homes over the burials. McMahon said it is common practice in today’s Hawai‘i to build over cultural and burial sites. “We do that with (cultural) deposits all time.”

“We did that in Kapa’a,” she said. “There’s a huge cultural deposit, and you drive on top of it all the time.” McMahon said the area goes all the way through Kapa’a, and has burials in it, also.

Surely McMahon recognizes the difference between a family burying its own dead under the house or in a plot nearby, as is still done in Samoa and the Cook Islands, and having an outsider erect a spec home atop ancient burials. And just because the state has allowed it to happen in modern times, does that make it right?

Even more intriguing is how McMahon and Brescia’s attorney have such different takes on why those burials are now capped:

McMahon said Brescia did not have permission from the Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Island Burial Council to cap the burials, explaining that construction workers have placed large circular cement slabs over the burials, a few feet below the surface, and then covered them with dirt.

“He wasn’t supposed to do that, they never got that approval,” McMahon said. “They did that on their own, without consulting the burial treatment plan.”

“We’ll let her lie,” Chipchase fired back, explaining that the plan under review by the SHPD says that the burials must be preserved in place. “Capping is one part of that.”

Chipchase said the only caps that were placed are within the house’s blueprint. The house will sit on stills [sic] above the ground. “Nothing actually rests on the burials themselves.”

Actually, both sides aren’t quite speaking the truth here. If you go back and read the “Living in Limbo” post I wrote following the Burial Council’s Nov. 5, 2008 rejection of the burial treatment plan and the comment left by Mike Dega, Brescia’s archaelogist, you’ll see that this whole issue of timing and approval is all a little fuzzy.

But the fact remains that the burials were capped shortly before a hearing on a motion for an injunction to stop construction. And it was precisely because of the capping that the judge three times refused to grant such a motion, saying that considerable work had already begun.

Now, with each passing day of construction, the project becomes further entrenched, and Dega and SHPD have yet to produce a new burial treatment plan for the Council to review, as the court ordered.

So when will it be ready? When the house is pau with a for sale in front?

Meanwhile, the Burial Council did its part in rejecting the BTP that would have given after-the-fact approval to capping the burials. But it didn’t go one step further and ask the Planning Commission to revoke the permit because that condition had not been met.

That wasn’t because they don’t care if Brescia builds his house on those iwi. It’s because they’re told that if they don’t follow the advice of the state Attorney General’s office, they won’t have representation if they’re sued. And the AG's office doesn't tend to offer counsel that might hamper the plans of those who are here because of one reason: money.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Excerpt from Joan Conrowʻs Musing re: Brescia, Naue construction
Musings: This Is Not Good

......Meanwhile, Joe Brescia is trying to add another vacation rental to the burgeoning North Shore mix. Construction quietly resumed on his oceanfront house yesterday as workers began installing brackets atop the concrete pilings that are atop the burials.

Work has been shut down since last fall, well before the Burial Council rejected the burial treatment plan. No new plan has yet been developed, and when I checked in with Nancy McMahon at the state Historic Preservation Division, she didn’t know when it might be ready. Nor could she tell me what Hawaiian groups had been consulted, as was ordered by the courts.

Although Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Watanabe last year would not approve an injunction stopping construction, she did advise Brescia’s attorneys that if he continued work on the project, it would be at his own risk because the Burial Council ultimately might decide to relocate the burials that were covered in cement without the Council’s approval.

Apparently now he’s willing to risk it. Maybe it’s because the construction business has fallen so badly that he can get guys to work on it for less than he would have had to pay a year ago. But if it does get completed, and that’s still an open question, I’m not sure how he’ll be able to get approval to use it as a vacation rental. He can’t grandfather in that use like so many of the other houses in the neighborhood. And surely he’s not going to live there……

On my way up there to see what was happening, I picked up a friend who was born and raised in Hanalei and is not at all political. As we turned into the neighborhood, his jaw tightened and his face took on a scowl.

“You haven’t been here in a while, have you?” I asked.

“No,” he said, “because when I see this, it just pisses me off and then all I want to do is instigate. So I just stay away.”

In this way, locals are subtly pushed out of the places they've always frequented. Because going to the beach and getting pissed off is not good.

