KU'E 11-24-08 #8 Andre Perez.m4v

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 omg, that made me laugh. Are you serious? Donkey's eyes lit up when he talks about money? LMAO That's toooo funny! But scary too.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 yes, this is why they file lawsuits b/c as I said, power has shifted AWAY from na Haole...and that doesn't sit well with them. This is when they say that this is part of the US, everyone has equal right, but EQUAL means HAOLE has dibs into everything. Never mind all the Asians & Micronesians, etc.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 so desperate he LIED about the Holau. So desperate he tried to fib his way through by writing Native Hawaiian but ridicule kanaka maoli by quantifying us, but he uses Native Hawaiian? Get real. The only problem these people have with me is that I see right through their game. I've spend how many decades working among Haoles in the Haole world? Of course I know how they play.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 But the fact is, I've been at this so much longer than they have. Simply put, they have no grounds & they regurgitate the same nonesense, this is why you see Alex copying & pasting about being Native Hawaiian, chiefly ancestry, Kalakaua, Liliuokalani, Kawananakoa-pretenders, etc.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 This is why these haoles cry out racism. POWER is shifted AWAY from them. That POWER comes in the guise of the so called ceded lands, which they feel they're entitled to. But they DO have issues w/ Micronesians or any other Asians having control of it & would like it for themselves, which they claim "equality for all." But it's NOT for all. This happened in 1887, it STILL continues today. This is why they have to use every other angle thinking it would confuse people.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 that's the HAOLE mentality! And Americans are obsessed w/ this. THey measure success by how much fortune you have, can gain or have access to. If you don't have it, the next best thing to them is to align yourself w/ those that do. That is the ego.

[MolokaiAlika]

@Hawnguy100 aue, the only real racists are the mongrols who are pretender kanaka maoli, unless you are 50 percent or more.... as myself, you are trying to hijack the poor, lovely true kanaka maoli culture.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika I have to agree, the pretender kanaka maolis like YOURSELF. And then you throw the HAOLE concept by quantifying us, that's not what a Kanaka is. And you talk of this lovely true kanaka maoli culture as if it isn't your own, b/c we know IT ISN'T YOURS! Now look at who's the pretender Alex.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika You say to Hawnguy that they're a contender to the Throne PROVIDED they have more than 50% kanaka blood which was never a requirement according to the Constitution which you REFUSE to address. Let's not forget the bill that Kalakaua passed by getting the most skilled genealogist to list all the current descendants who would be considered "alii", not 50% Kanaka Maoli as a qualification you idiot. Not once have you defended you being kanaka b/c i know you're not!

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika and you mention contender yet what was Hawnguy doing? The same exact shit you were doing by actually PROVING to you that (unlike yourself) MANY of us are descendants of alii. But that doesn't make YOU a contender nor better than anyone else. Instead you're like the rest of us. Instead you lied saying you have native hawaiian ancestry & going back to the Holau line. wtf is that? You don't hear me bragging about my chiefly lines for a good reason. Why?

[MolokaiAlika]

@Hawnguy100 I can respect this post.  I would, given your lineage support you as a contender for the throne if you are at least one half kanaka maoli.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika Now you're really getting stupid Alex. There is no CONTENDER. Second, you're quantifying in order to MINIMIZE us. You want to give all this support for Emma but you don't quantify her. So what's your deal really? You have issues b/c you look at other "half breeds" differently b/c in your mind, they're different, yet you pretend to be one. Give me a fucking break.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 what's up w/ the quoting of the Queen's diary as if to say that she was content w/ what happened therefore it makes it LEGAL? These people are chicken shit b/c they're doing a Conklin where they pull anything they can to discredit the Queen or Kalakaua in order to avoid the REAL issue of how there was no Treaty of Annexation, Blount's investigation & how the Republic was NOT valid/legal nor the proper changes taken in order to pass sovereignty on.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 I mentioned the RODRIGUES line...now he's not replying, not even on YT.  lol

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 his reasoning for the Crown Lands as being beneficial for current residents of the islands today is his way and the Conklinite way of saying we have no rights. But these people who follow Conklin cannot argue the facts of the 1887C, the article changes made in it, how Kalakaua was forced to sign the 1887C but the King HAD NO POWER TO RATIFY it! They're avoiding that part.

[MolokaiAlika]

@Hawnguy100 you are mistaken, your peole were all the citizens of the kingdom and after the revolution and abdication of Liliuokalani, the citizens of Hawaii who were multiculturala, including Hawaiian petitioned for annexation. Even in Liliuokalani's diary entry of 1900 reflects the advantage of annexation. Other Native Hawaiian also viewed the move of annexation was in the best interest of native hawaiians and all Hawaii citizens as the monarchy was failing after Kalakaua's excess / drinking

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika I knew it! A conklinite! You mentioned the signed abdication under DURESS of Lydia Dominis, not LILIUOKALANI, not QUEEN LILIUOKALANI, not to mention per the 1864 & 1887C article 42, last sentence says: No act of the King shall have any effect UNLESS it be countersigned by a minister.... That wasn't signed by a Minister. And when she was put on trial, Art. 40 says how the king can't be sued or held to acct in any court or tribunal of the realm. Art 39 for 1887C.

