(c) Copyright 2014
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2014
July 1, 2014: Crowds of Native Hawaiian supporters decry federal recognition at Department of Interior public meeting in Waimea, island of Kaua'i
July 2: (1) Viet Nam war hero Jerry Coffee says again as he has said many times: "Native Hawaiians Are Not A Tribe." and making them a tribe would ensure the death of aloha; (2) and (3) News reports about the Department of Interior hearings on Kaua'i -- new faces but same old story, nearly all oppose the DOI concept.
July 3: (1) Kauaians voice strong opposition to federal recognition; (2) Hawaii isle echoes anger against feds; (3) Meeting on Native Hawaiian recognition draws hundreds of testifiers in Keaukaha. "In the heart of Keaukaha, one of the most Hawaiian communities on one of the most Hawaiian of the islands, speakers were polite but firm: They will create their own government, thank you very much."
July 4: 2 news reports: Testifiers sound off on sovereignty at Waimea, Kona meetings
July 6: At Department of Interior hearing in Hana about creating a Hawaiian tribe: Singing lightens another fiery hearing
July 8: West Maui residents out in force against federal recognition
July 9: (1) and (2) At Kahului Maui residents once again "echoed the staunch opposition heard around the islands against possible federal recognition."; (3) Ian Lind, retired newspaper reporter and widely-read blogger, says the series of 15 hearings have set up a political train wreck. Independence activists, with religious zealotry refusing to acknowledge facts, are telling U.S. officials to get out. That might stop efforts to create something like an Indian tribe, which could be the only way to protect racial entitlement programs; (4) Online comment on Lind's article by Ken Conklin
July 11: Honolulu Star-Advertiser editorial notes that testimony in 15 public hearings by Department of Interior was overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed rule-making process to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition. Editorial says all options should be explored; ethnic Hawaiians need more education on their legal options; and there should be an election for ethnic Hawaiians (only!) to make a choice before the feds do anything [but of course that's exactly the process OHA and the Kana'iolowalu registry are currently pursuing].
July 12: Weekly Saturday newspaper column in Hawaiian language; Synopsis: The testimonies shared at the Native Hawaiian Recognition meetings truly proved that the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Kana'iolowalu, is not working for what the people want.
July 13: Lengthy news report says "Consensus would end U.S. effort; Feedback remains firmly against a federal process, but a growing number of advocates are emerging"
July 15: (1) Letter to editor warns that failure to get federal recognition for Hawaiian tribe could spell doom for racial entitlement programs; (2) Online poll by Honolulu Star-Advertiser: "Should the U.S. Department of Interior keep open the process for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians?" 67% said NO.
July 19: Letter to editor on Kaua'i says the Reinstated Hawaiian Government is already in charge so no interference is needed from the U.S. Department of Interior, and when the Hawaiian flag goes up, non-ethnic-Hawaiians will have 6 months to either sell their property or have it confiscated.
July 20: (1) Lengthy commentary by newspaper's paid commentator Richard Borreca says the main issue in the Department of Interior hearings is how can the U.S. help Native hawaiians get back control of the ceded lands which the U.S. seized from them as part of the annexation of 1898, followed by online comment by Ken Conklin telling the history of the ceded lands and describing as a scurrilous lie Borreca's assertion that the U.S. seized the ceded lands;
Three lengthy guest commentaries in the Honolulu newspaper: (2) Law professor Williamson Chang international law says Hawaii continues to be an independent nation, so U.S. should stay out and Hawaiian values should prevail; (3) A group of independence activists echoes Chang; (4) OHA chair Colette Machado says federal recognition is necessary to protect racial entitlement programs, and the issue of international law can be dealt with later.
July 22: Letter to editor: Consensus among Hawaiians unlikely; Two keys to the reinstatement of the Nation of Hawaii: the repeal of the 1898 Joint Resolution of Annexation and the involvement of the United Nations.
July 23: Letter to editor: In 1998, [Judge] King [an ethnic Hawaiian] wrote in The Honolulu Advertiser that the apology resolution was "essentially a cynical action by an uninterested Congress, equivalent to apologizing to George III for the American Revolution." King added: "The mischief caused by this ill-considered resolution, based in large part on the flawed Blount Report, will plague us for many more years."
July 25: OHA announces it is stretching out its schedule for nation-building by 6 months to allow more time to educate the public. There is some talk that the Kana'iolowalu racial registry might be reopened for additional signups.
July 26: Honolulu Star-Advertiser mini-editorial says the 6-month stretch-out of OHA's timetable for nation-building is a good thing, and perhaps should be extended to 2 years to allow plenty of time for educating the public.
July 27: Department of Interior held a public hearing in LAS VEGAS regarding its proposal to change the rules in order to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition.
July 28: The OHA monthly newspaper for August was published on the OHA website on July 28, and contains five articles relevant to the Kana'iolowalu nation-building project and the U.S. Department of Interior hearings. (1) CEO Kaman'opono Crabbe "The Art of Konane and the Mastery of Diplomacy"; (2) "A note of mahalo from the DOI" by Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior; (3) "OHA submits comments in support of proposed federal rulemaking" by Garett Kamemoto; (4) "OHA trustees extend nation-building timetable" by Harold Nedd; (5) Reprint of Colette Machado's Star-Advertiser commentary from July 20: "Federal Recognition would Pave a Nation-to-Nation Path."
August 1, 2014: (1) Four U.S. Senators sent a letter to Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Department of Interior, protesting the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking where by DOI intends to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition. See letter on official stationery with signatures. (2) Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly sent a letter to Indian tribes throughout America asking them to sign a resolution supporting the DOI rule-making process to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition. Text of letter and resolution are provided.
Aug 6: Public forums on two college campuses in California include presentations by OHA, Department of Interior, and Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs favoring DOI rulemaking to create Hawaiian tribe, and by Keanu Sai, independence activist, opposing it.
Aug 12: Department of Interior has proposed changes in the entire nationwide system of rules for recognizing tribes, to make it easier for Indian groups to get federal recognition and to get casinos.
Aug 13: Secretary of State John Kerry visits Honolulu East-West Center for speech about U.S. relations with Asian nations. Outside the event, about 80 to 100 protestors were waiting for Kerry's arrival to share their views on several issues including U.S. support of Israel and federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.
Aug 16: In honor of this year's celebration of Statehood Day, Ken Conklin submits 100-page opposition to Department of Interior proposal to do administrative rule change to create Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition; 14 main points are summarized.
Aug 19: This was the final day to submit testimony regarding the Department of Interior Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition by an administrative procedure without Congressional action.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-20/pdf/2014-14430.pdf
About 2200 written comments were submitted. A large majority were opposed to the Department of Interior proposal. The following seven testimonies are especially valuable in opposition because they explicitly rely upon the fundamental principles of racial equality and the unity of all Hawaii's people under the undivided sovereignty of the State of Hawaii:
(1) Kenneth R. Conklin of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOI-2014-0002-0887
and
http://big09.angelfire.com/ConklinTestmnyDOI081514RulesChangeHawnTribe.pdf
(2) Keli'i Akina, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeGRIHKeliiAkina.pdf
(3) Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM136.pdf
and
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeHeritageVonSpakovsky.pdf
(4) Paul M. Sullivan
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposePaulSullivan.pdf
(5) H.W. Burgess
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeHWBurgess.pdf
(6) Sandra Puanani Burgess
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeSandraPuananiBurgess.pdf
(7) Jack Miller
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeJackMiller.pdf
Aug 21: A group of Native Hawaiian organizations led by the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement has submitted written testimony that supports having the U.S. Department of the Interior propose rules to facilitate a government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and Native Hawaiians. Imua Hawaii, which includes the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Home Lands Assembly and CNHA, submitted testimony with more than 2,000 "statements of support" on Tuesday, the final day the Interior Department allowed for comments, a CNHA statement said.
Aug 22 and 23: Grassroot Institute of Hawaii sponsored a forum for all four gunernatorial candidates. They all accepted weeks beforehand. But the Democrat candidate, David Ige, backed out the day before the forum complaining that the Grassroot institute might use the videotape in ways he might not like. Independent candidate Mufi Hannemann and Republican candidate Duke Aiona made comments indicating caution about OHA's nationbuilding efforts and possible federal recognition.
Aug 24: Investigative reporter uncovers OHA's repeated payment of big bucks to convicted felon and con artist Keanu Sai for "research" and memos purporting to show that the Kingdom of Hawaii is still alive and is under prolonged belligerent military occupation by the U.S. Sai warned OHA trustees that they are liable for war crimes prosecution in the International Criminal Court if they persist in building a Hawaiian tribe and seeking federal recognition.
Aug 26: Hans von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation, describes the Department of Interior proposal to create a Hawaiian tribe by administrative rule-change: "This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Some Americans Seceding."
Aug 28: Wong, Dwyer, Namu'o Rake in Millions from Kana'iolowalu
Aug 29: OHA monthly newspaper for September published online 8/29/14: (1) OHA CEO Crabbe says those in favor of Department of Interior rule-change to create Hawaiian tribe and those in favor of seeking independence have shared goals; (2) Department of Interior wraps up meetings on the continent.
August 30, 2014: More than 5,000 comments about Native Hawaiian recognition are being processed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, according to a government website.
===============
FULL TEXT OF ALL ITEMS INDEXED ABOVE, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140701__Crowds_of_Native_Hawaiian_supporters_decry_federal_recognition.html?id=265346101
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 1, 2014
Crowds of Native Hawaiian supporters decry federal recognition
By Timothy Hurley
WAIMEA, KAUAI » Supporters of an independent Native Hawaiian nation were out in force Monday night to reject the possibility of federal recognition of a native government in the first of two meetings on the Garden Isle.
Nearly 200 people filled the Waimea High School cafeteria after the meeting was relocated from the smaller Waimea Neighborhood Center to accommodate a larger crowd.
The U.S. Department of the Interior hearing featured deep emotions, anger, yelling, cheering and booing as speaker after speaker lashed out at the United States and reached into history to support the Native Hawaiian kingdom, which was overthrown in 1893.
Kekuni Pa blasted those who would propose such a concept, saying federal recognition is merely a deceptive way to deny Hawaiian rights and continue American "lies, deceptions, death and fraud."
"I tell you, if you give them federal recognition, they're going to take your land," Pa said angrily. "It's about your land and your money."
Kelanikumai Hanohano told the federal officials to take this message back to America: "Our nationality is Hawaiian. Hawaiians are not a race. We are not a tribe. We are not indigenous Americans. We are Hawaiian."
Gerald Markel of Kilauea said, "We don't need the help of the secretary of the United States. He should be helping out Americans and don't worry about us. We can take care of ourselves."
The federal government has not negotiated in good faith with the citizens of the Hawaiian kingdom, Randy Wichman said.
"It's not about being Native American. It's not about race. It's about the obliteration of (Native Hawaiian) citizenship," Wichman said.
Rozlyn Reiner of Kekaha, a 36-year Hawaii resident who said she is not a Native Hawaiian, said she is nevertheless an ardent supporter of Hawaiian independence. She said the existence of the Hawaiian kingdom is undisputed.
"The attempt to establish a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community is interfering with the internal and domestic affairs of the Hawaiian kingdom and violates international laws, the laws of occupation, U.S. constitutional laws and the laws of the Hawaiian kingdom," she declared.
The Department of the Interior panel has reached the halfway point of its two-week Hawaii tour in which it is asking whether the department should launch a rule-making process that could set the framework for re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians.
Tomorrow night the panel will convene at Kapaa Elementary School on the other side of the island, the ninth of 15 hearings scheduled in Hawaii. Additional meetings will be held in Native American communities on the mainland, and the department will take written comments through Aug. 19.
-----------------
http://www.midweek.com/political-views-hawaii/coffee-break/native-hawaiians-tribe/
Midweek (Honolulu weekly Wednesday newspaper), July 2, 2014
Native Hawaiians Are Not A Tribe
by Jerry Coffee
In the course of my eight-year tenure as a MidWeek columnist, I have spared no ink to explain to readers why I believe the passage of the Akaka Bill would have been one of the worst things -- short of a disastrous blow from nature -- that could happen to all the people of Hawaii. It is race-based, unconstitutional, divisive and an incredible waste of time, human energy and money that could have been used to improve the lives of Native Hawaiians in many ways. Thankfully, in 10 years of effort by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka and his supporters, the bill could never get any traction in Congress.
Now, in keeping with President Obama's propensity to legislate "with the stroke of a pen" what he knows he can't get through Congress, he, his Department of the Interior and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) are quietly conspiring to use Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs to simply declare the Native Hawaiians a "tribe" rather than an ethnic group, on to which the president has said he would sign.
To simply pull a "tribe" out of thin air -- to make a "tribe" where none has ever existed before -- is not only an absurd concept, but an insult to Native Hawaiians. Adding further insult to injury, as confirmed by numerous top legal experts, it's unconstitutional to boot. As the president of Hawaii's Grassroot Institute and candidate for OHA commissioner at large Ke'alii Akina puts it, "There is no tribe, only tribal leaders." By "leaders," of course, he means the wannabes of OHA who are exploiting Native Hawaiians.
In a recent panel discussion sponsored by Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Oswald Stender, a sitting OHA commissioner -- perhaps the only one who puts the true betterment of the Hawaiian people ahead of personal gain or power -- believes social statistics (incarceration, obesity, diabetes, education, welfare roles) make a compelling enough statement for the extraordinary needs of the Hawaiian people. But he insists the answers cannot be found in a competing governing entity.
He deplores the waste of money into such an effort (Akaka Bill) over the years -- money that could have been used to make immediate and long overdue improvements in the Hawaiian community. He also pointed out that all Hawaiians have benefited through income from ceded lands and the Hawaiian Homes program.
On the same panel with Stender, former state Attorney General Mike Lilly, of a longtime kama'aina family, pointed out that, historically, Hawaiian blood was never a requirement for Hawaiian citizenship under King Kamehameha or Queen Lili'uokalani, and is now just a "made up" requirement by OHA to give the impression of exclusivity of whatever "governing entity" they can conjure up. Lilly's ancestors were citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii loyal to the king and queen.
Imagine, as a citizen of Hawaii, living under two separate and, in many ways, competing governing entities: One set of laws for the favored Native Hawaiians and one for non-Hawaiians -- frequently living side by side as neighbors, but ruled by different sets of laws for taxation, economic regulation, police and fire policies, two legislative bodies, building codes and zoning laws, to name just a few.
But speaking of zoning laws, even now we are seeing just a hint of what could be to come as OHA lobbies for exceptions to laws that specify height restrictions in its Kaka'ako Makai development. It is lobbying the Legislature to allow condo and office buildings twice the currently specified building heights (from 200 feet to 400 feet).
In short, OHA is spinning its wheels. Passage of any law based on blood quantum or a separate governing entity based upon race would be found unconstitutional.
It also, as I have said before, would ensure the "death of aloha."
coffee1776@gmail.com
---------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/we-re-moving-forward-with-our-kingdom/article_2581d340-01b3-11e4-8f92-001a4bcf887a.html
The Garden Island (Kaua'i), July 2, 2014
'We're moving forward with our kingdom'
Second day of Native Hawaiian meetings brings more oppostion
Chris D'Angelo - The Garden Island
KAPAA -- New faces. Similar messages.
Dayne Aipolani, the Alii Nui (high chief) of the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi, said it's important that everyone work together -- somehow -- to move forward for a better future for the Hawaiian people.
"We're not here to scold these people," he said. "They're not responsible for what happened back in the overthrow, but we are going to take responsibility now and we're moving forward with our kingdom."
Tuesday brought to a close a pair of public meetings on Kauai to discuss whether the U.S. Department of the Interior should re-establish a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians.
Much like the meeting Monday in Waimea, the majority of those who spoke before press time at Kapaa Elementary School voiced similar opposition to the idea.
James Alalem told the DOI panel "hell no" to its series of questions related to the idea, and said the department is not about protecting the Hawaiian people.
"You guys protecting only you guys self because you want Hawaii," he said.
Others, however, felt very differently.
Bill Fernandez, a Kauai native and retired judge, said he believed that "the only reasonable, rational course that Hawaiians can take is to have a government-to-government relationship with the United States of America."
By doing so, he said Hawaiians would have the opportunity to protect their language, culture, gathering rights, sacred places and more. Fernandez also said he felt U.S. law can be fair, especially to native people, drawing a loud roar of disapproval from the crowd.
"How many Hawaiians you put in jail as a judge?" one man yelled from the back of the room, forcing the facilitator to intervene.
A large police presence outside the building kept things peaceful. Several people waved posters, with the words "Ignore the Truth" and "De-occupy Hawaii Nei."
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140702__Anti-recognition_sentiment_runs_fierce_on_Kauai.html?id=265508351
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 2, 2014
Anti-recognition sentiment runs fierce on Kauai
Native Hawaiian supporters testify against the plan by federal officials
By Timothy Hurley
KAPAA, KAUAI » Defiant and emotional testimony dominated yet another Department of Interior meeting Tuesday night as federal officials continued to gather opinions about whether the United States should pursue a formal relationship with a potential Native Hawaiian government.