The changes that have recently occurred there — and are still occurring, with construction under way on several lots — are dramatic. Aside from the massive houses that line the shoreline — some of them two deep — the once largely deserted beach is now occupied by sunscreen-slathered tourists with their beach umbrellas and teak lounge chairs. At the access path stood one of the guys who had formed a consortium of investors to build many of the vacation rentals along an incredibly beautiful stretch of sand that he, in his arrogance, has renamed “Banana Beach.” Sigh.

Kaiulani Huff is still camping out up there, on the beach side of Brescia’s lot, her little encampment standing in stark contrast to the luxurious houses going up on all sides.

This one, the former Billie Jean King property, is being developed by an Australian vacation home consortium. They were kind enough to install the septic system on the makai side of the house, right above the reef. This is not good. But this is what's becoming the norm on too many North Shore beaches.

Comment by Donna Burns on May 16, 2009 at 6:38am

THIS IS TEDIOUS READING, BUT IF YOU WANT TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT THE SYSTEM IS TRYING TO DO TO HAWAIIANS/KANAKA MAOLI...THEN BEST TO TRY TO READ THRU IT. What it really means is this: All our historic and sacred sites w/in the area will be even more tightly managed and controlled. Laws governing those areas would no longer be under State juristiction, but instead under Federal. That means...in effect...they will have done it "to" us like the Akaka Bill. What it means is IF we decide to visit, say Mauna Ala...and THEY (the Feds) have decided that they don't like that idea...they could come down hard on us. Remember that Mauna Ala is NEUTRAL ground...and would then come under the FEDS. Sound ok to you? Donna
----------------------------

The United States Congress is considering legislation, i.e. S.359 and H.R. 1297 to designate the Hawai'i Capital National Heritage Area for the Honolulu/Kapalama ahupua'a that encompass Nu'uanu and Kapalama Valleys and surrounding areas and coastal plain (Kaka'ako, downtown, Nuuanu and Kapalama).

Testimony may be sent to Senator Inouye.
S 359 IS


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 359
To establish the Hawai'i Capital National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 30, 2009
Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To establish the Hawai'i Capital National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Hawai'i Capital National Heritage Area Establishment Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) HERITAGE AREA- The term `Heritage Area' means the Hawai'i Capital National Heritage Area established by section 3(a).

(2) LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY- The term `local coordinating entity' means the local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area designated by section 3(d).

(3) MANAGEMENT PLAN- The term `management plan' means the management plan for the Heritage Area required under section 5.

(4) MAP- The term `map' means the map entitled `Hawai'i Capital National Heritage Area Proposed Boundary', numbered T17/90,000B, and dated January 2009.

(5) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior.

(6) STATE- The term `State' means the State of Hawai'i.

SEC. 3. HAWAI'I CAPITAL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment- There is established in the State the Hawai'i Capital National Heritage Area.

(b) Boundaries- The Heritage Area shall consist of portions of Honolulu and the Honolulu Ahupua'a, as depicted on the map.

(c) Availability of Map- The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service and the Hawai'i Capital Cultural Coalition.

(d) Local Coordinating Entity- The Hawai'i Capital Cultural Coalition shall be the local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area.

SEC. 4. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.

(a) Duties of the Local Coordinating Entity- To further the purposes of the Heritage Area, the local coordinating entity shall--

(1) prepare and submit a management plan for the Heritage Area to the Secretary in accordance with section 5;

(2) assist units of local government, regional planning organizations, and nonprofit organizations in implementing the approved management plan by--

(A) carrying out programs and projects that recognize, protect, and enhance important resource values in the Heritage Area;

(B) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and programs within the Heritage Area;

(C) developing recreational and educational opportunities in the Heritage Area;

(D) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for, natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources of the Heritage Area;

(E) protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings in the Heritage Area that are consistent with the themes of the Heritage Area;

(F) ensuring that signs identifying points of public access and sites of interest are posted throughout the Heritage Area; and

(G) promoting a wide range of partnerships among governments, organizations, and individuals to further the purposes of the Heritage Area;

(3) consider the interests of diverse units of government, businesses, organizations, and individuals in the Heritage Area in the preparation and implementation of the management plan;