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina if you review the queens letter of abdication of 1895, you will see the signatures penned by her ministers, et cetera.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika Alex....if you READ the actual letter you will see that she signed it LYDIA DOMINIS! I have copies of the actual letter.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika my mistake, Liliuokalani DOMINIS. That's not how she signed all the bills, etc. And you still aren't answering my earlier response of how you claim this ROH as "legit" or making it appear to be so b/c the queen's so called abdication yet why didn't the US sign a treaty of annexation w/ the ROH? They didn't. That's b/c that was contested & that is written in both the SF & NY Times paper. Go read them. It was contested for obvious reasons, aside fr the US just being racists.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika So if ANYONE needs to get their facts straight, it's not me b/c you're avoiding all the articles & statements I've made. I understand you dislike Kalakaua & your passion for Emma is strong.  That's irrelevant & you have enough common sense for a 46yr. old man to know that. The 1887C was a means for the greedy Haoles to control the govt b/c that's the only way for them to profit. They disenfranchised not just kanaka oiwi but Chinese & Japanese for a good reason. RACISM!

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika See, you've proven again to us as I suspected early on (I have a knack for liars like yourself) by writing YOUR PEOPLE to Hawnguy. Then you talk of this citizen of HI were multicultural as if it wasn't before. Then you continue to use Native Hawaiian, the HAOLE/US Concept of quantifying kanaka maoli when HAWAIIAN has always been a nationality, so stop twisting it a la Conklin!

[MolokaiAlika]

@Hawnguy100 it was not race based, and this was settled by the monarchy, maybe to the Native Hawaiian's demise. Who do you mean by my people? Natives? Well, then you would be mistaken. The Kingdom was multiracial and all were equal subjects. There are not provisions to distinguish between natives and other citizens in the kingdom. Again, another agregious mistake by the monarchy. Na Haole and Kanaka Maoli were EQUAL in regards to citizenship and beneficiary of the crown lands post-mahele.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika They were not equal as evident in 1887. Again, stop avoiding that. The changes in the constitution DISENFRANCHISED not just na oiwi but also the Chinese & Japanese. Luckily my great-great-grandfather spoke Hawaiian and English, so he was still allowed to vote. But the increase number of Nobles & now VOTED, not to mention you had to be a rich Haole to be a noble is evident of this racism. It was about power. The aha alii gave way to the House of Nobles, you should know that.

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina of course racism was common place in the late 20th century... even the theory of evolution is founded on the position of the mainstream of that time. No debate there, but the Kalakaua dynasty was in bed with them.... and even some of the Kamehamehas dedicated native lands to the missionaries and other preeminent haoles. Bottom line, Na Ali'i failed, due to greed and an illusion of power.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika So now you're dogging ALL alii for failing, however you define this as "fail." You're the typical Haole that hides behind history, making all assumptions about how things would've turned out differently if... But the fact is, we would never know. You're such a chicken, pretending to be a "Native Hawaiian" claiming to be of Molokai when you're not even there!

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika No, the citizens were NOT equal subject.  I already cited the articles of the 1887 the PROVES that alex.

[mamoahina]

@Hawnguy100 the Ken Conklin term again? Revisionist? In other words, haoles don't like it when we cite facts so they call us REVISIONARIES/REVISIONISTS. So NOW history isn't the way they wanted it to suite THEIR greedy needs but rather shows how corrupt these greedy mostly American businessmen were.

[MolokaiAlika]

The Ceded lands to the US Government was established about 1898. The Ceded lands were returned to the state of Hawaii upon statehood in 1959. King Kamehameha III designated the crown lands to benefit ALL Hawaii citizens, including ALL races. Sorry, but the benefit of the trust is for all Hawaii residents. I am a Native Hawaiian, but we must not be revisionists, and accept the facts for what it is, maybe the moi made mistakes in decisions, but it is what it is.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika Actually there was no treaty of Annexation, so the lands weren't ceded. In fact, in TWO instances the Dept. of Justices in their jrnl, one of them dated 1989, stated how they didn't understand by what powers Congress had incorporating the HK territory into their (US) own. Kamehameha III DID not designate the crown lands to benefit the citizens, the Crown lands were reserved for the CROWN. Another portion was for the chiefs while the other for makaainana. Get the facts straight!

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina you are mistaken. keep the facts straight. AND stop being biased, and possibly recist. I am Native Hawaiian and a descendent of the Holau line, but the facts are the facts. Need to discontinue the splitting and shared delusion about the events surrounding annexation. Don't hide your head in the sand. The Kalakaua dynasty was a tragedy. Stop ignoring the "white elepant" in the living room, literally and figuratively. It is what it is, even in Hawaiian lore, it is what it is!