As it did the night before in Waimea, the meeting featured passionate testimony connected to the grievances that have festered in the Hawaiian community since the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy.
Most of the dozens of attendees who testified Tuesday night said they strongly opposed the Interior Department moving forward with the proposal. Some argued that the agency has no jurisdiction over such a government-to-government relationship because the Hawaiian kingdom remains the islands' sovereign power.
"We can get our country back," declared Daniel Wong. "America -- they just rebuild McDonald's. We could be rebuilding fishponds."
Timothy Michael Reese said Hawaiians are tired of the way the United States is treating them.
"We have been lied to about our legal and political rights," Reese said.
As in Waimea, a few testifiers spoke in favor of federal recognition, saying it would help protect the Hawaiian culture, programs and lands.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees and other Native Hawaiian leaders have lobbied for a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. for years. They say such recognition -- which would be similar to a Native American tribe -- is important to protect more than 120 federal programs and an annual $80 million U.S. allocation from a growing number of legal challenges.
Hawaii's congressional delegation tried to achieve recognition legislatively for at least a decade but failed. Now the Obama administration is trying to get the job done administratively -- a process that could take up to two years.
But many of those who spoke Tuesday said no thanks.
"We need the power to rule our aina like we did before. Let's start putting our nation together. We can," Puanani Rodgers said to applause.
Shane Cobb-Adams said Hawaiians who support federal recognition don't know their history and are instead addicted to the programs and money of America.
"You guys are part of a (criminal) process that has been going on since (the overthrow in) 1893," Cobb-Adams told the panel. "I must warn you: You are committing war crimes."
Some audience members held signs, including ones that declared, "Deoccupy Hawai'i Nei" and "No Treaty of Annexation = Illegal Occupation."
The Kapaa meeting was the ninth of 15 scheduled for the panel's two-week Hawaii tour. The next meeting will be at 6 p.m. Wednesday at Keaukaha Elementary School in Hilo. Written comments will be accepted through Aug. 19.
-----------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/a-ole/article_91437314-027a-11e4-9581-001a4bcf887a.html
The Garden Island (Kaua'i), July 3, 2014
'A'ole! Kauaians voice strong opposition to federal recognition
Chris D'Angelo - The Garden Island
LIHUE -- This week's public meetings on Kauai to discuss whether the federal government should pursue federal recognition of Native Hawaiians were dominated by emotional and often angry testimony from dozens of community members.
Some went as far as to accuse the U.S. Department of the Interior of contributing to war crimes, citing international law.
Donovan Cabebe said the meetings are a "mockery," the result of "criminals with criminal intent" to rob Hawaiian nationals and kanaka maoli of their rights, identity and history -- "effectively committing ethnocide."
"The reason they are here," he said of the DOI, "is because the claims of the kanaka maoli are legitimate. And the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom still is relevant and alive."
DOI Press Secretary Jessica Kershaw said more than 300 people attended the two Kauai forums, held Monday and Tuesday in Waimea and Kapaa. Nearly 120 signed up to testify, she said.
If one thing was made clear over the two days, it is that many Hawaiians have not forgotten about -- or forgiven -- the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Several cried, others screamed during their testimony.
"It's been 121 years folks, and we have been trying," said local resident Puanani Rogers. "Stick with it."
Community members weren't the only ones who shared feelings of injustice. DIO Assistant Secretary Esther Kiaaina, one of four on the panel, said the overthrow continues to be "very personal" for her family, and that she has spent her life channeling her anger and pain toward helping the Hawaiian people.
The meetings, she said, are an opportunity to "capture for the first time in modern times" whether the Hawaiian community is for or against the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship.
The Kauai meetings followed several hostile meetings on Oahu, Lanai and Molokai.
"While turnout has been impressive, each meeting is unique, though a lot of similar passions and emotions are expressed on both sides of the issue no matter where public meetings are held," Kershaw wrote in an email.
Kapaa resident Adam Asquith said he found the DOI's interest in Hawaii "condescending and farcical."
"In fact, this almost must be some kind of a sick joke that you schedule these meetings at a time that corresponds with the celebration of your independence," he said, drawing a roar from the crowd gathered Tuesday at Kapaa Elementary School.
Asquith said he feels the only thing being offered by the United States is money. During his testimony, he recited a verse from "Kaulana Na Pua" (Famous are the flowers), a Hawaiian song written in 1893 in protest of the overthrow.
The verse's lyrics translate to, "We do not value the government's hills of money. We are satisfied with the rocks, the wondrous food of the land."
"Basically what the kupuna were saying is, "Take that big hill of government money and stuff it. We will eat this land rock by rock, rather than have it given away or taken away,'" Asquith said. "I'm with the kupuna on this one. I would rather eat rocks than have the birthrights of my children taken or given away."
Others disagreed, saying federal recognition was the only reasonable course of action -- one that would allow Hawaiians to preserve and protect their rights and culture.
There are 566 federally recognized Native American tribes in the United States. Unlike all of them, Native Hawaiians currently don't have a government-to-government relationship with America. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewel is considering changing that.
The series of 15 public forums across the state continues this week with meetings on the Big Island and Maui, followed by tribal consultations in Indian Country in late July and early August.
Kershaw stressed there is no set timetable for a decision on how to move forward.
"Our federal delegation has been encouraging people to take time with the documents, discuss the issue with their family and their community and submit written comments as well," she wrote.
A 60-day public comment period on the department's advance notice of proposed rulemaking ends Aug. 19. If DOI ultimately decides to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it says there would be another formal comment period and second round of consultation with the Native Hawaiian community and federally recognized tribes in the continental U.S. to allow for further input.
A final rule could be published within 18 to 24 months after publication of the ANPRM.
The department says that in recent years it has "increasingly heard from Native Hawaiians who assert that their community's opportunities to thrive would be significantly bolstered by reorganizing a sovereign Native Hawaiian government that could engage the United States in a government-to-government relationship, exercise inherent sovereign powers of self-governance and self-determination, and enhance the implementation of programs and services that Congress has created specifically to benefit the Native Hawaiian community."
In addition to public meetings, comments can be submitted online at www.Regulations.gov.
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140703__Hawaii_isle_echoes_anger_against_feds.html?id=265668111
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 3, 2014
Hawaii isle echoes anger against feds
By Dan Nakaso
HILO » Native Hawaiians on Hawaii island got their first of three opportunities Wednesday night to yell at federal officials for even considering the idea of starting a process to create a new relationship with a future Native Hawaiian government.
Department of the Interior officials moved their two weeks of hearings to Hawaii island Wednesday, but the angry sentiments they heard echoed previous sessions on Oahu, Lanai, Molokai and Kauai.
"We want you out of here," former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee Moanikeala Akaka told the officials to raucous applause. "You have been poor stewards of our land, America."
Since statehood, said Hawaiian sovereignty leader and attorney Mililani Trask, Hawaiians have "been denied the right of self-governance," adding: "This yoke we break. We cannot suffer any further."
The Interior Department representatives are spending two weeks in the islands, asking whether the federal government should begin a process that would lead to a government-to-government relationship with a future Native Hawaiian government.
It's a question that dozens of Hawaiians have testified is offensive for a long list of reasons dating to the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy that the U.S. government formally apologized for in 1993 -- which they say makes much of the past 121 years of federal rule illegal and moot.
"Their coming here is not really the right thing," said Hawaii island Rep. Faye Hanohano before she spoke in Hawaiian to the panel of federal representatives. "Their process is not right."
Hanohano concluded her comments by leading the gym in a rousing rendition of "Hawaii Pono'i."
Like many others, Hanohano said that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry -- not low-level Interior representatives -- should be the appropriate person to come to Hawaii to seek a relationship with Native Hawaiians.
The meeting had to be moved from Keaukaha Elementary School to Kawananakoa Gym to handle the crowd, which spilled outside. Sixty people had signed up to speak before the three-hour session even began and the list continued to grow throughout the night.
Facilitator Dawn Chang encouraged the crowd "to be respectful."
"I know this is full of emotions and anger," she said.
Rhea Suh, assistant secretary of the interior for policy, management and budget, told those gathered: "We know this is an important issue. We get how important it is."
Suh spoke in front of a backdrop of seven oversized portraits of Hawaiian alii that Moses Crabbe brought over from Kamehameha Schools Hawai'i's Kula Ha'aha'a elementary school.
Crabbe teaches Hawaiian language and culture at Kula Ha'aha'a and set up the portraits to stand vigil over Wednesday night's hearing because "they are who we are as Hawaiians," he said. "If not for our alii, we would not be here, we would not be standing here."
The federal officials will spend Thursday holding similar sessions in Waimea and later in Kailua-Kona before moving on to three more sessions on Maui, beginning Saturday.
Then they'll conduct similar hearings July 29 through Aug. 7, consulting with federally recognized American Indian tribes in Minnesota, South Dakota, Washington, Arizona and Connecticut.
The involvement of the tribes in discussions about Native Hawaiians has been a hot issue because Hawaiians have said their issues are different from American Indians and that they do not want to be considered the same by the U.S. government.
"The Kingdom of Hawaii is not a tribe," Francis Malani said to wild applause. "We are a sovereign nation."
Trask wrapped up her comments by telling the panel: "You can braid my hair and stick feathers in it. But I will never be an Indian. I will always be a Hawaiian."
----------------
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/meeting-native-hawaiian-recognition-draws-hundreds-testifiers-keaukaha
West Hawaii Today (Kona), July 3, 2014
Meeting on Native Hawaiian recognition draws hundreds of testifiers in Keaukaha
By Nancy Cook Lauer, West Hawaii Today
In the heart of Keaukaha, one of the most Hawaiian communities on one of the most Hawaiian of the islands, speakers were polite but firm: They will create their own government, thank you very much.
More than 130 people signed up to testify Wednesday evening to a panel of Department of the Interior, Office of the U.S. Attorney General and other Obama administration officials. Hundreds more crowded into the Keaukaha Elementary School gymnasium to listen.
It was the 10th public hearing in Hawaii for the federal panel, which is gauging community reaction to a proposed re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. Meetings continue today from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Waimea Community Center and 6 to 9 p.m. at Kealakehe High School.
As at meetings held elsewhere in the state, many speakers want a return to a Hawaiian Kingdom, and nothing else will do. Others point to an ongoing process of registration, election of delegates and a convention created by state statute and coordinated through the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Few want the feds to get involved.
In fact, said several speakers, the only federal official they are interested in talking to is Secretary of State John Kerry, wanting him to answer the questions posed in a letter by OHA CEO Kamanaopono Crabbe. Crabbe asked Kerry to address the legal status of Hawaii under international law decades after the 1893 illegal overthrow of the kingdom with the help of U.S. troops.
"Take it back to John Kerry and get John Kerry here," said Kale Gumpac. "It's not your kuleana. Get the people whose kuleana it is to come here."
There's much more to government than simply a government structure, said Albert Kahiwahiwaokalani Haa Jr.
"Before you can make a government, you need to know who owns the land," Haa said.
The group expressed their opinions in more than words. Some chanted, some played guitars and sang songs. State Rep. Faye Hanohano, D-Puna, gave her speech entirely in Hawaiian, and then led the room in "Hawaii Ponoi."
Rhea Suh, an assistant secretary with the Department of the Interior, urged the crowd to also submit written testimony in case they ran out of time or if they felt more comfortable testifying that way. She said allowing the process to start would give Native Hawaiians more options.
"All other native communities in the United States have this option and many have exercised this option," Suh said. "This option doesn't even exist for you."
Officials said this round of meetings is the first of its kind in more than 10 years.
But some in the crowded gymnasium said the federal exercise is accomplishing little other than further angering Hawaiians and widening the gap between the various factions.
"We've been talking about sovereignty for so long," said Louis Hao, East Hawaii supervisor for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. "If we don't come together it will be more than another 10 years."
The department wants residents to weigh in on whether the Obama administration should facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community and help the Native Hawaiian community reorganize its government.
Patrick Kahawaiolaa, president of the Keaukaha Community Association, believes federal recognition already exists for Native Hawaiians through the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. At statehood in 1959 the compact made between the parties was "... the State and its people will uphold the Hawaiian race ..." and "... as a proviso of becoming a State the State needed to accept the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920," Kahawaiolaa said.
"I will be asking the DOI/DOJ to do their job and enforce the federal law called the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 against the State, the DHHL and anyone else who has over the 90-year period of its existence abused, used, leased the lands having the status of Hawaiian Home Lands and any acts of State legislation enacted "without the consent" of the US.," Kahawaiolaa said before the meeting.
About 21.3 percent of Hawaii residents reported in the 2010 census that they had some Hawaiian blood, and 5.9 percent said they were pure Hawaiian. Hawaii County, with 29.7 percent of residents with Hawaiian blood and 8.5 percent pure Hawaiian, leads the state in both categories.
----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140704__ANGER_SURGES_at_BIG_ISLE_MEETING.html?id=265807411
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 4, 2014
Anger surges at Big Isle meeting
Federal officials get an earful as they seek input on a possible Native Hawaiian government
By Dan Nakaso
KAILUA-KONA » Hawaiians on Hawaii island sent federal officials off to Maui with the same message they've heard for the last 10 days: Let Native Hawaiians determine their own fate.
"Our queen said no to your annexation," Robert Freitas Jr. told the panel Thursday night at Kealakehe High School. "Our kupuna have said no and we are saying no. So what part of 'no' do you not understand? ... Are you deaf? Don't you understand English? ... After 120 years of illegal occupation, it's time for you, the United States of America, to de-occupy our islands. ... Go back to the rock you crawled out from."
U.S. officials spent the last two days in Hilo, Waimea and Kailua-Kona listening to more than 400 speakers denounce a proposal to have the Department of the Interior begin a process that could lead to a government-to-government relationship with a future Native Hawaiian government.
Rather than discuss the details of such an idea, Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian speakers at the three sessions used the opportunity instead to excoriate the federal government's ongoing presence in the islands following the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and to chronicle the subsequent 121 years of injustices and indignities in the islands for Hawaiians.
The tone for Thursday night's session was set when the first speaker, 77-year-old Hannah Wahinemaikai o Kaahumanukeliiulawioleokalama Reeves, told the panel of representatives from the U.S. departments of Justice and the Interior that she will be watching their actions.
"I want our people to be free," she said. "I want America to respect us. I want America to let us be free like human beings. ... We are fighting for our people, for thousands of people."
Thursday was a long day for the federal officials. In the morning, facilitator Dawn Chang told the overflow crowd at the Waimea Community Center that the series of three-hour sessions have left her "filled with an extreme heavy heart," adding, "I feel your pain. It affects all of us. We know we cannot take it away from you."
Rhea Suh, assistant secretary of the interior for policy, management and budget, has presided over similar hearings on the mainland involving American Indians.
But she called the Hawaii sessions "some of the most professionally intense meetings that we've ever been a part of," adding, "Many of you may not want to see us here, and I respect that."
Still, she reminded the speakers, "Your voices are being heard."
Ski Kwiatkowski of Kohala was among the many who was offended that federal officials plan to discuss the Hawaii proposal with Indian tribes from Connecticut to Washington between July 29 and Aug. 7.
"We are Hawaiians, not a tribe," Kwiatkowski yelled at the panel in Waimea. "We are a people."
Kwiatkowski, who served two tours in Vietnam, where he was awarded two Purple Hearts, told the panel, "I bled for this country but I'm Hawaiian first. ... It's about our lands, our sovereignty."
Laura Lahilahi DeSoto McCollough of Waimea wept as she remembered the discrimination she faced growing up on the Leeward coast of Oahu.
As a student at Makaha Elementary School, DeSoto McCollough told the panel that she was "paddled by the teacher for speaking Hawaiian."
"We're losing our lands now. We hardly got any," she said. "Give us back what belongs to us -- and that's Hawaii. You guys gotta give us back our lives."
Two weeks and 15 islandwide hearings that began at the state Capitol on June 23 resume Saturday at Hana High and Elementary School.
--------------
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/testifiers-sound-sovereignty-waimea-kona-meetings
West Hawaii Today (Kona), July 4, 2014
Testifiers sound off on sovereignty at Waimea, Kona meetings
By Carolyn Lucas-Zenk and Bret Yager
As the United States celebrates its declaration of freedom from Britain's tyranny this Independence Day, it continues to illegally occupy Hawaii -- an independent nation that deserves self-determination and restoration by its people -- testifiers said Thursday.
Hundreds of people attended public meetings in Waimea and Kailua-Kona to listen and provide testimony to the federal panel, tasked with gauging the reaction to the proposed re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. A standing room only crowd spilled into the hallway at the Waimea Community Center, a venue deemed too small and not pono by attendees. At Kealakehe High, there was more than enough room for the estimated 160 people in attendance.