(4) conduct meetings open to the public at least semiannually regarding the development and implementation of the management plan;

(5) for any fiscal year for which the local coordinating entity receives Federal funds under this Act--

(A) submit to the Secretary an annual report that describes, for the fiscal year--

(i) the accomplishments, expenses, income, amounts, and sources of matching funds;

(ii) the amounts leveraged with Federal funds and sources of the leveraged funds; and

(iii) grants made to any other entities;

(B) make available to the Secretary for audit all information relating to the expenditure of Federal funds and any matching funds for the fiscal year; and

(C) require, in all agreements authorizing the expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the organizations receiving the Federal funds make available to the Secretary for audit all records and other information relating to the expenditure of the funds; and

(6) encourage, by appropriate means, economic development that is consistent with the purposes of the Heritage Area.

(b) Authorities- The local coordinating entity may, subject to the prior approval of the Secretary, for the purposes of preparing and implementing the management plan for the Heritage Area, use Federal funds made available under this Act to--

(1) make grants to the State or a political subdivision of the State, nonprofit organizations, and other persons;

(2) enter into cooperative agreements with, or provide technical assistance to, the State or a political subdivision of the State, nonprofit organizations, Federal agencies, and other interested parties;

(3) hire and compensate staff;

(4) obtain money or services from any source, including under any other Federal law or program;

(5) contract for goods or services; and

(6) support activities of partners and any other activities that--

(A) further the purposes of the Heritage Area; and

(B) are consistent with the approved management plan.

(c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property- The local coordinating entity shall not use Federal funds made available under this Act to acquire real property or any interest in real property.

SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) In General- Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the local coordinating entity shall submit to the Secretary for approval a management plan for the Heritage Area.

(b) Requirements- The management plan shall--

(1) describe comprehensive policies, goals, strategies, and recommendations for--

(A) conveying the heritage of the region; and

(B) encouraging long-term resource protection, enhancement, interpretation, funding, management, and development of the Heritage Area;

(2) take into consideration existing State, county, and local plans in the development and implementation of the management plan;

(3) include a description of actions and commitments that governments, private organizations, and individuals have agreed to take to protect, enhance, and interpret the natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources of the Heritage Area;

(4) specify existing and potential sources of funding or economic development strategies to protect, enhance, interpret, fund, manage, and develop the Heritage Area;

(5) include an inventory of the natural, historic, cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of the Heritage Area related to the stories and themes of the region that should be protected, enhanced, managed, or developed;

(6) recommend policies and strategies for resource management, including the development of intergovernmental and interagency agreements to protect the natural, historic, cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of the Heritage Area;

(7) describe a program of implementation for the management plan, including--

(A) performance goals;

(B) plans for resource protection, enhancement, and interpretation; and

(C) specific commitments for implementation of the management plan that have been made by the local coordinating entity or any government, organization, business, or individual;

(8) include an analysis of, and recommendations for, ways in which Federal, tribal, State, and local programs may best be coordinated to carry out the purposes of this Act, including recommendations for the role of the National Park Service and other Federal agencies associated with the Heritage Area;

(9) include an interpretive plan for the Heritage Area; and

(10) include a business plan that--

(A) describes the role, operation, financing, and functions of--

(i) the local coordinating entity; and

(ii) each of the major activities contained in the management plan; and

(B) provides adequate assurances that the local coordinating entity has the partnerships and financial and other resources necessary to implement the management plan for the Heritage Area.

(c) Termination of Funding- If the management plan is not submitted to the Secretary in accordance with this Act, the local coordinating entity shall be ineligible to receive additional funding under this Act until the date on which the Secretary approves the management plan.

(d) Approval of Management Plan-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of receipt of the management plan under subsection (a), the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of the State and any applicable tribal government, shall approve or disapprove the management plan.