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika how am I being racists? YOu do understand what that is right? Power + prejudice. Holau line as in Rives? Why the need to use NATIVE Hawn. when we've been using the original term? I smell something odd about you malihini. KNow protocol, aia ka olelonoeau, ina paa ka waha, hai kupuna nana oe. Your dislike for Kalakaua and his sister STILL doesn't justify the 1887 imposition & you're avoiding all of that conversation entirely trying to confound others.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika From this past Thurs. till Monday, I hung out w/ cuzzin Ike. His father is Larry J., son of Rose R., daughter of John R., son of Harriet T., daughter of Luukia HOLAU! And how do you descend from her?

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina the crown lands were not to be owned by any individual. Even Liliuokalani's attempt to assume the crown lands after her "abdication" was unsuccessful. The crown lands after the mahele was for the benefit of ALL Hawaii citizens not just native hawaiians. Thus, everyone in the State of Hawaii are beneficiaries. Other trusts were established in trust from individual estates, e.g. Bishop estate, and Liliokalani's estate to genefit children. Stop the illusion and deification.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika Correct! I didn't say the crown lands were owned by ANYONE, I wrote "govt". Did you not read? But you're saying that it was the benefit of ALL but it wasn't, it was for the govt. What do you think MAHELE means? It was divided into threes. There is also an Engl. translation of the mahele, not just Hawn. No, not EVERYONE in the fake state are beneficiaries. First of all, the Crown land isn't for EVERYONE, it's for the crown/govt.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika You're basing your entire premise that 1) the annexation was legal, 2) 1887C was the legal constitution & 3) the state of Hawaii is valid. I already mentioned the DOJ admittance in 2 instances of the faux pas, plus there was Blount's investigation, Cleveland's address to Congress, Clinton's administration acknowledgement, what more do you want? I'm a beneficiary of the Queen's trust but that has NOTHING to do w/ the crown lands, stop trying to confuse everyone.

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina oh, now you are not going to cite the Blount report and the political dance by Clinton, with an apology act replete with historical errors, lol

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika You think that by citing only bits & pieces of REAL truths here while trying to show your distaste for Kalakaua & his regime will make everyone think that ur more credible & that you have your facts straight. Yet you're avoiding the main issues, the diff. article changes occurring in the 1887C that disenfranchised MANY benefitting WHITE FOREIGNERS. Don't play that "stop being racist" card w/ me b/c you know very well that's EXACTLY what they were doing, by controlling the govt.

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina treaty was not necessary as the Rebublic of Hawaii was in effect for five years prior to petition of annexation; post-Liliuokalani's abdication and her ceding to the Republic of Hawaii post-revolution; and overthrough of an inefficient monarchy. As for the Chiefs' School; Queen Emma would have been a petter choice over Kalakaua. Pauahi and Emma seen the writing on the wall. To Emma Kalakaua's dynasty was a "bad" oman... The two of them debated issus frequently.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika Of course a treaty is necessary. THere are only 2 ways of acquiring new territory. By conquest or treaty. The ROH was NOT the legal govt. Look at what Congress did prior to that? The Treaty of Annexation failed not once Alex, but TWICE! The ROH changed their name to that b/c they wanted to seem legit even though the Blount investigation proved otherwise. I don't care if you prefer Emma, it still doesn't validate the no treaty, 1887c imposition, etc.

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina that is a matter of opinion rather the Republic of Hawaii was legal, the Morgan report lays it out objectively... it was found that the Blount report was biased and he was unusually biased toward the queen as one of her friends.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika You ARE a haole! Dont' tell others here that you are descendants of a chief and mentioned HOLAU when there was no such CHIEF! And the Morgan report isn't about an opinion. Everything else proves it, the Blount Investigation, what Cleveland addressed to Congress & now DOJ questioning what happened in 1898.

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina other states have been annexed by joint resolutions such as the Republic of Texas.

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika No, TX was NOT by a jt. resolution and TX is a diff. serious issue as well, but not like the HK. Just b/c someone killed a member of my family doesnt' mean I should kill a member of yours as well. Don't justify one wrong doing as a means to continue with more. That doesn't make that ok & you're old enough to know that. Shame on you. I'm surprised that w/ your mentality that other Molokaians contend with you, unless you're hiding that from them.

[MolokaiAlika]

@mamoahina you and others need to come to terms with the facts, the Kingdom is no more.... the REVOLUTION was a success and the Republic of Hawaii was established, and legally according to the Morgan report. Encouraging Hawaiians to stand in the "victim stance" is toxic. Drinking the poison, waiting for the so called enemy to die, only kills the kanaka maoli -- while in their victimization stance... they die, mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically. It is what it is...

[mamoahina]

@MolokaiAlika Now you sound like a hyopcrite, telling me how we need to come to term w/ the facts that the kingdom is no more, yet all these vids are rooted in those events & yet YOU end up writing about Kalakaua & Kawananakoa. If the kingdom is no more, why the bitter feelings against both? The ROH was NOT legal & the Morgon report was to exhonorate the perpetrators, it wasn't an order by the President.

[dombradyevamaria]

consciousness is a most important!

[ponekokid]

Right On