Rhea Suh, an assistant secretary with the Department of the Interior, said the federal agency is asking "dense" questions that the Native Hawaiian community needs to define the answers to. The department wants to know whether the Obama administration should facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the community and help Native Hawaiians reorganize their government.
In two words: No thanks.
That was the response of many who spoke up at the meetings, saying the validity of the Hawaiian nation has never been in question.
"We never lost our sovereignty," said Micah De Aguiar, speaking at Kealakehe High. "We lost our government. We never lost our identity as a country."
Testifiers said they were not American Indians and didn't want to be treated as such.
"The United States has broken nearly every treaty they have ever signed, including ours, but they also left the Indian people in poverty, in war with one another," said Kaimana Freitas. "They continue to steal their lands and destroy their natural resources, and that is exactly what they intend to do with us."
When asked, Suh did not provide a legal interpretation or definition of Native Hawaiian. Several testifiers mentioned there was an important distinction between Native Hawaiians, Hawaiians and those who are not U.S. citizens. The Department of the Interior was also accused of dividing the community. Other repeated requests were to have Secretary of State John Kerry weigh in on the legal standing of Hawaii's sovereignty under international law and to have the Hawaiian Kingdom represented by a delegate to the United Nations.
Pomaikai Brown wore the name of Charles Peleiholani, his great-grandfather who signed the Kue Petition in 1897. He identified himself as a kanaka maoli and Hawaiian national from Waikoloa. Like most testifiers in Waimea, his answer to the posed threshold questions was no. After watching testimony from the previous public hearings, Brown said kanaka maoli and Hawaiian nationals have a lot to be thankful for.
"Your being here allows us to gain more knowledge about your intent to keep us enslaved by way of your brochures; see which Native Hawaiians, your definition, have no desire for true independence; remain unified as a nation and to keep mindful that being a Hawaiian national is not race restrictive; rally together to further the cause of U.S. de-occupation; and hear again indisputable evidence that the U.S. has no legal jurisdiction over these Hawaiian Islands," Brown said.
Many testifiers wanted the federal government to create a process for de-occupation.
"Our beloved Queen Liliuokalani set a foundation under the Law of the Nations for our people and I want to say to you that she prepared the way for us to reinstate and continue to live independently in our Hawaiian Kingdom. However we work it out, it is our kuleana, and your understanding of all the hurt and distrust would be appreciated," said Kohala resident Gale Kuulei Baker Miyamura Perez. "Someone said we are the people of aloha, I say, do not mistake aloha for weakness. We are fully capable of carrying out leadership roles under our Kanawai laws and terms. We may have disagreements, but one thing is sure, I and my ohana want to remain what we are -- a sovereign independent nation, not a tribe or nation within a nation."
Aole means no, and that is the answer to the federal government's questions, said Kini Kaawa at the Kailua-Kona hearing.
"What we want is for the proper steps to be taken to provide justice, equity and reparations so that the Kingdom of Hawaii may be restored," she said. "We can trust that our people can once again manage our own resources and lead our government in righteousness."
After two and a half hours of testimony from those wanting to create their own government without America's influence Thursday morning, Kailua-Kona resident Brucella Halani Hopkins Berard gave another perspective. She wants to re-establish a government-to-government relationship with the U.S.
"I am in favor of having the Department of Interior assist us by facilitating the process. I believe it will help greatly by saving us a good amount of time in guiding us to stay within the boundaries of the law," Berard said. "Facilitate is a friendly word to me. It means 'to make easy; to lessen the difficulty.'"
The Kailua-Kona hearing was still ongoing at press time.
The public has until Aug. 19 to submit comments online at regulations.gov or via mail to Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7329, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Include Regulation Identifier No. 1090-AB05.
-----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140706__Singing_lightens_another_fiery_hearing.html?id=265942131
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 6, 2014
Singing lightens another fiery hearing
By Nanea Kalani
HANA, Maui » Testimony often turned confrontational Saturday as East Maui residents voiced strong opposition to the possibility of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians at the first of three U.S. Department of the Interior meetings scheduled on the Valley Isle.
Many of the roughly 100 people who signed up to speak during the hearing at Hana High and Elementary School said they still feel wronged by the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom and demanded the United States deoccupy the islands rather than attempt to facilitate re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians.
Several people identified themselves as Hawaiian subjects, saying they are not American citizens. Others said they were motivated to speak on behalf of ancestors who had signed the 1897 petition against annexation.
Russell Kahookele, who identified himself as an elected representative of the lawful Hawaiian government, offered federal officials plumeria lei before taking them to task for what he called a host of injustices.
"Now that I got the aloha part out (of the way)," he said, "I object to this hearing. ... You guys asking us if we should take the first step after 100 years and then some, now you like take the first step to do what? Recognize us as Indians?
"You guys represent the government that wen' apologize to us for the illegal actions. Now you going come and ask us if we still like your help? For what? More illegal activities? No!" he shouted.
As others spoke, audience members shouted in support: "Ku'e!" (resist or protest) and "Hewa!" (mistake or crime). A few kupuna chanted forcefully in Hawaiian.
Amid signs that read "Deoccupy Hawaii" and "Seized not Ceded," people argued that the U.S. has no authority or jurisdiction over Hawaii.
"United States stole it in 1893 and didn't give it back," said David Kaeo Prais. "Just give it back. Plain and simple: Stop being criminals."
Sol Church added, "What you are doing here today is called potential racketeering. It is a war crime. The people who caused the problem are coming up with a fake solution. For the U.S. to facilitate anything is illegal."
There were some light moments amid the animosity.
Kapala Novikoff used his allotted speaking time to lead everyone packed into the town's school cafeteria in singing "Hawaii Pono'i."
Local comedian Bu La'ia (Shawn Hill) stepped up to the mic and started singing in falsetto Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's classic "Hawaii '78," which elicited laughter from the crowd.
"Cry for the gods, cry for the people, cry for the land that was taken," he sang.
The federal panel is winding down a statewide tour asking whether the department should launch a rule-making process that could set the framework for re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
"We're bearing witness to your perspectives, your history, your pain and your optimism for your future," Rhea Suh, assistant secretary of the interior for policy, management and budget, told the Hana crowd. "Please understand and know we all feel incredibly moved and honored to have been witness to it."
The panel will meet in Lahaina Monday at King Kamehameha III Elementary and in Kahului Tuesday at Pomaikai Elementary.
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140708_West_Maui_residents_out_in_force_against_federal_recognition.html?id=266179921
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 8, 2014
West Maui residents out in force against federal recognition
By Nanea Kalani
LAHAINA -- All but one of the more than 100 people who spoke before a federal panel Monday night rejected the idea of possible federal recognition of a future Native Hawaiian government, arguing the U.S. has no jurisdiction over Hawaii.
U.S. Department of the Interior officials held the 14th of 15 public meetings statewide at Kamehameha III Elementary on Maui. The group is posing questions about whether the department should initiate a rule-making process that could set the framework for re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
"We recognize that our presence here may be insulting to some of you," said Rhea Suh, interior assistant secretary for policy, management and budget. "We're asking you to consider an option, an option that does not exist for you right now. ... It really boils down to that simple question: Do you want that option?"
As at other meetings around the state, West Maui residents overwhelmingly replied, "No."
"Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe," said Dennis O'Shea. "We're a sovereign kingdom."
He called the process just another attempt to get the Akaka Bill passed.
Keeaumoku Kapu added, "When you go home to Washington, you tell those people up there that we want to be left alone to make our own decisions as kanaka. ... This is our decision, this is our choice. We don't need people coming over here and trying to tell us this is the road we need to choose."
Many said the federal government should leave the organization of a Native Hawaiian government up to Hawaiians. Others expressed frustration that the U.S. has continued to occupy the islands since the 1893 overthrow.
"The past 200 years, what you guys did for us?" asked Kalei Kauhane. "What did America do to Hawaii? Kill our people, rape our land, steal our water and lie to the world. ... That's all you guys did for us. You guys never do nothing positive for us. Nothing."
Several residents said it's unthinkable that the U.S. is proposing a possible government-to-government relationship with Hawaiians.
"America, it's time to free Hawaii. It's been enough already," said John Kinimaka. "According to international law, the only remedy to crimes of this magnitude is restitution and restoration. Time to pay up."
Several West Maui residents said they were offended that the federal government didn't consult Hawaiians before launching its listening tour.
"Unless you come to the table and start from the very beginning, that's all you're going to get: No, no, no," Ezekiel Kalua said.
The gathering ended with the crowd joining hands and singing "Hawaii Pono'i" and "Hawaii Aloha."
The panel will conclude its Hawaii meetings Tuesday at Pomaikai Elementary in Kahului. After a two-week break, the meetings will next move to Indian country on the mainland. Comments also can be submitted online at www.regulations.gov.
--------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140709__Opponents_of_recognition_laud_unity_of_Hawaiians.html?id=266393371
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 9, 2014
Opponents of recognition laud unity of Hawaiians
By Nanea Kalani
KAHULUI » Dozens of Maui residents Tuesday night echoed the staunch opposition heard around the islands against possible federal recognition as U.S. interior officials held their 15th and final meeting exploring the possibility of re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians.
"This time is yours. We are here to listen to you, and we are grateful for you allowing us in your communities," said Rhea Suh, assistant secretary of interior for policy, management and budget.
Many of those who spoke before a standing-room-only crowd at Pomaikai Elementary School expressed gratitude that the federal meetings have helped unite the Hawaiian community toward a common cause.
"Just you folks coming here, something good has happened. Around the islands we have never gathered like this. Never. My only hope is that when we leave tonight, we do not stop, we keep this canoe going," said Kaui Kahaialii. "Look, Maui, look around you. ... This is awesome to see all the kanaka in the room with one voice."
"E paa oukou (We need to), stay strong," Sydney Iaukea told the audience. "Look, Maui, this is amazing!"
Some 158 people had signed up to speak ahead of the meeting, but only about 80 people were able to voice their opinions before the three-hour meeting adjourned promptly at 9 p.m. to boos and complaints.
During the meeting, many shared the same arguments heard over the past two weeks, including that Hawaii remains a sovereign nation, that the U.S. is illegally occupying Hawaii and has no jurisdiction here and that any future Hawaiian nation doesn't need or want America's help to reorganize.
Wearing a Hawaiian flag draped over his shoulder, Jonathan Davis said "the people of Hawaii are indigenous to Hawaii, not indigenous to America."
People held signs that read, "We did not concede to this illegal deed" and "There could never really be justice on stolen land."
"You have no business being here because we are not American," Lesley Iaukea told the federal panel. "We will always show resistance to your occupation. The question today is not what the (Department of Interior) can do for us, but what can we do for ourselves."
Clare Apana said her kupuna, or ancestors, "have been waiting for hundreds of years for us to come back and bring back the life to this land, and this is not the way to do it because this is not the correct process."
"You have to go back to the beginning, correct the wrong and recognize that you are in a country unauthorized and occupying it, and go from there," she said.
Kaliko Lewis sang her testimony while strumming an ukulele: "The questions for me you have laid, a simple answer to them: A'ole (No). We are the best and the brightest, and we will reach for the highest. And we will never stand down, 'cause we are the best and the brightest."
The department will continue to accept written comments until Aug. 16 by mail and online at
www.regulations.gov.
----------------
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/587378/-We-are-not-American-.html
The Maui News, May 9, 2014
'We are not American'
Testifiers say federal effort to renew relations with Hawaiians unwelcome
By EILEEN CHAO - Staff Writer (echao@mauinews.com)
KAHULUI - The last of 15 public meetings hosted statewide by the U.S. Department of the Interior ended on Maui on Tuesday with a resounding message from the Native Hawaiian community: a'ole, or no.
More than 300 residents crowded into the standing-room-only cafeteria at Pomaikai Elementary to tell the federal department that its move to re-establish a government-to-government relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community is not welcome.
"Our kupuna, they been waiting hundreds of years for us to come back and bring the life back to this land, this is not the correct process," said Wailuku resident Claire Apana, one of 154 people who signed up to testify. "You have to first go back to the beginning and correct the wrong. ... You need to go back and realize you're occupying another nation, illegally."
The Interior Department announced last month that it would be conducting public meetings on all the Hawaiian Islands "in response to requests from the Native Hawaiian community, Hawaii's congressional delegation and state leaders."
"This time is yours, we are here to listen to you, and we are grateful for you allowing us in your communities and being willing to share your thoughts," Rhea Suh, assistant secretary for policy, management and budget for the department, said at the start of the meeting.
Suh was one of four panelists from the U.S. Interior and Justice departments.
The overwhelming majority of testifiers in Hawaii, including nearly all who spoke on Maui on Tuesday, have testified against any notion of federal recognition, saying instead, "We are not American."
"These hearings are unconstitutional, the department has no authority to enter into such hearings with our people. You have no business being here because we are not American," said Lesley Iaukea. "The question today is not what the DOI can do for us, but what can we do for ourselves."
What Native Hawaiians have been doing for themselves is perpetuating their culture and traditions that were once forbidden, residents said.
"I'm a Hawaiian, I'm a kanaka, but I can't speak Hawaiian because we weren't allowed to do it," said Frederick Pu'u. "But what touches me so much and is so beautiful and sweet is our keiki kane and keiki wahine, they speak so beautifully, and I love that. I feel shame because I wish I could speak like our little ones, but they are the ones that's gonna come up, they are the ones that will bring the kanaka maoli together."
Critics have said that the Department of the Interior, which oversees the Bureau of Indian Affairs, aims to incorrectly recognize Native Hawaiians as a Native American tribe. Suh replied in an interview last month that the process leaves it up to Native Hawaiians to define themselves, and there would be discussions about whether it makes sense for Native Hawaiians to pursue a similar tribal designation.
Testifiers reiterated that Native Hawaiians are not and were never a tribe and did not wish to be recognized as such, but instead as an independent and sovereign nation. Painted signs raised around the room echoed the testifiers' messages: "DeOccupy Maui," "Hawaiian by blood, American by force" and "A'ole."
"You have come here and asked the kanaka maoli to literally hand over the Hawaiian kingdom. . . . this is not the way to make things pono. A'ole to your questions, come back when you decide how to help the Hawaiian people rebuild what was wrongfully stolen. But for now, go home," said Sheri Maxwell.
The meetings next will be held with Native American groups on the Mainland.
Written comments may be submitted until Aug. 19 online at regulations.gov or by mail to Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7329, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, D.C., 20240. (Use Regulation Identifier Number 1090-AB05 in messages.)
---------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/07/hawaii-monitor-did-hawaiian-hearings-set-up-a-political-train-wreck/
Honolulu Civil Beat, July 9, 2014
Hawaii Monitor: Did Hawaiian Hearings Set Up a Political Train Wreck?
I think there's plenty of room to debate the facts and interpretation of the overthrow and its aftermath.
By IAN LIND
If I had to sum up in a single word the testimony of Hawaiians in the current round of statewide hearings, the word would be: "Dispossessed."
The hearings, sponsored by the Interior Department, have sought input on whether, or how, the U.S. should seek to reestablish an official, government-to-government relationship with Hawaiians. They have drawn lots of input, most of it direct, in-your-face, passionate, and personal, often reflecting a religious-like zeal which makes evidence irrelevant and renders certain "facts" beyond debate.
Speakers most often traced their sense of loss back to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, when, in the currently prevailing narrative, we lost our nation and our land. I think there's plenty of room to debate the facts and interpretation of the overthrow and its aftermath, while sorting out a path to some form of self-determination, but that widespread sense of the shared experience of dispossession, the loss of history, rights, and more, comes through loud and clear.
One could, I suppose, take heart at the apparent high level of consensus that Hawaiians need to get together and take active control of their collective destiny, whether political, cultural, or economic. But that consensus quickly falls apart when you attend to the details.
Some want to restore the monarchy. Some believe the kingdom doesn't need restoration because it never ceased to exist. Others believe they already speak for the Kingdom, whether restored, resurrected, or recreated. Together, they reject further efforts to shape a new governing body.
Some back the Hawaiian roll commission, others reject it utterly and completely.
There are those who say they reject laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii, and are not subject to them. There are others who rely on specific U.S. laws, from the Annexation resolution to the so-called Apology Resolution, to argue the overthrow was illegal.
Through all the testimony, though, the dominant message has been a simple "no."
No, we don't need or want federal help. No, leave us alone. No, go home.
Preferences and Hawaiian Programs
Here's the problem.
If you hadn't noticed, the new conservative majority of the Supreme Court, and in the U.S. Congress, is hostile to everything that smacks of affirmative action or racial preferences.
The court has narrowed the protections of voting rights laws, and outlawed, undermined, or restricted affirmative action in a variety of settings, including college admissions, employment, and so on.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, long before this court was seated, there was an organized push from the political right challenging the constitutionality of programs benefiting Hawaiians. Back-to-back lawsuits forced elections of trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections to be open to all voters, not only to voters of Hawaiian descent, and then eliminated barriers that had required trustees themselves to be Hawaiian.