(2) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL- In determining whether to approve the management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether--

(A) the local coordinating entity represents the diverse interests of the Heritage Area, including governments, natural and historical resource protection organizations, educational institutions, businesses, community residents, and recreational organizations;

(B) the local coordinating entity has afforded adequate opportunity for public and governmental involvement, including workshops and public meetings, in the preparation of the management plan;

(C) the resource protection and interpretation strategies contained in the management plan, if implemented, would adequately protect the natural, historic, and cultural resources of the Heritage Area;

(D) the management plan would not adversely affect any activities authorized on Federal or tribal land under applicable laws or land use plans;

(E) the Secretary has received adequate assurances from the appropriate State, tribal, and local officials, the support of which is necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the State, tribal, and local aspects of the management plan; and

(F) the local coordinating entity has demonstrated the financial capability, in partnership with others, to carry out the plan.

(3) ACTION FOLLOWING DISAPPROVAL- If the Secretary disapproves the management plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary--

(A) shall advise the local coordinating entity in writing of the reasons for the disapproval;

(B) may make recommendations to the local coordinating entity for revisions to the management plan; and

(C) not later than 180 days after the receipt of any proposed revision of the management plan from the local coordinating entity, shall approve or disapprove the proposed revised management plan.

(4) AMENDMENTS- The Secretary shall approve or disapprove each amendment to the management plan that the Secretary determines would make a substantial change to the management plan in accordance with this subsection.

(5) USE OF FUNDS- The local coordinating entity shall not use Federal funds authorized by this Act to carry out any amendments to the management plan until the Secretary has approved the amendments.

SEC. 6. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.

(a) Technical and Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- On the request of the local coordinating entity, the Secretary may provide to the local coordinating entity technical and financial assistance on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, as determined by the Secretary, to develop and implement the management plan.

(2) PRIORITY ACTIONS- In providing assistance under this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to actions that assist in--

(A) conserving the significant natural, historic, cultural, and scenic resources of the Heritage Area; and

(B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage Area.

(3) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS- The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with the local coordinating entity and other public or private entities for the purposes of carrying out this subsection.

(b) Evaluation-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 3 years before the date on which authority for Federal funding terminates for the Heritage Area under section 10, the Secretary shall--

(A) conduct an evaluation of the accomplishments of the Heritage Area; and

(B) prepare a report with recommendations for the future role of the National Park Service, if any, with respect to the Heritage Area.

(2) EVALUATION COMPONENTS- An evaluation conducted under paragraph (1)(A) shall--

(A) assess the progress of the local coordinating entity with respect to--

(i) accomplishing the purposes of this Act for the Heritage Area; and

(ii) achieving the goals and objectives of the approved management plan for the Heritage Area;

(B) analyze the Federal, State, local, and private investments in the Heritage Area to determine the leverage and impact of the investments; and

(C) review the management structure, partnership relationships, and funding of the Heritage Area for purposes of identifying the critical components for sustainability of the Heritage Area.

(3) REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Based on the evaluation conducted under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall prepare a report with recommendations for the future role of the National Park Service, if any, with respect to the Heritage Area.

(B) REQUIRED ANALYSIS- If the report prepared under subparagraph (A) recommends that Federal funding for the Heritage Area be reauthorized, the report shall include an analysis of--

(i) ways in which Federal funding for the Heritage Area may be reduced or eliminated; and

(ii) the appropriate time period necessary to achieve the recommended reduction or elimination.

(C) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS- On completion of the report, the Secretary shall submit the report to--

(i) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate; and

(ii) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

(a) In General- Nothing in this Act affects the authority of a Federal agency to provide technical or financial assistance under any other law.

(b) Consultation and Coordination- To the maximum extent practicable, the head of any Federal agency planning to conduct activities that may have an impact on the Heritage Area is encouraged to consult and coordinate the activities with the Secretary and the local coordinating entity.

(c) Other Federal Agencies- Nothing in this Act--

(1) modifies, alters, or amends any laws (including regulations) authorizing a Federal agency to manage Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Federal agency;

(2) limits the discretion of a Federal land manager to implement an approved land use plan within the boundaries of the Heritage Area; or

(3) modifies, alters, or amends any authorized use of Federal land under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency.

SEC. 8. PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGULATORY PROTECTIONS.

