We previously mentioned that there would be A hearing on Wednesday, February 4 with the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs for the "ceded" lands bill. There is one hearing for the state House and another hearing for the state Senate.
Information sent to us from Representative Mele Carroll's office yesterday indicates that the hearing will be at 9 am, on Wednesday February 4, in Conference Room 329 at the Capitol. The House Bill related to the "ceded" lands moratorium is HB 1667. Click here to read House Bill 1667.
HB 1667 seems to be the second item on the committee's agenda. After this bill passes the House Hawaiian Affairs Committee, it will then go to the House Water, Land and Ocean Resources Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and then to Finance.
Another House Bill also introduced by Mele Carroll is HB 1805, which has been described as "prohibiting the disposition in fee simple of ceded lands." It has been referred to the same committees as HB 1667.
If you click here, you can watch the January 28, 2009, legislative Hawaiian Caucus press conference. At that press conference, Senator Clayton Hee mentioned that he and four of the Native Hawaiian senators in the caucus proposed a full-moratorium bill. This Senate Bill (SB 1085) will also be discussed in a Senate Committee hearing (the Senate Committee on Water, Land, Agriculture, and Hawaiian Affairs)The Senate Committee Hearing is also scheduled for Wednesday at 2:45 PM in Conference Room 229. This Bill will then go to the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee.
Supporters of these bills can (AND SHOULD) submit testimony online by CLICKING HERE.
Posts
The unfortunate truth about the sovereignty and ceded lands movements is that they are racist movements. The majority of the Native Hawaiians who support these causes refuse to acknowledge the fact that in 1893 the citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii were not entirely of the "Hawaiian" race and that these non-Hawaiian citizens lost their kingdom; lost their land, as well. There were many Orientals and Caucasians who gave up citizenship in their former countries and swore their allegiance to the monarchy and the Kingdom of Hawaii. Go look at the long list of naturalized non-native citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii posted at the Hawaiian Kingdom government's site. (http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/index.shtml) What about the descendents of these folks? Why shouldn't all the descendents of the citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii be entitled to the sought after benefits?
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental defect in the righteousness and validity of the Hawaiian Sovereignty cause is that it takes what is in fact a political issue and turns it into a racial one. Until that flaw is rectified, the cause is doomed to failure not only in achieving its goals but in being legitimate and credible.
Clayton Hee is completely disingenuous (and he knows it) when he said, "The administration's claims that the state's bond rating is affected by the Apology Resolution's call for a settlement are untrue."
ReplyDeleteA moratorium WOULD directly impact the State's bond rating and here's how: The moratorium would be (ultimately) sited by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the ensuing and inevitable litigation as a basis to have all rents earned from the "ceded lands" paid entirely to OHA for Native Hawaiian programs. Right now it is only 20 percent to OHA, the rest being used according to law, for all residents of these islands without regard to race. Without these revenues going into the State's general fund, the State's income would be drastically reduced thereby effecting the its bond rating which is based entirely on the State's financial health and prospects. Prove me wrong Clayton and I’ll buy you lunch!
The ceded lands movement? Tell us exactly what the so-called "ceded" lands movement is. The movement is hardly racist. If it is racist, who is it specifically racist against? If it is racist, why is there support for a ceded lands moratorium from people of different ethnicities.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, the ceded lands issue is completely independent of the sovereignty movement, even though you attempt to lump them together. They're completely different. We're very familiar with the long list of Hawaiian Kingdom nationals who were naturalized citizens, many of us have identified ancestors who were naturalized citizens. Despite what you may think, the "ceded" lands issue and our approach to it is completely independent of the sovereignty movement.
Regarding the bond rating, if you listen to Mark Bennett's 1/7/09 comments on this video http://www.viddler.com/explore/kupuaina/videos/6/ . He says that the case has had an effect, however, a News Release from the Gov's Office says otherwise. Check it out here http://tinyurl.com/ac2uew Instead of you buying Clayton a lunch, how about you just buy me a lunch. You know what? Save your money, and how about you just stop posting here?
http://tinyurl.com/ac2uew will take you to a News Release from the Governor's office. In that news release it reads, "The three top bond rating firms have reaffirmed Hawai'i's bond ratings, which are at their highest level in State history."
ReplyDeleteMark Bennett, on January 7, 2009 said that the Hawai'i Supreme Court's ruling has affected the State's financial status and that the state has had to place information regarding the ruling on its bonds. You can watch video footage of Bennett's comments at http://tinyurl.com/cxzyv6
I’m surprised at your very poor arguments, KC. The ceded lands is has EVERYTHING to do with the sovereignty movement as you well know but are so desperate to renounce. If there is no N.H. Sovereignty, then there is no ceded lands issue. If the Leiali`i and Laiopua housing projects had been solely for Native Hawaiians your voice would be silent. I think that’s fairly elementary.
ReplyDeleteAll you site about the bond ratings item are stories you’re parroting from the news as opposed to any rational argument of your own. The concepts of government finance are obviously over your head. The bond ratings would only be affected if the ceded lands are encumbered as the HSC has attempted to do. It's also obvious that Moody's, et al. don't think you have a ghost of a chance of winning your arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.
As for not posting here anymore…I may or may not. I’m usually pretty bored when I end up here as it appears you have little or no readers. It’s interesting how you can create a blog, invite comments, and then cannot handle any opposing opinions. A little sensitive, huh? Maybe it’s that as Jack Nicholson said, “You can’t handle the truth!”
Perhaps you should take a look at our analytics Genius. We actually have a lot of visitors to this page, unless you're so bored with your life that you visit us here more than 100 times a day.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should listen to the video. Mark Bennett says the case has already had an effect on bonds. Past tense buddy. Yet, his Chief Executive has been saying otherwise.
Go ahead and keep on posting here. People who are "in the know" are laughing at you. FYI, We've consulted with bond experts that have worked with the state previously. Perhaps it is you who knows little about government finance and what language has been written on state government bonds for more than a decade already.
I only "site" stories from the news? Hello, what I cited was comments directly from Mark Bennett and Governor Lingle's office. When you put the two together, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the two don't jive.
Who cares what Moody's thinks? Moody's is not in the business of court room consultation. If you don't know this, again, perhaps it is you who knows little about "the concepts of government finance" and apparently, it's "obviously over your head."
That you think we can't handle any opposing opinions is way off base. If we couldn't "handle" your opinion, we would've simply deleted your comments. Instead, we countered your opinion and provided specific sources of conflicting statements made by the Lingle Administration.
ReplyDeleteYour assessment of how a moratorium "WOULD" affect the state's bond rating is also WAY off. If that were true, how you do you explain that the moratorium that's been in place since 1994 has not had an effect on the state's bond rating? How do you also explain that the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians, that, for years, has been and continues to be disclosed on state bond offerings for decades has not affected bond ratings?
Manawai, what's happening now is that you have not come anywhere close to refuting our responses. We refuted yours and we used the statements of the Attorney General (actually video footage) and a written statement from the Office of the Governor. What have you brought to this discussion?
Sorry about your lack of original or deep thought Mr. or Ms. Mouthpiece. I've said my piece and you've failed to disprove it. BTW - Who gives a damn that Bennett and Lingle don't agree on something. Go ahead that keep deluding yourselve all the way to the loosers' circle. Oops! You're already there!
ReplyDelete