Another pair of lawsuits during the same period challenged Kamehameha Schools' policy giving preference in admissions to Hawaiian children. The policy survived the legal challenges, but only after both cases were settled out of court, one with a payment of a reported $7 million to convince the plaintiffs to walk away.
Tribes and a 'Special Relationship'
The legal issues we're dealing with today go back to the 1970s, when Native American activists were beginning to challenge the effects of historical discrimination and were seeking reparations, including land and monetary damages. During that period, the Supreme Court upheld policies and programs that specifically benefited Indian tribes, holding these were allowed because of a "special relationship" between the tribes and the federal government. Absent such a special relationship, however, such programs would likely be found to violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The combination of the perceived vulnerability of Hawaiian programs to constitutional challenge, and the court decisions regarding Indian tribes, set off a search for something equivalent to the tribal "special relationships" that could be claimed, or created, to cover the case of Native Hawaiians and allow benefits to continue to flow through to Hawaiian communities.
Hawaiians don't need to necessarily become a tribe. They do, however, need an equivalent special status. The Akaka Bill was an attempt to create that special tie through the legislative process, but floundered in part due to internal infighting and in part due to conservative opposition in Washington.
The Interior Department initiative behind this set of hearings is another, perhaps last-ditch attempt to define a "special relationship" between Hawaiians and the federal government through administrative rules rather than legislative action.
If this isn't successful -- and it's hard to see the Interior Department panel finding a way to move forward in light of the hostility expressed during the hearings -- a whole range of institutions that have provided critical community services and support to Hawaiians, including Kamehameha Schools and the other alii trusts, along with OHA, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and the network of nonprofit health, education, and cultural organizations built over recent decades with federal funding, will remain at risk.
No one likes to talk about this publicly, for fear it will encourage those legal challenges. But the hearings have shown that failing to acknowledge the real threats may be doing even more damage.
A Slow-Motion Train Wreck
So as I have watched online as testimony has been presented across the state, and marveled at the strength of convictions and depths of emotions being expressed, I can't help thinking that I'm watching a political train wreck in progress.
That train is moving in slow motion, since it will take years for any new legal challenges to work their way through the lower courts and finally reach the U.S. Supreme Court. But I have no doubt, given the current political climate, that such challenges are coming.
Realistically, the Interior Department's initiative is throwing a lifeline to Hawaiian programs, offering a potential way to survive lawsuits that will end up being decided by an increasingly conservative Supreme Court. You know, the same court that says corporate money is the same thing as free speech, that special protections for voting rights aren't needed any more, that corporations have the same religious rights as people, and that corporate rights to religious freedom take precedence over the rights of actual, human persons that are employed by them.
While perhaps there are some who would not hesitate to trade all of the established Hawaiian institutions and programs for the vague promises and psychological satisfaction of "sovereignty," I doubt very much that a majority of Hawaiians would want to embrace this tradeoff if it were made explicit.
Perhaps the hearings prove to be cathartic and, after the opportunity to share strong emotions, enough of those repressed feelings will have been expressed that we can move on, making progress possible. I hope others will see that as preferable to the train wreck scenario. But only time will tell.
---------------
** Online comment to Lind's article by Ken Conklin
Many thanks to Ian Lind for his clear, concise, fair and balanced summary of the 15 rounds of testimony regarding possible rule-making by the Department of Interior to create a race-based Hawaiian entity and give federal recognition to it as though it is an Indian tribe. I am writing detailed testimony which will be submitted officially and also posted on my website on August 15 in honor of this year's celebration of Statehood Day. I hope the folks who gave oral testimony, and thousands more, will also submit written testimony through the Department of Interior webpage.
The one concept which most of the testifiers repeated loudly and forcefully is that the U.S. has no right to be here in Hawaii because the overthrow and annexation were illegal, and there was no Treaty of Annexation. As Ian wrote, that concept had "lots of input, most of it direct, in-your-face, passionate, and personal, often reflecting a religious-like zeal which makes evidence irrelevant and renders certain "facts" beyond debate."
The testifiers have freedom of speech, but it is counterproductive for them to say those things to U.S. government officials, who are sworn to uphold U.S. law. The Department of Interior will either ignore them, or will draw the conclusion that those poor misguided "Native Hawaiians" need lots of "educating." So the Department of Interior will conclude it should go forward with its rule-making, in order to flood Hawaii with plenty of propaganda to persuade "Native Hawaiians" to knuckle under and become good Indians while also ensuring the continuation of racial entitlement programs which otherwise are illegal.
Reconciliation will never happen until people of Hawaiian ancestry reconcile themselves to the facts that the events of 1893 were an internal revolution; that the sovereignty of the independent nation of Hawaii continued for several years under the successor government of the Republic of Hawaii; that the Republic was given recognition de jure (as the lawful, rightful government) in letters personally signed by at least 19 emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of nations on 4 continents which formerly had recognized the monarchial government; that the Republic had the right to offer a Treaty of Annexation; that the U.S. government ratified and accepted the Treaty by means of its own internal decision-making process which has been repeatedly upheld by courts; and that no nation ever protested annexation and all nations acknowledged its legitimacy by continuing unbroken diplomatic and treaty relations with the U.S.
The religious-like zealotry by Hawaiian independence activists proclaiming "no Treaty of Annexation" was clearly displayed in the 15 public hearings. They have been incited by history-twisting con-artists like Keanu Sai, Henry Noa, Bumpy Kanahele, et. al. who are the ayatollahs of various faith-based groups whose dogma is the denial of the facts mentioned in the previous paragraph. These diehard deadenders of the Hawaiian Kingdom are like the infamous Baghdad Bob, spokesman for Saddam Hussein, who gave an on-air interview broadcast worldwide in which he insisted that Hussein's army was winning the war even while a line of U.S. tanks rolling down the street was clearly visible right behind Bob.
It's very hard to give up a religion. It's emotionally wrenching. But Hawaiian natives did it before, in 1819, when Liholiho Kamehameha 2, and his stepmother regent Ka'ahumanu, and High Priest Hewahewa, abolished the old religion and ordered the destruction of the idols and heiaus throughout the Kingdom. They can do it again today. E malama pono.
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20140711_Hawaiians_at_a_crossroads.html?id=266713231
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 11, 2014, EDITORIAL
Hawaiians at a crossroads
The two-week series of hearings aimed at giving the federal government guidance on the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty have ended, stirring many emotional, largely thoughtful responses to the questions posed by a panel of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).
The department's primary error was to convene these hearings with so little advance notice, which compounded the general sense of suspicion with which many in the Hawaiian community view the federal government. Ultimately, Interior needs to do a better job of communication, now and following the comment period that concludes Aug. 19.
On the whole, though, the series was a highly enlightening if incomplete measure of sentiment about sovereignty. The only way to gain certainty about what Hawaiians want in a relationship with the U.S. government is to ask them more definitively.
Before any final decisions are made, the community should have extensive discussions about their legal options, and then conduct a plebiscite that reaches the broadest Native Hawaiian electorate possible. Perhaps this can be done when the Hawaiians' nation-building convention ('aha) is held, as is planned for later this fall. In any case, the issue deserves a vote.
It's clear that a lot has changed in the Native Hawaiian community in the 14 years since the last federal hearings convened in the islands. Primarily the difference is the level of opposition to "federal recognition" as a measure of self-governance and the degree of insistence on independence. At the 2000 hearings, that seemed a fringe idea.
That's no longer the case. Each of the multiple hearings on Oahu as well as the neighbor islands were packed, and those who attended overwhelmingly took the position that DOI was the wrong federal agency to be broaching the subject.
Repeatedly, the takeaway impression was that Native Hawaiians rejected what Interior offered them -- developing an administrative process through which the federal government would recognize a Native Hawaiian government.
Advocates for restoration of an independent nation, 121 years after the monarchy was overthrown, said a "nation within a nation" status, akin to what Native American and Native Alaskan governments have, does not right the wrong.
That was the dominant opinion expressed, but it wasn't the only one.
Some said they feared that without federal recognition, various federal entitlements for Native Hawaiians, everything from homestead lands to educational programs, remain vulnerable to legal challenge. They sincerely doubt the U.S. would ever grant the independence-backers what they seek.
There are others who are satisfied with the status quo, even stating that U.S. citizenship for all residents of the former kingdom was the best outcome.
The one thing on which virtually all might agree is that this bitter chapter in Hawaiian history is not a dusty volume to be kept on the shelf. It's a keenly felt, painful artifact of the past but a pain that persists today with many people, and it's an issue to be given the most serious attention.
Some at the hearings pointed out that there are family records and photos to remind them that their forebears had signed the petition against annexation of Hawaii by the United States; some of them had been punished for practicing the culture or speaking their indigenous language.
Much of the spirit of the Native Hawaiian nation was reborn in the cultural renaissance of the 1970s. The language was revived in immersion schools, and in Hawaiian-focused charter schools where a new generation was steeped in their history, and in political thinking.
Certainly, that's where much of the strengthened constituency for independence was generated.
But before tossing away the federal recognition option -- whether delivered by legislation such as the so-called "Akaka Bill," or by the proposed administrative route -- Hawaiians need a clear reading of community will.
And that's something best delivered in the polling booth of a plebiscite.
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/kauakukalahale/20140712_O_Kanaiolo_alaala_palu_paha_ka_pololei.html?id=266851251
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 12, 2014, weekly Hawaiian language column
'O Kana'iolo 'ala'ala palu paha ka pololei
Na Kekeha Solis
Synopsis: The testimonies shared at the Native Hawaiian Recognition meetings truly proved that the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Kana'iolowalu, is not working for what the people want.
'Akahi nō a pau ka hālāwai hō'ike mana'o hope loa a ke aupuni pekelala o 'Amelika Hu Pū 'Ia i mālama iho nei i ka Pō'alua nei. He mau hālāwai ia kahi e hō'ike ai i ka mana'o no ke komo 'ana o 'Amelika Hui Pū i loko o ka hana e pa'a ai ke aupuni kū'oko'a o ka lāhui Kanaka Maoli o Hawai'i nei. A 'o kekahi mea maika'i o ia mau hālāwai, ua mōakāka, 'a'ole makemake 'ia nā mana'o o 'Amelika Hui Pū ma ke kūkulu hou 'ana i ke aupuni a ua 'ike maka nā 'elele o ke aupuni pekelala.
A 'o ia ke kumu o ia po'o mana'o e kau a'ela i luna. 'A'ole i kūpono 'o Kana'iolowalu. A no kona 'ano a me kona mau pahuhopu e kū nei, e aho paha kona kapa 'ia 'ana 'o Kana'iolo 'ala'ala palu, no ka mea, he mea ia e holo ai kahi 'ōlelo kahiko, 'o ia ho'i, "Ahu ka 'ala'ala palu." A 'o ka mana'o o ia 'ōlelo mai nā kūpuna mai, 'a'ohe waiwai iki o kahi mea. A pēlā nō 'o Kana'iolowalu e kū nei. 'O ka mana'o o olowalu, 'o ia ka hana pū 'ana, ke kani 'ana o nā leo he nui lehulehu i ka wā like, a me ka mana'o like paha, a no ka pahuhopu like nō paha. A 'o ia paha ka mea e kuhi nei ko 'oukou mea kākau, 'a'ole i kūpono ke kapa 'ia 'ana o ia papahana 'o Kana'iolowalu, 'oiai, i ka lohe 'ana i nā mana'o like 'ole i hō'ike 'ia aku nei ma ia mau hālāwai hō'ike mana'o, 'a'ole i olowalu nā leo no ka hana pū 'ana me 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia no ke ea o kākou. 'A'ole loa. A no laila e kau a'e nei kahi inoa hou ma luna, 'o ia ho'i, 'o Kana'iolo 'ala'ala palu.
Ho'okahi paha ala e pa'a pono ai ia inoa 'o Kana'iolowalu. A 'o ia ka loli 'ana o kona 'ano, ka hana a me nā pahuhopu, a like loa me ka mana'o o ka hapanui loa o nā kānaka i hō'ike mana'o aku nei ma ia mau hālāwai. Inā pēlā, a laila, he olowalu nō paha. E nānā aku paha i kahi wikiō ma ka YouTube, kahi e hō'ike mana'o ana 'o Kaleikoa Kaeo no ka pono 'ole o Kana'iolowalu. Eia mai ka inoa o ia wikiō "Kaleikoa Kaeo Maui OHA Mtg 051514 maui808films." (Mahalo iā 'oe e Pono Kealoha no ke kau 'ana i ia wikiō.) E hele aku i ka pūnaewele a e nānā.
A no ia mau hālāwai hō'ike mana'o, he nui ka pilikia. 'O kekahi, he 'ekolu wale nō hola o kēlā me kēia hālāwai. A pau he 30 minuke i ka wehewehe 'ana o nā 'elele. No laila, he 'elua wale nō hola me ka hapa i koe. A 'o ka mea minamina loa, 'o ia ko Kahului, ua nui loa nā kānaka i hiki 'ole ke hō'ike mana'o i ke kani 'ana o ka hola 9:00, ka piha 'ana ho'i o ke kolu o ka hola. Akā, 'o nā kănaka i hō'ike mana'o, ua nani wale. Ke lana nei ka mana'o, e hō'ike hou 'ia ma luna o ke kīwī ma ke kānela 49, e hele i olelo.org no ka 'ike.
Mahalo a nui e nā kānaka i hō'ike mana'o ma nā hālāwai, a inā 'a'ole 'oe i hō'ike mana'o, he hiki iā 'oe ke kākau leka a ho'ouna ma o ka leka ma ka helu wahi: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7329, 1849 C Street NW, Washington DC 20240 (e ho'okomo 'ia ka helu hō'oia 1090-AB05 i loko o ke kino o ka leka, a e ho'ouna 'ia paha ma ka pūnaewele ma
www.regulations.gov.
-----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140713__consensus_would_end_us_effort.html?id=266909441
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 13, 2014
Consensus would end U.S. effort
Feedback remains firmly against a federal process, but a growing number of advocates are emerging
By Rob Perez
The Interior Department will not pursue a rule creating an administrative mechanism for recognizing a future Native Hawaiian government if the consensus from written and oral testimony is against that path, an agency spokeswoman told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
The feedback the department has received so far through written comments online and from two weeks of public meetings in Hawaii overwhelmingly rejects that route. But the department is continuing to accept written comments until Aug. 19 and also will hold a series of meetings from July 29 through Aug. 7 in Native American communities on the mainland to get more feedback.
If the current trend shifts and proponents of the administrative process voice their opinions in strong enough numbers by mid-August, that could affect the decision of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who ultimately makes the call.
As of Friday afternoon, however, the public testimony largely was against any Interior Department involvement.
Only about 10 percent of the roughly 260 comments posted online favored the rule-making approach, according to a Star-Advertiser review of the postings.
The comments mostly mirrored the overwhelming opposition the Interior panel encountered from hundreds of people during more than 45 hours of testimony at its 15 meetings statewide.
If a consensus against the rule-making approach is evident once the comment period ends, "then a proposed rule would not be crafted and the process would end there," Interior spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw told the newspaper Friday.
Rhea Suh, the department's assistant secretary who headed the panel, issued a statement to the Star-Advertiser the same day thanking community members for their willingness to be part of the feedback process, assured them that their voices were heard, urged people to continue submitting comments and even seemed to hint at the possibility of the rule-making process ultimately not advancing.
"The dialogue now is for the Native Hawaiian community to begin to chart their course forward towards the future," Suh said. "At the very least, we hope we have been able to be a catalyst for the community to discuss how to develop these next steps."
Former Gov. John Waihee, the state's first Native Hawaiian chief executive, said the department should finish the rule-making process even if a consensus is not reached, noting that the effort syncs nicely with the nation-building process overseen by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
"It would be a tragedy if they didn't (finish)," said Waihee, who heads the roll commission. "They shouldn't quit what they started."
From the first meeting June 23 at the state Capitol to the last one Tuesday on Maui, opponents of the rule-making process dominated the 15 sessions to argue against any Interior involvement in the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians.
They said the agency had no jurisdiction, the Hawaiian kingdom still exists and the United States has illegally occupied the islands since the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy.
But since the meetings ended, a tiny but growing number of people have submitted online comments to the department expressing support for the rule-making process.
As of Friday, they numbered roughly two dozen -- still a fraction of those who have publicly spoken against the process.
"I am dismayed that the only voices being heard are the loudest ones," wrote an unidentified non-Hawaiian who works for a Native Hawaiian organization, has lived on Oahu for more than 25 years and says Interior's efforts are a step in the right direction. "Most of the Hawaiians I am close to as friends do not agree with these voices, nor do they wish to be governed by them."
A part-Hawaiian commenter offered a similar view.