Nothing in this Act--

(1) abridges the rights of any owner of public or private property, including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the Heritage Area;

(2) requires any property owner to permit public access (including access by any Federal, tribal, State, or local agency) to the property;

(3) modifies any provisions of Federal, tribal, State, or local law with regard to public access to, or use of, private land;

(4) alters any land use regulation, approved land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any Federal, tribal, State, or local agency;

(5) conveys any land use or other regulatory authority to the local coordinating entity;

(6) authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation of water or water rights;

(7) diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting within the Heritage Area; or

(8) creates any liability, or affects any liability under any other law, of any private property owner with respect to any person injured on the private property.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than $1,000,000 may be made available for any fiscal year.

(b) Cost-Sharing Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Federal share of the cost of any activity provided assistance or a grant under this Act shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the activity.

(2) FORM OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The non-Federal share--

(A) shall be from non-Federal sources; and

(B) may be in the form of in-kind contributions of goods and services fairly valued.

SEC. 10. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority of the Secretary to provide financial assistance under this Act terminates on the date that is 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

END------------------------

Comment by Donna Burns on May 14, 2009 at 5:55pm

Just sharing some mana'o from a National Hero. Jon Osorio is one of several plaintiffs in the Ceded Lands case that just went to the US Supreme Court. I was able to interview him at the march in Waikiki, but also have attatched an interview by 'Ehu Cardwell of Voices of Truth with Free Hawaii. Must sees.

ke aloha,
Donna
-------------------------------

Jon Osorio/Ku I ka Pono march

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_Ls66xX7Ew

-------------------------------

Voices of Truth/ Jon Osorio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhxDMwaKnx0

Comment by Kawehi Kanui on May 13, 2009 at 12:28pm

Donna,

Two things, l.) are you busy tonight? There is a meeting with the military tonight and I am giving testimony as the Po'o to close down this plan by the military, behind Jack in the box at national guard bldg. 2.) Who are the Hui Kai'ula? It is described this way, "a circle of 'Oiwi and non-kanaka joining to uphold the fire, the sacredness, the sovereignty of Hawai'i." are some of these people non-kanaka who can trace their descendant lived in Hawai'i during the Kingdom? Are they non-profit/profit and what are their mission, vision, goals and objectives?

As I said, in the petition concept I have for the councils and 'ohana is the native tenants and nationals calling for the occupation to end with the return of our Crown and Government lands according to international law who says that the occupation in Hawai'i will end one day.

Kawehi.
Who exactly are they? Can they be identified or not? or explain what their occupation is or what they do to contribute to this movement of independence with us?

Kawehi.

Comment by Laweleka on May 11, 2009 at 12:20pm

Aloha I came in here because of the email sent me this morning as well as my being against the Akaka Bill of course. I tried to comment but found I was unable to unless I became member of this e group. I would like to state exactly how I feel or what my manʻo is.

Clearly I do not support the Akaka Bill and thats a known fact however neither do I feel doing a petition is doing the right thing. It is my understanding that when we do service to the U.S. including the STATE by means of petitions, etc. what we are specifically doing is showing them or in fact conceding to the fact that they indeed have the authority to do whatever it is we rather them not do.

While most of us are only now realizing this is not a STATE but a Kingdom it is of utmost importance too that we show by example that as a Kingdom we owe no duty to the STATE or the U.S. by means of not giving them the "Ha" they need to push their Kaka Bill through. Doing a petition exudes giving them authorities and I refuse to give them any further means of life while within the boundaries of this Kingdom that they so need.

The U.S., are bound by the treaties entered into with the Kingdom all of which they have yet to honor. How can anyone even think of expecting they would want to consider honoring a petition ? Hey, its my manʻo thats all and I sure do hope people will take into account that our concerns regarding the Akaka Bill has already been addressed with a clear message to the U.S. by Keanu.

As Kawehi says, education is key..... To me its the key that unlocks the door. What was once locked or seemed locked could be open if only people paid attention. This is not a game and we are not playing cards here. If we truly believe this is a Kingdom then perhaps we need to look a little more seriously on how the U.S. interprets our looking to them to please stop doing this to us. What message do we want to give them and are we doing absolutely all that we can do or are we making excuses to not do what is obviously the next step which would be "non-compliance"? Hey but its just me and Iʻm just sharing here what is most obvious to me that I keep hoping others would see.

A hui hou,
Lawe

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page