"I do not believe that a majority of Hawaiians want to secede from the U.S.," the unidentified person wrote. "However, a majority of activists have hijacked the committee's meetings to provide a skewed view."
Kurt Klein, 26, was among the Hawaiians who told the department that he favors the rule-making process and wants it to ultimately result in federal recognition of a future Native Hawaiian government. Like some others, he testified at one of the meetings and also submitted online comments.
In those comments and in a phone interview with the Star-Advertiser, Klein, the son of former Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Robert Klein, said recognition is important because it would be a formal acknowledgement by the U.S. that the pre-existing and inherent sovereignty of a Native Hawaiian governing body never was extinguished.
Recognition also would help protect the many federal and state benefits for Hawaiians from race-based constitutional challenges, according to Klein.
He said the Hawaiian community is willing and capable of engaging in self-governance, citing the roll commission process, and should do so without direct guidance from the Interior Department.
"Only through a process anchored in pure self-determination will legitimate Native Hawaiian leaders emerge to build a government by Native Hawaiians, for Native Hawaiians," he wrote.
Klein told the Star-Advertiser that he believes the possibility of Hawaii becoming an internationally recognized independent nation -- a status that kingdom advocates push -- is so remote that the existing Native Hawaiian benefits should not be put at further risk for the sake of "a dream."
Another online commenter, Kali Watson, who heads a nonprofit that develops housing for Hawaiians and is a former Department of Hawaiian Home Lands chairman, emphasized the economic impact of recognition.
To underscore the magnitude of that impact, Watson cited an analysis by the late Sen. Daniel Inouye's staff that estimated the federal government spent more than $440 million on Native Hawaiian programs from 1989 to 2000. That amount, he added, didn't account for the "multiplier effect" as the money filtered into the local economy, touching businesses and supporting jobs throughout the state.
With federal recognition, this type of funding would be much less at risk from legal challenges because the government-to-government relationship would be based on Hawaiians' special political status, not race, according to Watson and others.
Pursuing recognition through the rule-making process would provide the administrative means for the U.S. government to negotiate with a Native Hawaiian entity, but the rule-making will not take away any options, including independence, from Hawaiians as they separately pursue their self-governing rights, added Watson, an attorney.
"We're not giving up anything," he said.
Watson submitted his online testimony as chairman of economic development and housing for the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly, a statewide organization that represents more than 30,000 Hawaiian beneficiaries on DHHL lands. He said he did so with the approval of the group's president.
Some of the rule-making supporters in their online comments urged the Interior Department to assist Hawaiians in forming a governing body.
"I believe that this community is too divided to come to a consensus and that this process needs the resources of the United States government to (facilitate) a fully fair process where all who wish to be heard are heard -- not just those who can yell the loudest," wrote a 63-year-old Native Hawaiian and Oahu social worker.
Kershaw, the Interior spokeswoman, told the Star-Advertiser that even if an administrative recognition mechanism was created through the rule-making process, Native Hawaiians still would have to choose to exercise that option.
"It is not some action that the federal government could exercise or unilaterally impose upon the community," she said in an email. "All we are asking about is if and how to create the procedures we would follow if a Native Hawaiian government came to us seeking federal recognition at some point in the future."
Some advocates say the rule-making process would not interfere with but rather complement the roll commission's nation-building effort, called Kanaiolowalu. Others say the federal initiative will add to confusion surrounding the controversial state-backed commission effort, roundly criticized by kingdom advocates.
Waihee, who said he believes a majority of Hawaiians favor federal recognition, said the nation-building process will advance no matter what happens to the rule-making proposal. If an administrative rule is not pursued, though, Waihee acknowledged a loss of some momentum.
"There's kind of a nice symmetry right now," he said of the two ongoing but separate efforts.
But even if the Interior Department drops its approach, the federal government eventually will have to develop a process for recognizing and negotiating with the governing entity formed through Kanaiolowalu, Waihee said.
Watson, the former DHHL chairman, said Hawaiians should work within the system, including with the federal government, and he views the rule-making approach as a practical and positive step.
"The federal government is not going to go away," Watson said. "I'm a realist."
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
The U.S. Department of the Interior is accepting written comments until Aug. 19 on whether it should pursue establishing an administrative process for recognizing a future Native Hawaiian government:
>> Online: www.regulations.gov
>> Mail: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7329, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240
>> Direct: John Strylowski at john_strylowski@ios.doi.gov
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20140715_letters_to_the_editor.html?id=267121181
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 15, 2014, Letter to Editor
Hawaiians risk losing designation
No one can undo the overthrow, annexation and statehood. If a Native Hawaiian government is not recognized by the United States, if "indigenous people of Hawaii" status is not confirmed, the crises could soon begin for programs that are for "Hawaiians first" and "Hawaiians only," putting them at risk of losing those designations through legal challenges based on racial discrimination. And the Nation of Hawaii will remain unformed.
Please do not allow this opportunity for recognition to slip away because it may never come again ("Consensus would end U.S. effort," Star-Advertiser, July 13).
Light a very big candle rather than continue to curse the darkness.
Anne Sabalaske
Kuliouou
--------
** Online comment
Ken_Conklin wrote: Anne Sabalaske "if "indigenous people of Hawaii" status is not confirmed, the crises could soon begin for programs that are for "Hawaiians first" and "Hawaiians only," putting them at risk of losing those designations through legal challenges based on racial discrimination."
That would be a very good thing. Why should racial discrimination be enshrined forever? It's time for "Hawaiians first" and "Hawaiians only" to be eliminated. That would be good for all Hawaii's people, and it would be especially good for ethnic Hawaiians, the so-called "beneficiaries" of those programs.
Here's an excellent book to read: Jason Riley, "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed." Riley has tons of footnotes proving that the "affirmative action" racial preferences and racial entitlement programs created to help black people have actually harmed them by making them dependent on others instead of helping themselves, and by making them embrace victimhood as an excuse for failure.
---------------------
Every day the Honolulu Star-Advertiser posts a "Big Question" poll which offers several possible answers and asks readers to vote online. On July 15, 2014 the question was
Should the U.S. Department of Interior keep open the process for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians?
Readers were offered the following choices.
A. Yes
B. No
For about 14 years this newspaper has editorialized repeatedly in favor of the Akaka bill, and protection of racial entitlement programs; and has slanted its selection of news topics and the way news reports are written in an effort to shape public opinion. The ethnic Hawaiian establishment has a huge war chest of money and thousands of bureaucrats whose jobs depend on status quo and urgently wants federal recognition to protect the status quo against court challenges of unconstitutionality (OHA has $650 Million in assets; Kamehameha Schools [Bishop Estate] has between 8 and 15 Billion in assets depending on how land is valued; there are more than 850 racial entitlement programs).
Nevertheless, the "silent majority" spoke loud and clear, in opposition to having the Department of Interior engage in administrative rule-making to create a phony Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition. Here are the results:
http://poll.staradvertiser.com/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
July 15, 2014
Should the U.S. Department of Interior keep open the process for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians?
B. No (67%, 730 Votes)
A. Yes (33%, 353 Votes)
Total Votes: 1,083
-------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/guest/more-to-consider-on-hawaiian-kingdom/article_580b5e48-0f06-11e4-b2e9-0019bb2963f4.html
The Garden Island [Kaua'i], July 19, 2014, guest commentary
More to consider on Hawaiian Kingdom
by Janos Keoni Samu
In connection with the US Department of Interior hearings held on Kauai in a lead editorial of TGI (7July 13) the author, Judith Fernandez, asked some very important questions about the Hawaiian Kingdom. She had attended the DOI hearing in Kapaa, but did not ask questions right there, where she could have gotten the answers right away from the kanaka maoli in attendance. It is especially so, because the Minister of Interior of the Lawful Hawaiian Government, Mr. GW Naliko Kahoalii Paki Markel, was also present. He and we, who are Hawaiian nationals and Hawaiian citizens know how the Hawaiian Kingdom would function when the American flag comes down and the Hawaiian flag rises. If the questions were asked in print I hope that these answers will also be allowed on the pages of TGI.
First of all, the moment when the Hawaiian flag replaces the American flag the Hawaiians who have faith in themselves, in their leaders and in ke Akua, will be revitalized. They will re-create a peace loving country in Hawaii Peina. The first legal step is already done, because on March 13, 1999 the kanaka maoli during their convention on the island of Oahu reinstated the former inherent sovereignty of the Kingdom in accordance with international law and the Hawaiian Kingdom Laws in response to "United States Public Law 103-150."
Since then, this reinstated Hawaiian Government held regular conventions where the leadership was democratically elected by its nationals and citizens. And yes, there is a constitution, because the form of government is constitutional monarchy, and the Amended Constitution of Hawaii 2000, was approved by the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom of Hawaii at its Constitutional Convention of March 10, 11 and 12, 2000 and ratified by the citizenry in a Nationwide Plebiscite Referendum on April 29, 2000. The takeover of the Hawaiian Islands from the current de facto government will be gradual and there will be a transitional period. And yes, democracy is and will always be present. The regularly held meetings of Mana Kaunwai (legislative body) will assure this. But these and other legalities can be found on the website of the Lawful Hawaiian Government. The government has a vision and goals, among them free or low cost health care for all Hawaiian citizens and nationals, free or low cost world-class education, low cost housing and many other benefits.
As to the question on advisors and citizenship I would like to add my own and my fellow citizens' thoughts. The most important adviser in the new government is called Common Sense. Then come the kupuna, who with their local knowledge and traditional wisdom could find the solution to burning issues. If we needed more advisers we would definitely stay clear of American advisers to avoid situations like the ones the United States has created in Iraq and Afghanistan through its advisers and military. It does not mean that we will not use the good advice of other world leaders, if they serve the interest of the Hawaiian people.
For example, I hope that even the advice given by the United States to the newly independent countries at the break-up of the Soviet Union will be implemented here, too. This will take care of the citizenship question too, namely that on the first day the Lawful Hawaiian Government takes over a new law will be enacted according to which no land or real property in Hawaii might be owned by foreigners, but in order to assure a smooth transition the foreign owners of land and properties (including U.S. citizens) would be given six months to take the Hawaiian citizenship test and to pledge their allegiance to the Hawaiian nation, at the same time renouncing all of their other citizenships they are holding. If they don't want to become Hawaiian citizens they would be free to leave Hawaii and go wherever they want to go. Is it scary? Not at all, because I am convinced that the U.S. would be very happy to take its citizens back and resettle them on the Mainland. Unsold properties of foreigners would be nationalized and the people of Hawaii would benefit from the income they can generate.
When it comes to education, health care, social services, environment, and infrastructure, the Hawaiians would be able to handle it with the help of other nations who would be eager to help the newly independent Kingdom of Hawaii. Hawaii would again establish diplomatic relations with other nations just like in the past and establish cooperation and mutually beneficial trade agreements with them setting a good example to the world and showing that peaceful coexistence is more beneficial to a country than military threats and sable rattling. And we can do it all with lots of aloha!
Is it a dream? Part of it might be, but it is a Hawaiian dream, and remember, if the Hawaiians stop dreaming their nation will cease to exist.
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20140720_Land_is_power_especially_in_Hawaiian_rights_issue.html?id=267824291
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 20, 2014, COMMENTARY by newspaper's paid commentator
Land is power -- especially in Hawaiian rights issue
By Richard Borreca
Patsy Mink is in it representing the 2nd Congressional District. Neil Abercrombie, with shoulder-length dark brown hair, is representing the 1st, and Dan Akaka and Dan Inouye are beaming, looking marvelous. Peering over President Bill Clinton's shoulder is Al Gore, then vice president.
The picture showing them all in the Oval Office is from 1993.
The issue at hand is witnessing Clinton signing Public Law 130-150, the Apology Resolution to Native Hawaiians.
Things really were not any simpler 21 years ago, but viewed from recent exchanges between folks in Hawaii and the federal government, they sure seemed more on track.
When he was in office, Akaka made a point of showing visitors a framed copy of the resolution in an explanation of its importance.
Observers consider the resolution important because in it is a recognition that Native Hawaiians didn't give up their "claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands."
In 2000, the federal Interior Department started what was called a "reconciliation process" between the United State and the Hawaiian people (http://goo.gl/r3tgV5).
The resulting report, "The River of Justice Must Flow Freely," repeatedly says Congress should pass a law that "recognizes a government to government relationship with a representative of the Native Hawaiian people."
But when it comes down to real action, the report instead says two new bureaucracies should be created in the departments of Interior and Justice to deal with Hawaiian issues and then wanders off into vague good thoughts.
"We believe the executive branch, Congress, the state of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiian people must develop an appropriate process to ensure true reconciliation," it said.
And that brings us to the present, where the Obama administration in the form of the Interior Department is asking people in Hawaii if it can help.
Yes, insert here the joke, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
The DOI just concluded a round of visits to all islands to assess whether people in Hawaii want the DOI to start asking about helping with forming a Native Hawaiian government, which would then begin talks with the United States about reconciliation.
It may have been started with good intentions, but it was clearly a tone-deaf moment in the relationship.
Many of those speaking at the hearings told the federal government to leave, and called for the revival of the kingdom of Hawaii.
As hearing were held in Waimea and Kona on the Big Island, West Hawaii Today reported that "Rhea Suh, an assistant secretary with the Department of the Interior, said the federal agency is asking 'dense' questions that the Native Hawaiian community needs to define the answers to."
If the hearing served as a sounding board, by the end of the process the board was pretty much pummeled into splinters. The questions of "nation within a nation" or "tribal relationship" or "leave Hawaii to figure it out for itself" were not answered.
But, the real question was not asked.
If Native Hawaiians are to be players in the debate, it is not about whether the monarchy is making a comeback or whether it is all a plot to bring in casinos.
The question, as it always is in Hawaii, is about the land. An estimated 1.8 million acres were seized by the federal government in 1898 when the U.S. annexed Hawaii. That seized land became ceded land and it is what's at stake in any new Native Hawaiian government.
Best advice: Keep your eye on the prize.
-----------
** Online comment by Ken Conklin
In the Mahele (starting 1848) King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha 3 set aside the crown lands as his personal property at the same time he created the government lands and the private lands. But by 1865 the alcoholic King Lota Kamehameha 5 had piled up lots of gambling debts. He mortgaged the Crown Lands, couldn't repay the mortgage, and was in danger of getting foreclosed on the lands. So the Kingdom legislature passed a law in 1865 in which the government issued government bonds to pay off the mortgage and took ownership of the Crown Lands and included provisions that the Crown Lands could never again be sold or mortgaged and that the revenue from them would be used to provide income for the monarch to use as head of state for ceremonial purposes and the splendor of office. The King was, of course, very happy to sign that bill, since it relieved him of his personal mortgage debt. From that time on the Crown Lands were owned by the government, so that the government lands and crown lands together became called the "public lands" of Hawaii.
When the monarchy was overthrown, the revenue from the former crown lands was no longer needed to support the splendor of a monarch so it simply became part of the revenue from all the rest of the public lands. The public lands (government and crown lands combined) remained the public lands of the government, held by the government on behalf of all the citizens of the Republic of Hawaii.
It is not merely a falsehood, but a scurrilous lie, when Borreca says the U.S. "seized" the public lands of Hawaii at annexation. The Republic of Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation, which the U.S. accepted. The terms of the Treaty specified that the public lands of Hawaii would be ceded to the U.S. in return for the U.S. paying off the accumulated national debt of Hawaii (most of which came from Kalakaua's profligate spending [remember the Palace and the trip around the world]) -- and what the U.S. paid turned out to be more than the market value of the ceded lands, so the U.S. in effect bought the ceded lands. But in addition, the Treaty specified that the U.S. would not simply take over and own the ceded lands; rather, the ceded lands would be a public trust for the benefit of the people of Hawaii, with all revenue to be spent on "education and other public purposes." And then at statehood in 1959 the ceded lands were returned to the new State of Hawaii in fee simple absolute, except for military bases and national parks and federal buildings like post offices and federal courts etc.
There was no "seizing" of the ceded lands by the U.S. And shame on Borreca for perpetuating that scurrilous lie.
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/guesteditorialspremium/20140720_Path_to_Sovereignty_should_be_founded_in_Hawaiian_values.html?id=267824211
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 20, 2014
Recent U.S. Department of Interior hearings revealed passionate sentiments, against and for federal recognition, from Native Hawaiians keen on self-determination. Here are several key voices on the issue of what lies ahead.
Road to Sovereignty should be founded in Hawaiian values
By Williamson Chang
The question of the moment is how to proceed on the path to Hawaiian sovereignty. The answer lies in what made Hawaiians a great people. The answer lies in what makes Hawaii a place of beauty, power and grace. Namely, Hawaiians and Hawaii should proceed based on the values that make Hawaii what it is: Hawaiian values of pono, kuleana, lokahi and aloha.
Pono or righteousness starts with the truth. We have heard much truth-telling lately. There will be more to come. Yet truth comes with kuleana or responsibility. As Nelson Mandela taught, truth must be followed by reconciliation. Truth is not a sword for retribution, but a vessel for the common good.
Hawaii is occupied. That is a legal fact. Yet, how many people alive today know that? I once asked former Chief Justice William S. Richardson if he knew the Joint Resolution had no power to acquire Hawaii. Even he did not know this fact -- even though his grandfather sat as counsel to the queen during the 1898 debates on the Joint Resolution.
Hawaiians and Americans are just beginning to learn of the unlawful taking of Hawaii. Everyone today begins with a presumption of innocence. Those who knew, who are really guilty are long gone.
One element of reconciliation is lokahi -- many hands. It will take many hands, perhaps all of us, to usher in the new nation. Hawaiian nationals may lead, but American citizens who call Hawaii home, have their place as well -- as they did in the kingdom.
Who is to say that one cannot remain an American citizen yet love both America and Hawaii? Or, who is to say that one cannot be a Hawaiian national and love both America and Hawaii. The new nation will need all -- everyone working together to succeed.
Hawaii can be a better place as a new nation if we work together. It is a chance to start anew. Hawaii can choose the best of all worlds, the best of Hawaiian values, and the best of American laws. We can design a state that controls its immigration and thus its population. We can pass laws that discourage speculative real estate investments that lead to outrageous housing costs. We can invite in international shipping and air traffic -- lowering fares and the cost of goods. We can pass laws uniquely suited for an island nation.
At present we are subject to the laws of a United States in which we are the exception as an island state. American laws are made for contiguous states, not fragile islands isolated in the Pacific Ocean. Pono means protecting the future of our children in Hawaii, providing them housing, jobs that they are trained for, water and open spaces. We can't do that easily under American law. It is time to break out on our own.
Moreover we should have hope in this journey -- hope that the American people will support Hawaii as they have in the past. We must remember that when the Kue petitions were brought to America, its people supported Hawaiians and told their senators to veto the Treaty of Annexation. American senators did not even want a vote on the Treaty.
Hawaiians must be mindful of the examples of their past leaders. Kamehameha III and Liliuokalani both had hope and patience. They had hope and patience as to the British in 1843 and the Americans in 1893. Kamehameha III was right, in 1843 the British restored Hawaiian rule. Queen Liliuokalani's faith was vindicated when President Grover Cleveland promised restoration. America can still fulfill that promise.
Last of all, I believe Hawaii has a destiny. Its destiny is as a place of peace, a place of aloha to solve worldly problems. We can be the one shining example in the world of an occupation, long and bitter, that was resolved peacefully and amicably. We could become the Geneva of the Pacific: A place of healing and peace where other nations and people can come to resolve their differences.
-----
Williamson Chang is a law professor at the University of Hawaii-Manoa.
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/guesteditorialspremium/20140720_Its_an_international_rights_issue_so_US_must_step_back.html?id=267824231
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 20, 2014
It's an international rights issue, so U.S. must step back
By Ilima Long, Jon Osorio and Andre Perez
Were the U.S. to create today, under its own domestic laws rather than through international law, a "government to government" relationship with Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians), it would be violating, once again, the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has never been legally obliterated.
Inasmuch as the U.S. has never conquered us -- the kingdom resisted takeover using diplomatic, not military means -- nor executed a valid treaty of cession/annexation with us, either one of which was required in 1898 for an annexation to be valid under international law, the U.S. has no legal authority over our nation and no right to incorporate us as its native people.
Since 1893, the U.S. has perpetrated numerous crimes against our people including:
» A determinative role in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani's lawfully constituted government and in its replacement by a non-elected government of Americans and Europeans, some of whom had been granted citizenship by the kingdom.
» The rapid and rapacious appropriation of our lands, waters and other resources; the attempted erasure of our history, language and culture.
» The strangling of our diplomatic relationships with other nations in the world.
These actions violated our rightful existence under international law in the 1890s, and now violate our collective right of self-determination and individual human rights. Setting up rules for a federal relationship with a native governing entity would be the latest item in a long list of violations and demonstrate the U.S. government's utter unwillingness to take responsibility for the crimes against our nation.
What the U.S. government ought to do between now and the restoration of our full independence is to officially recognize an interim trust relationship with the kanaka maoli inasmuch as it holds our lands and resources depriving us of their benefits.
Indeed, the United Nations imposes this international trust relationship on countries like the U.S. that hold territories which are denied their right to self-determination or prevented from governing themselves. As we are not at this moment able to exercise our sovereignty in our own country, the U.S. must ensure that the Hawaiian people do not lose the rights and prerogatives, however inadequate, that have been garnered by Hawaiians since the American takeover: OHA revenues; Hawaiian Homelands; special health and education funds; gathering and access rights, to name a few.
In other words, the U.S. should inflict no more harm as the Hawaiian nation continues to unify and strengthen itself.
The U.S. may also be bound by its own domestic laws, specifically the 1993 Apology Resolution in which the U.S. recognized its complicity in the loss of our government while committing itself to an unspecified process of reconciliation. The imposition of the status of a "client state" on the kanaka maoli is another aggression not reconciliation.
Consequently, no federal agency should cooperate with state initiatives, like Kanaʻioluwalu, that would limit the Hawaiian nation's efforts to restore its government.
Finally the U.S. needs to understand that an increasing number of people believe that restoration of our independent government is not only viable and reasonable but inevitable. This makes the political climate and future in Hawaii very different, and somewhat more precarious than in 1959 when Congress declared Hawaii a state, or even in 1993 when tens of thousands of Hawaiians were seeking limited self-government.
The Department of the interior and the state of Hawaii should not attempt to influence or interfere with the nation-building that has been ongoing among kanaka for the past 30 years. The good will and aloha shown by Hawaiian activists will quickly sour if either the U.S. or the state of Hawaii uses tactics to divide and alienate our people from one another.
We believe the Hawaiian sovereignty movement can and will produce a peaceful and just resolution of the political and legal problems created by the U.S. if it is not prevented from growing at its own pace and according to its own ideals. We do not want just any governing body. We want the restoration of our independent government and we deserve nothing less than that.
Through our patience and non-violent persistence, we have earned the faith of those who inhabit these islands alongside us, that we will not disenfranchise others nor deprive them of their rights. We do insist, however, on claiming our rights as a sovereign people, and on the U.S. and state policy makers keeping their hands off our efforts.
This does not mean that the U.S. does not owe reparations to the Hawaiian nation for its use of our national lands and waters for its own benefit and security. Inasmuch as the invoice for 130 years of Pearl Harbor is likely to be a substantial charge, it is important for the U.S. not to add to its obligations and look for ways to reestablish the friendly and cooperative relationship it once enjoyed with our kingdom.
-----
Ilima Long, Jon Osorio and Andre Perez submitted this piece on behalf of MANA (Movement for Aloha no ka ʻĀina).
---------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20140720_Federal_recognition_would_pave_a_nation-to-nation_path.html?id=267824221
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 20, 2014
Federal recognition would pave a nation-to-nation path
By Colette Machado
Eia Hawaiʻi, he moku, he kānaka
ʻO Hawaiʻi kūkahi
E ʻauamo kākou
ʻImi i ka nāʻau
Here is Hawaiʻi, the land, the people
We are a people, unique to these islands
Let us bear this ancestral legacy proudly on our shoulders
Look deep within ourselves for the foundation
I would like us to reflect upon the above theme for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) in 2012, which was provided to us as a challenge by the renowned kumu hula and Hawaiian scholar Pualani Kanakaole Kanahele. Act 195, which set up the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, had passed the year before and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission had just been appointed by Gov. Neil Abercrombie.
In 2012, we were taking the first step toward re-establishing a sovereign Native Hawaiian governing entity by supporting the development of a certified base roll of qualified Native Hawaiians to elect delegates for an ʻaha that would draft a governance document for approval by those participating Native Hawaiians.
The challenge, then and now, is for each of us, as Native Hawaiians, to look deep within the cultural legacy of our kupuna and work together to be sure that the contemporary Native Hawaiian governing entity is rooted in our ancestral wisdom.
As I listened to the voices of concern raised throughout our islands in reaction to the initiative of the Department of the Interior to begin a rulemaking process that will open a pathway to re-establish a government-to-government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the U.S. government, I sensed a deep feeling of mistrust and fear that the process will result in another betrayal of our self-determination as Native Hawaiians.
My heartfelt manaʻo is that we can only overcome this mistrust by making a commitment to each other as Native Hawaiians that we will stay true to our ancestral traditions.
In the past few decades our community has looked to such core cultural concepts and practices as aloha aina and malama aina, revived by George Helm and the Protect Kahoolawe ʻOhana; traditional wayfinding revived by master navigator Mau Pialug and the Polynesian Voyaging Society; educating, writing and publishing in our olelo makuahine, our mother language; the composition and performance of oli and hula kahiko perpetuated by our many halau of hula; laau lapaau traditional herbal and spiritual healing; organizing as hui, ohana, lahui and aha and living as kuaaina to protect our lands and resources throughout our islands, especially our kipuka.
As Kanaka Oiwi, we have a deeply rooted and resilient cultural, spiritual and aina-based foundation. If we keep connected with our ancestral foundation, we will build a strong sovereign governing entity which will be embraced by all of our people. Such an entity will set the terms for the re-establishment of the government-to-government relationship with the U.S. government.
Since the Rice v. Cayetano decision in 2000, the system of law out of which OHA was created has been challenged in numerous lawsuits aimed at preventing OHA, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and our alii trusts from providing services to our Native Hawaiian people. Such lawsuits have attempted to dismantle our Hawaiian-serving institutions.
While we have successfully defeated these lawsuits, OHA strongly believes that in the long term, the most viable way to protect and expand existing Native Hawaiian programs, trusts and rights is to reestablish a government-to-government relationship between a contemporary Native Hawaiian government and the United States.
OHA's primary strategy to protect all of these Native Hawaiian organizations and the services that we provide had been the passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act or the Akaka Bill. OHA spent 12 years pursuing the passage of the Akaka Bill and dealt with multiple obstacles along every step of that path.
Now, we welcome the initiative taken by the administration of our keiki o ka aina, President Barack Obama, to move Native Hawaiian governance forward by starting federal rulemaking that could provide a process to reestablish a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians, through the Department of the Interior.
The issue of further reconciliation through international redress is an important but separate question. The federal rule should open a path for reestablishing a domestic government-to-government relationship that will not, as a legal matter, affect paths for international redress.
Now is the time for all of us to lay down our spears, embrace with aloha and move forward together by re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Let us be guided by the wisdom of our kupuna who taught us:
E kaupē aku no i ka hoe a kō mai.
Put forward the paddle and draw it back.
Go on with the task that is started and finish it.
If you feel, as I do, that it is time for us to take charge of our own destiny as a native people, please submit supportive written comments directly to the Department of the Interior at www.bit.ly/HAWAII-ANPRM or via mail to: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7329, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C., 20240.
-----
Colette Machado is chairwoman of the Office of Hawaii Affairs' board of trustees.
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20140722_Letters_to_the_Editor.html?id=268058551
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 22, 2014, Letter to Editor
Consensus among Hawaiians unlikely
Regarding the article, "Consensus would end U.S. effort" (Star-Advertiser, July 13): A consensus among Hawaiians? You must be dreaming.
A general agreement on "federalization" or independence is like trying to get the Israelis to dine with Hamas, or Shiites and Sunnis going on a picnic.
Divide and conquer has been the strategy of Congress ever since the 1893 overthrow and the subsequent "extralegal" act of "annexation." Then came the Territory, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 and, in 1959, statehood.
Two keys to the reinstatement of the Nation of Hawaii: the repeal of the 1898 Joint Resolution of Annexation and the involvement of the United Nations.
The only agreement that matters for now is a negotiated and binding agreement between "Con Con" delegates and the rest of the 130,000 certified enrollees of the Hawaiian Roll. Some $440 million of "entitlements" from the United States is peanuts compared with economic potential of an independent nation.
Jimmy Wong
Heeia
---------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20140723_Letters_to_the_Editor.html?id=268226512
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 23, 2014, Letter to editor
Judge King was proved correct
The cover of the Sunday Insight section featured three articles -- by Colette Machado; Ilima Long, Jon Osorio and Andre Perez; and Williamson Chang on Hawaiian sovereignty -- plus a Richard Borreca column discussing the 1993 congressional apology and subsequent efforts to achieve sovereignty.
None of these writers have anything like the stature of the late Samuel P. King, one of the most distinguished jurists and leaders of Hawaii and himself part-Hawaiian.
In 1998, King wrote in The Honolulu Advertiser that the apology resolution was "essentially a cynical action by an uninterested Congress, equivalent to apologizing to George III for the American Revolution."
King added: "The mischief caused by this ill-considered resolution, based in large part on the flawed Blount Report, will plague us for many more years."
Although Hawaii's U.S. Sens. Dan Akaka and Dan Inouye assured their colleagues that the resolution was purely symbolic and would have no practical effects, it is Judge King who has been proved right.
Carl H. Zimmerman
Salt Lake
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140725__OHA_board_revises_schedule_for_nation_building.html?id=268566772
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 25, 2014
OHA board revises schedule for nation building
Key events are delayed until next year as another request for a new registry is denied
By Timothy Hurley
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees announced Thursday a six-month extension to its nation-building effort, a move that will delay the election of delegates until January, the convention until April and the formal referendum until July 2015.
At the same time, however, trustees rejected another proposal by OHA CEO Kamana'opono Crabbe to start a new registry of names to add to the official roll of Native Hawaiians eligible to vote for nationhood.
"We believe that this new timetable helps to position us to build a strong sovereign governing entity that will be embraced by all of our people," OHA Chairwoman Colette Machado said in a statement.
Crabbe made his recommendations in May based largely on the public comments he and his staff heard during a statewide series of town hall meetings regarding OHA's nation-building efforts. Those comments were punctuated by calls for an independent Hawaiian nation and included concerns there was a lack of education over the issues and the fact that more people needed to be involved.
That was before Native Hawaiians loudly rejected a proposal for federal recognition of a native government during two weeks of raucous U.S. Interior Department hearings in late June and early July.
On Thursday, Molokai activist and former OHA trustee Walter Ritte said he was disappointed by the board's action. He said advocates of Hawaiian independence were pushing for a two-year delay to allow enough time to educate Hawaiians on the issues surrounding nation building and were also hoping to fix what he described as a flawed Kanaiolowalu, the official roll of eligible voters established by the state Legislature.
"We were looking for different ways to open up participation," he said. "This sounds too restrictive. I guess OHA isn't listening."
Kamana Beamer, University of Hawaii assistant professor of Hawaiian studies, said he too was disappointed OHA wasn't adding to the roll and allowing adequate time for a full exploration of the issues, including the questions about the Hawaiian kingdom included in Crabbe's "unauthorized" letter to Secretary of State John Kerry.
"Let's not be afraid of the truth," Beamer said.
The proposed nation-building timeline had called for the election of delegates in September. A convention, or aha, to draft a governing document, would have occurred in October or November, while an up-or-down vote on the document would be held in January.
Trustee Oswald Stender said the trustees made the decision to delay the process behind closed doors in executive session July 8 and then voted Thursday to make the action public.
Planning for the convention and the election of delegates had been put on hold anyway, he said, and the six-month delay would not only lead to more education, but allow OHA time to prepare for the effort.
Stender said trustees believe the existing Kanaiolowalu roll, featuring more than 125,000 Native Hawaiians from three different registries, is adequate to serve the nation-building process.
"Starting a new roll would be confusing and unproductive," he said. With the Kau Inoa and OHA Hawaiian Registry rolls already added into Kanaiolowalu, "it covers all the bases" regarding widespread participation, he said.
Former Gov. John Waihee, chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, said he wasn't surprised by the delay.
"It was a very ambitious schedule to start with," he said.
Waihee said the commission may now decide to reopen Kanaiolowalu to additional names. And he said he's inclined to do so because there is enough time.
"But it's not my decision," he said, noting that the commission meets next week.
The OHA trustees held a special public hearing on the nation-building process in late May, and most of those who filled OHA's Iwilei board room asked for additional time so people can be educated about the Hawaiian nation's history and learn how independence can be achieved through international arenas.
Like the Interior Department hearings that would follow, most of the speakers expressed strong support for independence and the reinstatement of the Hawaiian kingdom and described the wrongs the United States committed against the Hawaiian nation. They described as illegal the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, the annexation of the Hawaiian kingdom and the statehood referendum. They said Hawaii has been -- and still is -- illegally occupied by the U.S.
On Thursday, Ritte said he's disappointed that trustees didn't follow through with their call for unity and their promise to remain neutral. He said it appears trustees favor the nation-within-a-nation model of government like that of the American Indians.
"The Hawaiian community is in no mood to be part of the Indian scenario," he said, pointing to the Interior Department hearings.
Ritte said it could lead to "a big battle" between OHA and those seeking an independent Hawaiian nation.
But Stender said the trustees aren't pushing anything. Native Hawaiians as a whole will decide in the upcoming nation-building referendum, he said.
Machado, in her statement, said, "It is now time to work together to be sure that the contemporary Native Hawaiian governing entity is rooted in our ancestral wisdom."
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/offthenewspremium/20140726_off_the_news.html?id=268699622
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 26, 2014
Off the News [mini-editorial]
Hawaiians on long and winding road
We won't be surprised if the six-month delay the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs just announced in its nation-building process grows even longer.
OHA trustees have now heard loud and clear -- first at a special OHA public hearing in May and again during a series of statewide, televised hearings held by the U.S. Department of the Interior in June and July -- that Hawaiians want more time to educate themselves and their friends and families about what is at stake.
Already, some critics are saying that two years are needed to truly enhance the effort, and that this short extension won't be enough. Hawaiian nationalists, whose views were dominant at the recent hearings, are among those calling for more time.
-----------------
http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/Local-Hawaiians-discuss-restarting-native-government-268816491.html
KTNV TV News, Las Vegas, July 27, 2014
Local Hawaiians discuss restarting native government
By Bryan Callahan.
North Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) -- Local Hawaiians are meeting to discuss the process of reestablishing a native Hawaiian government to protect the rights of its people around the country.
It has been 121 years since the Hawaiian government was overthrown by American settlers.
At the time native Hawaiians said the nation had dozens of international treaties, including some with the United States.
Over the past two decades, efforts have been underway to make amends.
At this point that discussion involves federal recognition for a native Hawaiian government that is in the process of being reestablished.
"Work with the state, and work with the federal government, and work with the international," Soulee Stroud, President of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs said.
Supporters of the government to government agreement, similar to that between the U.S. and Native Americans say it would help ensure continued support of the native Hawaiian population nationwide, including the large number of Hawaiians in Southern Nevada.
"In health, education and housing," Stroud said.
Not everyone is in favor of government recognition, saying it would minimize the power of the native Hawaiians.
Some maintain that the nation should remain sovereign and reestablish an independent government that will seek to update the international treaties that were in place before the unites states occupation began.
"You might say in 1893 Hawaii was kidnapped by the United States, but is treated like it was adopted," Dr. Keanu Sai said.
There is one positive both sides say is coming out of the discussion.
"I think what it is providing is a venue for people to start asking questions and that is good," Sai said.
The Department of the Interior is taking written testimony on the issue until the middle of next month.
It will likely be several months after that before any movement is made on the issue.
---------------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/files/KWO814_EDIT_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for August pp. 3-4
Message from the CEO
Kamana'opono M. Crabbe, Ph.D. Ka Pouhana/Chief executive Officer
The Art of Konane and the Mastery of Diplomacy
Aloha mai e na kini, na hoa makamaka o ko Hawai'i pae'aina,
In thoroughly considering our current opportunities and challenges, my thoughts have turned to a strategy-training game of our kupuna: konane. In playing konane, the concept is not to "eat" as many of your opponent's 'ili'ili as possible. Instead the goal is to continually find moves on the board and remain in play.
Our ali'i spent much time engaged in this game not only for fun but to train themselves for their roles as leaders. It prepared them to succeed in the art of political diplomacy -- the art of nurturing opportunities and carefully selecting when and if to use them as the "game" unfolds.
Konane strategies and other ali'i standards can help guide us in meeting our most important and urgent challenges: rebuilding our Hawaiian nation.
Ali'i were not just royal politicians, they were masters of diplomacy.
They understood the dynamic of politics involving many "'ili'ili" on the political game board. As their world changed, they continued to conduct themselves as noble diplomats during the 1800s, at a time when much of the world had not adopted that mindset.
Kalakaua was the first head of state to travel around the world. In those travels he forged relationships with other heads of states, ultimately opening opportunities that allowed the Hawaiian Kingdom to establish six legations and 84 consulates worldwide. These were essential for integrating the Hawaiian Kingdom in the political and economic world stage.
Such diplomatic relationships were also nurtured within the Hawaiian Kingdom. Following the centuries old practice, all monarchs such as Lili'uokalani visited their people throughout the Kingdom and hosted large gatherings at their royal households to build and strengthen their ties with community members throughout the pae 'aina. At these visits and gatherings, they listened carefully to their people.
Our ali'i understood how strong diplomatic relationships and listening carefully to the voices of their people provided them opportunities and information that would ultimately allow them to better serve our lahui, our people and country. Their timeless approach would serve us well today.
In this era of rebuilding our nation, this means that OHA must hear all voices -- the full array of our lahui conveying how we can open and best use various pathways to empower ourselves through an organized governing body.
Following the lead of our kupuna, OHA's further charge is to keep as many moves open for our lahui to consider as future opportunities unfold. In later years, our lahui may not choose to pursue those pathways. But keeping all of them open for now is the strategy a masterful konane player would advise.
Do we close pathways entirely, limiting our moves as the game proceeds? Do we forge forward
with only one strategy (federal recognition OR independence) and leave ourselves stuck in the game with no moves left? If that happens, what might we lose? Native Hawaiian preference policies of our Ali'i trusts serving our lahui? The ability of native Hawaiian families to renew their Hawaiian Homestead leases when they expire?
Diplomacy -- the art of creating opportunities and selecting among the best of them in the right moment -- suggests that we carefully consider our next konane move.
If a federal pathway is to be established, it must keep open future pathways to independence. If a long-term strategy to achieve independence is pursued, it should not cut off a shorter-term strategy for federal recognition that can allow us to preserve now what is under serious threat of being lost.
I believe we as a people can achieve diplomatic solutions. We can open the door to see what can be negotiated with the federal government AND 'onipa'a behind our kupuna who signed the Ku'ë Petition. We can save our current Hawaiian-preference programs while preserving our right to
achieve full independence and international redress.
There is a real threat out there. We need to defend ourselves from the threat while continuing to preserve our right to pursue more. We need to stop debating theoretical political ideologies and instead focus on how different moves will affect an 'ohana struggling to keep food on the table, a bright keiki failing in a classroom where lessons have not engaged his intelligence, a kupuna having difficulty managing his diabetes. We need to worry about how we will keep our 'aina and kai thriving and our cultural and burial sites protected.
The federal government is inviting us to have a seat at the table on our terms. We get to dictate those terms. And for me, if we are not at the table, then will not even be in the game.
We need to assert ourselves to make sure that we are in the game and that we determine the next moves, our konane moves. We must engage, not disengage.
Can we have the best of all possible worlds? That possibility is in our hands. We have the power to choose both and shape them in ways that don't cut off the other.
We can achieve federal recognition without closing off the paths for international redress or independence. We can pursue independence with- out undermining opportunities to defend ourselves from urgent and real threats.
We can have the best of all possible worlds. And that is the true art of diplomacy. Our ali'i would demand no less of us.
'O au iho no me ke aloha a me ka 'oia'i'o
-------------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/files/KWO814_EDIT_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for August, pp. 4 and 10
A note of mahalo from the DOI
by Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
The U.S. Departments of the Interior and Justice were honored to host public meetings in Hawai'i
on the Department of the Interior's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the question of whether to facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship between the Federal government and the Native Hawaiian community. On behalf of the federal team, I would like to express gratitude to all those who attended and participated in the meetings.
These meetings were unprecedented. We witnessed more than 45 hours of testimony in 15 communities across the islands: Honolulu, Waimanalo, Wai'anae Coast, Kane'ohe and Kapolei on O'ahu; Lana'i; Moloka'i; Waimea and Kapa'a on Kaua'i; Hilo, Waimea and Kona on Hawai'i Island; and Hana, Lahaina and Kahului on Maui.
Hundreds of people came to these meetings and came to share their perspectives. We want to reassure everyone that we not only listened, but we heard. We heard the voices of anger, but we also heard the voices of hope. We heard the voices of concern for federal involvement in Native Hawaiian affairs, and we heard the voices of optimism about Native Hawaiians exercising self-governance. And we heard from people who have never attended public meetings, or never imagined speaking in public for the record.
Fundamentally, the series of questions that the Department of the Interior has posed to the Native Hawaiian community center around whether the Secretary should create an administrative option for a future Native Hawaiian governing entity to seek federal recognition, if that govern- ing entity so chooses. Currently, no such option exists for Native Hawaiians. There is a process on the mainland for Indian and Alaska Native tribes, but Native Hawaiians are specifically excluded from that process.
A few clarifications may be helpful. First, any proposed option would be new and unique to Native Hawaiians, separate from the process for Indian and Alaska Native tribes on the mainland, recognizing the unique history, culture and values of Hawai'i. Second, creating the option would not force anything upon Native Hawaiians; it would simply lay out a path forward for the community if a future Native Hawaiian government were to decide that it would like to pursue a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
A government-to-government relationship is a powerful thing. A future Native Hawaiian government could, for instance, be able to negotiate with the state of Hawai'i as well as the United States on equal footing over the disposition of land and natural resources, preservation of culture and language, enforcement of hunting, gathering and fishing rights, and the operation of health care and education systems. These are just a few examples of how state, local and tribal governments currently exercise their governing authorities over their citizens -- authorities that could be available to Native Hawaiians should they choose to exercise the option of forming a government and seeking federal recognition.
While the public meetings in Hawai'i are now over, there is still an opportunity to register your opinions in writing. The public comment period is ongoing through Aug. 19. For more information, including on how to submit your comments, please visit: www.doi.gov/ohr.
We would like to thank each and every individual who testified or will register their opinion in the remaining days. We appreciate all that have been willing to be a part of this process.
Mahalo.
----
To view an interview with Rhea Suh on the proposed rulemaking process, please visit oha.org/doi
--------------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/files/KWO814_EDIT_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for August, pp. 4 and 10
OHA submits comments in support of proposed federal rulemaking
by Garett Kamemoto
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs submitted comments to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice strongly supporting federal rulemaking that could re-establish a government-to-government relationship with a Native Hawaiian government once one is formed, saying, "Our community cannot heal until the federal government shows meaningful respect to our dignity."
OHA's Board of Trustees supports the federal rulemaking process because it has a legal duty to advocate for the protection and advancement of Native Hawaiian benefits and rights, protection
for Native Hawaiian trusts and preservation of millions of dollars in federal funding that flows to programs that support Native Hawaiians.
According to the written testimony, "re-establishment of a government-to-government rela- tionship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community is the most viable action that could be taken to protect and expand existing trust assets, federal programmatic funding, federal consultation rights and other self-determination rights under federal law."
The testimony adds: "We should not be denied the basic self-governance rights afforded all other major indigenous groups in the nation. We have suffered through colonization and the dis- possession of our lands, resources and culture, and the hearts of our people continue to be burdened by these historic injustices, as recent oral testimony made clear."
OHA stressed that the rulemaking process opens one pathway that a Native Hawaiian governing entity could choose, but that it must not limit Hawaiians' rights to seek international redress.
OHA recognizes many in the community are concerned that Native Hawaiians' right to seek international redress should be preserved. OHA told the federal government the rulemaking
should not abridge other forms for redress, saying, "The rule should open a path for re-establishment of a domestic government-to-government relationship that will not, as a legal matter, affect paths for international redress."
OHA is working on a process through which Native Hawaiians can reorganize a Native Hawaiian government utilizing a base roll certified by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. OHA is supporting the election of delegates to a governance 'aha to propose the form, scope and principles that would guide the government, if it is approved by a referendum of Hawaiian voters. Any government formed through this process could ask to be recognized by the federal government, if a process for a government-to-government relationship is established.
-------------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/files/KWO814_EDIT_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for August, page 8
OHA trustees extend nation-building timetable
by Harold Nedd
Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs announced July 24 that they have extended the timetable for the nation-building process they previously committed to facilitate.
The six-month extension is expected to allow OHA more time to educate the public about a process meant to empower Native Hawaiians to participate in building a governing entity.
Under the new timetable approved by OHA's Board of Trustees, voters who are registered in the Official Roll of Native Hawaiians will elect delegates in January 2015 to represent them at a governance convention in April. The new timeline also calls for Hawaiians on the official roll to vote by July 2015 in a referendum to approve or disapprove the draft governing document, which would determine the next steps in the process.
But in extending the timeline, the Board of Trustees also remained steadfast in its original position that being registered on the Official Roll of Native Hawaiians is the only way to qualify to participate in this particular nation-building process.
"We believe that this new timetable helps to position us to build a strong sovereign governing entity that will be embraced by all of our people," said OHA Chairperson Colette Machado. "It is now time to work together to be sure that the contemporary Native Hawaiian governing entity is rooted in our ancestral wisdom."
---------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/files/KWO814_EDIT_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for August, page 10
Reprint of Colette Machado's Star-Advertiser commentary from July 20: "Federal Recognition would Pave a Nation-to-Nation Path."
[See July 20 compilation on this webpage for full text], published on newspaper's website at
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20140720_Federal_recognition_would_pave_a_nation-to-nation_path.html?id=267824221
---------------------
On August 1, 2014 four U.S. Senators sent a letter to Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Department of Interior, protesting the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking where by DOI intends to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition. Senators Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, and Mike Lee said "The action proposed in the ANPRM is at worst unconstitutional, and at best offensive to the character of a country devoted to the advancement of all its citizens regardless of race." The letter cites the repeated refusal of Congress to pass the Akaka bill, the letter from four Commissioners of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission warning that recognition through rule-making would be both unconstitutional and bad public policy, and language from the Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano. The two-page letter on official stationery and bearing the signatures of the four Senators can be downloaded at
http://big09.angelfire.com/DOIrulemaking4SensProtest080114.pdf
-----------------
** Indian tribes throughout America are being asked to sign a resolution supporting the DOI rule-making process to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition. Here's the resolution.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r84i8deuxz3pe6z/Draft%20Resolution.pdf
Letterhead
Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement
and
Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly
DRAFT Resolution for Consideration by Tribal Leaders
Colonization of the 50 States
There are three major groups of indigenous peoples that predate the Unites States on lands now in the 50 states, and to which the U.S. Constitution addressed as "Indian" in Article 1 Section 8.
48 States
1492 Columbus & 1607Jamestown -- Population of American Indians in the millions
49thState
1741Vitus Bering -- Population of Alaska Natives in the hundreds of thousands
50thState
1778 James Cook -- Population of Native Hawaiians close to 1 million
Native Self Determination
All three Native groups have been recognized as indigenous with the right to self-determination.
Federal Trust Responsibility
The U.S. Congress has enunciated its federal trust responsibility by enacting a variety of legislation for American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, in the areas of housing, land trusts, education, business, health and general welfare.
While Native sovereignty is inherent, the federal responsibility to recognize Native governments and/or Tribes emanates from this trust responsibility.
SelfGovernance
The Federal Government established an administrative process to engage in Government-to-Government relations with two of the three Native groups, American Indians & Alaska Natives.
Over 120 years after taking the lands of the Native Hawaiian people, the Federal Government through its DoI is currently contemplating the establishment of a process to engage in Government-to-Government relations with the remaining Native group, Native Hawaiians.
Purpose of Request
To reach out to Tribal leaders to encourage the federal government to complete an administrative process for Native Hawaiians to formally engage in a Government-to-Government relationship by:
1. Participating in the Advanced Federal Rule Making Process underway by submitting supportive testimony or a resolution for the record;
2. Strongly encourage the DoI Secretary to take the next step in rule making, to draft a Proposed Rule specifically for Native Hawaiians, separate from Part 83.
We need your help. We need your experience. We need your support.
Back Home in Hawaii
There are largely 2 views of Federal Recognition of Native Hawaiians by people in Hawaii:
First -- The majority Support, and know that the survival of our people, like the survival of your people, is greatly enhanced through Self Governance recognized by the United States.
Over 125,000 Native Hawaiians have come together and enrolled on our Base Roll, recognized by the State of Hawaii, to reorganize a Native Hawaiian Government. Leaders are working to convene to develop and ratify a constitution. With a federal process in place before President Obama leaves office, the last remaining group of Native peoples, will have a formal process to engage in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
Second -- A very vocal minority Oppose any dealings with the U.S. government, including any recognized government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians, and instead expects the U.S. to withdraw from the Hawaiian Islands and for the State of Hawaii government to dissolve.
The opposition is a minority, but a particularly angry minority. During the DoI hearings in Hawaii, it was not uncommon for these individuals to resort to name calling of the federal officials which included 2 DoI Assistant Secretaries. While not condoned by most Native Hawaiian leaders, it is a behavior indicative of disenfranchisement and mistrust.
Draft Resolution
We ask for your support through testimony under the Advanced Rule before the August 19, 2014 deadline and through expressions of support articulated in a resolution.
WHEREAS, Native Hawaiians are the last major group of indigenous peoples to be colonized by the U.S. Government;
WHEREAS, one of the first Congressional actions recognizing Native Hawaiians is embodied in the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act establishing a land trust similar to Indian Allotment Acts, and continued throughout the last century including but not limited to the Native Hawaiian Education Act and Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act;
WHEREAS, Tribal leaders from across Indian Country and Alaska have acknowledged and supported the right of Native Hawaiians to Self Governance, including but not limited to multiple resolutions passed by the National Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives;
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of Interior has issued a notice of Advanced Federal Rule Making to consider a proposed rule to address its trust responsibility to recognize a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians, similar to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
WHEREAS, American Indians and our traditional governments have 5 centuries of experience of first contact by immigrants to the lands in the 48 states, and have the longest first-hand experience with every policy of the federal government to address the rights and condition of American Indian peoples;
WHEREAS, American Indian leaders and Tribes know well the detrimental and failed past U.S. policies that did not include recognition of Native governments, and we know well the success of U.S. policies that have recognized the inherent sovereignty and autonomous governance of indigenous peoples;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, we, the leaders of _____________ hereby express our support of the promulgation of federal rules by the Department of Interior for a formal process by which Native Hawaiians may seek a government-to-government relationship with the United States;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, we acknowledge our collective histories as Native peoples consisting of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in unity to exercise our inherent and sovereign rights that protect our unique cultures and ways of life
--------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13214/Tribe-Feds-to-Meet-With-Hawaiians-in-NS-California.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Wednesday, August 06, 2014
Tribe? Feds to Meet With Hawaiians in N&S California
Ho'ohanohano I ko Kūpuna Na'auao "To honor the wisdom of our elders"
Informational Meetings and Presentations about Hawaiian Government to Government Relations with the United States
From The Mainland Council Assoc. of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Hayward, CA
WHEN - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - 10 AM - 5 PM
WHERE: - Cal State University East Bay Hayward Campus - 25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, CA, 94542 - Studio Theatre - TH182
Tustin, CA
WHERE: Springfield College, 17542 17th St., Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780
WHEN: Sunday, August 10, 2014, 12:00 Noon to 4:00 pm
Department of Interior (DOI) questions (5) will be passed out to all attendees along with the Written Comment Form.
Presenters are asked to address the 5 questions posed by the DOI and support their answers.
Tustin, CA Presentation Schedule
1. Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs: Support for Federal Recognition and the proposed DOI rule change
(30 minutes & 10 minutes Q & A)
2. Keanu Sai, Ph.D., Political Scientist
(30 minutes & 10 minutes Q & A)
BREAK (15 MINUTES)
3. Office of Hawaiian Affairs: Nation Building
(30 minutes & 10 minutes Q & A)
4. Open Forum for other Community Presentations
(10 minutes each ‐no Q & A)
5. Panel Discussion with Scheduled Presenters ONLY
(1 hour total time limit) (Q & A -‐ 5 minutes each)
BREAK (15 MINUTES)
Department of Interior Presentation
4:00 PM ‐ 5:00 PM
Introduction of DOI Representative(s) – DOI will explain the purpose and intent of this meeting
Address the Presidential Directive
What are the jurisdictions and restrictions of the DOI
Define the rules and proposed changes to the rules
What is the process
When will the summary of process be presented to the Community and who will be informed
5:00 pm – 6:00pm
Community Q & A or Comments for Support or Non-Support (limit 5 minutes including DOI response time)
The Community is more than welcome to attend all meetings & presentations above.
Water, juice and coffee will be provided throughout the day.
Point of Contact : Lono Kollars, 951.534.3750 – HOLOMUA KAKOU
------------------
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/12/236230/new-rules-might-recognize-more.html
McClatchy Washington Bureau, August 12, 2014
Reprinted in Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Sunday August 17, 2014 but without online availability
New rules might recognize more tribes, create new casinos
BY ROB HOTAKAINEN
WASHINGTON -- As a proud Chinook Indian, Gary Johnson rejects the claim that his tribe in southwestern Washington state is extinct, even though that's what the Bureau of Indian Affairs declared more than 12 years ago.
"They couldn't be more wrong," said Johnson, a former chairman of the tribe that helped Lewis and Clark navigate the Pacific Northwest in the early 1800s.
Rob Jacobs of North Carolina's Lumbee Tribe said it was silly that he couldn't legally wear his eagle feathers because his tribe wasn't among the 566 federally recognized tribes.
"We have to ask for permission to be Indian," said Jacobs. "Think about it. It's so sad."
While no one bothers to count the tribes that have long gone unrecognized by the U.S. government, experts estimate the number at well over 200.
That might change, under new rules proposed by the Obama administration. They would give more tribes a faster track at joining the ranks of the recognized by making it easier for them to prove their legitimacy.
"This opens the door of opportunity," said Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, the director of the Indian legal program and a professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University.
It also opens the door to money. Winning such recognition makes a tribe eligible for more federal benefits and is a prerequisite to apply for the biggest prize of all: the right to run a casino.
While the rules have won backing from large tribal groups, they're generating lots of controversy. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has set a deadline of Sept. 30 for the public to weigh in and will then decide whether to adopt the rules.
Gambling opponents say the rules are too lenient and should be scrapped. Some smaller tribes say the rules are too onerous, fearing they'll still be denied the recognition they've sought for decades.
In California, which already has 71 tribal gaming facilities, the most in the United States, critics say the new rules would result in nearly two dozen more casinos in high-density areas such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.
"These rules are basically a gaming incentive," said Cheryl Schmit, the director of Stand Up for California, a statewide organization that's fighting against more casinos. "You'll have gaming investors hooking up with these tribes and helping them finance their recognition."
So far, 81 unrecognized tribes in California have filed petitions with the federal government asking for recognition. Schmit said 34 of them could win recognition under the new rules.
Under the new rules, tribes would be required to document political influence or authority only since 1934, rather than as early as 1789. And they'd no longer be required to demonstrate that third parties have identified them as tribes since 1900.
The National Congress of American Indians, the nation's largest organization of tribal governments, passed a resolution endorsing the new rules "as a matter of long-overdue justice and fairness." The group said the current rules, adopted in 1978, had "severely deteriorated," causing decades-long delays and containing "irrational documentation requirements."
When the Obama administration published the new rules in May, Kevin Washburn, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, called the changes "long overdue."
Even if they're approved, the bureau says it's uncertain how many more tribes might get recognized, how much it might cost taxpayers or whether any of the newly sanctioned tribes would get to open casinos.
"Whether to grant federal recognition and whether a tribe is eligible for Indian gaming are two wholly separate questions, governed by wholly separate standards and evaluated under wholly different processes," said Nedra Darling, spokeswoman for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
She said the new rules would provide uniform standards and that applications would be judged on whether tribes met them. And she said the bureau hadn't conducted a cost analysis and wouldn't speculate on any potential costs.
Opponents say that's a mistake.
"It is astonishing that the federal government would attempt to ram through these rules while providing no impact assessment of the social and economic costs on communities across our state," Schmit said.
Tribes have long complained that trying to win recognition is too expensive and time-consuming. New York's Shinnecock Indian Nation said it spent $33 million battling the government for 32 years before winning recognition in 2010.
"Most tribes don't have those sorts of resources to put together a petition," said Ferguson-Bohnee, who's testified before the U.S. Senate on federal recognition issues. "People are turning in 50,000 to 100,000 pages and spending exorbitant amounts of money."
Other tribes have found that getting recognized may be only a temporary distinction.
After George W. Bush became president in 2001, the Bureau of Indian Affairs withdrew recognition for two Washington state tribes – the Chinooks and Seattle's Duwamish – which had been approved during Bill Clinton's presidency. Both encountered opposition from larger neighboring tribes.
Despite the complaints, Ferguson-Bohnee called the new rules a big improvement and said they should eliminate the need for so much paperwork.
"It's like a hundred times better than what's currently in place," she said.
In Washington state, there's far less enthusiasm among the Chinook Tribe and its backers.
Former Democratic Rep. Brian Baird, who's now the president of Antioch University Seattle, predicted that neither the Chinooks nor the Duwamish will win federal recognition under the new rules. He said that made little sense since both tribes were so well-known: The Chinooks helped Lewis and Clark, and the Duwamish's members included Chief Seattle, for whom the state's largest city is named.
"It's really hard to find any more iconic tribes," said Baird, who promoted recognition for the Chinooks during his 12 years in Congress.
Baird criticized a provision that would force tribes whose petitions have already been rejected to get permission from third parties that opposed their applications before reapplying. For the Chinooks, that would mean winning permission from the neighboring Quinault tribe, a longtime opponent. Baird said Congress needed to scrap the provision as a way to aid smaller tribes that faced consistent opposition from larger and more powerful ones.
"It's rare in your life that you have a chance to right a historical wrong and to restore justice," he said.
Johnson, 73, of South Bend, Wash., said he got a call in July 2002 informing him that the Chinook Tribe would lose its recognition, only two days after attending a White House luncheon with Bush. Johnson said he'd been invited as part of a celebration to kick off the bicentennial celebration of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
"It's just all political," said Johnson, who retired as tribal chairman in 2006.
He said federal recognition would help the tribe survive, but he's not optimistic, calling the new rules "more of the same, and maybe worse."
"We'd be very excited if they were fair and could offer us some justice, but right now our work is to get them to reconsider and make some changes," Johnson said.
Jacobs, a former youth coordinator for the Lumbee Tribe who's now a gaming executive in Philadelphia, was more nonchalant. He said the new rules might be a good thing but that the Lumbee Tribe had been fighting for federal recognition for more than 100 years, thriving without it.
Jacobs wore his eagle feathers at his wedding this summer, violating the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Under a federal policy announced in 2012, only members of federally recognized tribes can wear the feathers for religious or cultural purposes.
But Jacobs plans to keep wearing them and he's not expecting to get arrested, whether the Lumbees ever win federal recognition or not.
"It wouldn't make any difference," he said.
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140813_Kerry_visits_Honolulu_for_speech_meeting_with_military_brass.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 13, 2014, Breaking news at 3:25 PM HST
Kerry visits Honolulu for speech, meeting with military brass
By Associated Press & Star-Advertiser
Despite tensions and a clear but officially unacknowledged rivalry, improving U.S. cooperation with China is critical to maintaining stability and security in the Asia-Pacific as well as combating the effects climate change, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday at a speech at the East-West Center in Manoa.
Wrapping up an eight-day, around-the-world diplomatic trip and his sixth visit to Asia as America's top diplomat, Kerry outlined renewed priorities for much of the Obama administration's much-touted "pivot to Asia" during its final 2 1/2 years, including a focus on strengthening U.S.-Chinese partnership in areas of agreement and bridging gaps in areas of contention.
"One thing I know will contribute to maintaining regional peace and stability is a constructive relationship between the United States and China," Kerry said. "The United States welcomes the rise of a peaceful, prosperous and stable China: one that plays a responsible role in Asia and the world and supports rules and norms on economic and security issues."
"We are committed to avoiding the trap of strategic rivalry and intent on forging a relationship in which we broaden our cooperation on common interests and constructively manage our differences and disagreements," he said.
Outside the event, about 80 to 100 protestors were waiting for Kerry's arrival to share their views on several issues including U.S. support of Israel and federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.
Last month, U.S. Department of Interior officials came to Hawaii for public hearings on how the U.S. government should proceed on recognition. Many speakers at the hearings insisted that the State Department and Kerry, not Interior officials, should be talking to the Hawaiians on a nation-to-nation basis.
Besides speaking at the East-West Center, Kerry will meet with military leaders at U.S. Pacific Command headquarters Wednesday evening.
Kerry arrived in Hawaii after stops in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Australia and the Solomon Islands during which tensions between China and its smaller neighbors over competing territorial claims in the South China Sea were a major subject of discussion. At a Southeast Asia regional security forum in Myanmar over the weekend, Kerry formally unveiled a U.S. proposal for a voluntary freeze on provocative actions by all claimants, including the Chinese.
The U.S. says that it has no position on the competing claims but does regard stability in the South China Sea as a national security issue, given the region's role as one of the world's busiest maritime shipping zones.
"We do care about how those questions are resolved, we care about behavior," Kerry said. "We firmly oppose the use of intimidation, coercion or force to assert a territorial or maritime claim by anyone. And we firmly oppose any suggestion that freedom of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the sea and airspace are privileges granted by big states to small ones. All claimants must work together to solve the claims through peaceful means. These principles bind all nations equally, and all nations have a responsibility to uphold them."
While welcomed in general by the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China took a dim view of Kerry's proposal and suggested it would not agree.
In an apparent nod to such disagreements, Kerry said that building better ties with Beijing will not be easy or inevitable.
"Make no mistake: This constructive relationship, this 'new model,' is not going to happen simply by talking about it," he said. "It's not going to happen by engaging in slogans or pursuing spheres of influence. It will be defined by more and better cooperation on shared challenges. It will be defined by a mutual embrace of the rules, norms and institutions that have served both our nations and the region so well."
Kerry said he was pleased at some areas of current U.S.-China cooperation, including multination talks on Iran's nuclear program, a shared interest in denuclearizing North Korea and promoting calm in South Sudan.
In addition, on climate change, which he regularly describes as the biggest threat facing Earth, Kerry hailed U.S.-Chinese initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation as well as working on sustainable, clean energy options.
At the same time, he noted that the U.S. and China, along with other Asian nations, routinely disagree on human rights.
Kerry pointed out backsliding in rights protection and democratic principles in Myanmar and Thailand and repression in North Korea but said the United States would not relent in its drive to improve conditions.
"We will continue to promote human rights and democracy in Asia, without arrogance but also without apology," he said.
------------------
http://swordandshieldhawaii.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/happy-admissions-day-hawaii-2014-with-editorial-commentary-by-kenneth-r-conklin-ph-d/
The Sword and the Shield of Hawaii, August 16, 2014
Testimony on Department of Interior Proposal to Create a Hawaiian Tribe
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Aloha dear readers. Friday August 15 is the date for 2014 when Hawaii celebrates our Statehood Day holiday. On this date I submitted to the U.S. Department of Interior my testimony regarding its Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making. DOI wants to cooperate with the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs to create a phony Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition as equivalent to a genuine Indian tribe. DOI would accomplish this by an executive order; i.e., by making administrative changes in its long-standing rules for recognizing tribes, without any legislation from Congress.
This testimony is submitted in honor of Statehood Day because much of the oral testimony at the 15 public hearings in Hawaii during June and July consisted of ethnic Hawaiians denying that Hawaii is actually a part of the United States. A panel of high officials from the Department of Justice and Department of Interior were subjected to a barrage of diatribes that the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, annexation of 1898, and statehood vote of 1959 were all illegal and that Hawaii today remains a sovereign independent nation where the U.S. has no jurisdiction.
I believe most of Hawaii's citizens do not want to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines. We oppose racial separatism. We reject the ethnic nationalist anti-American attitudes displayed by many testifiers at the 15 hearings in Hawaii in Summer 2014. We support the continued sovereignty of an undivided State of Hawaii which remains the 50th state of the United States.
There is no historical, legal, or moral justification for race-based political sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians. Creating a race-based entity and giving it federal recognition is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also gives land, money, and jurisdictional authority to an entity which would regard it as partial reparations for the alleged crimes committed by the U.S. against ethnic Hawaiians; and would provide aid and comfort to the anti-American secessionists who used the 15 public hearings in Hawaii as a platform for their propaganda.
My formal testimony is in a pdf file containing 14 sections for a total of 100 pages. It is also on the internet at
http://big09.angelfire.com/ConklinTestmnyDOI081514RulesChangeHawnTribe.pdf
Here is the table of contents:
1. Aloha from Ken Conklin. Who I am. I support unity and equality; oppose racial separatism. (page 8)
2. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking repeatedly refers to a "reorganized native hawaiian government" or "reestablishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." But there never was a government of a unified archipelago of Hawaii where the government consisted solely of native Hawaiians nor where the citizenry with voting and property rights were solely Native Hawaiian. Thus there was never a Native Hawaiian government which could now be reorganized. All you could do is create one out of thin air with no basis in history. (page 9)
3. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking refers to "the special political and trust relationship that congress has established between that [the native hawaiian] community and the United States." But it is doubtful whether such a trust relationship exists. (page 14)
4. Authoritative sources since 2001 warn that creating a race-based government for ethnic Hawaiians would be both unconstitutional and bad public policy: U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and others. (page 21)
5. Authoritative sources confirm the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was legitimate and the U.S. owes nothing to ethnic Hawaiians beyond what is owed to all the citizens of the United States: 808-page report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs (1894); letters from at least 19 foreign heads of state granting formal de jure recognition to the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii (1894); Native Hawaiians Study Commission report (jointly authorized by Senate and House, 1983); and others (page 25)
6. Evidence that "Native Hawaiians" and also the general citizenry of Hawaii do not want federal recognition of a "Native Hawaiian" governing entity or tribe. Zogby survey; two Grassroot Institute surveys; newspaper and OHA scientific surveys show ethnic hawaiians and the general population place "nationbuilding" at bottom of priorities; informal newspaper polls show majority opposes creating a Hawaiian tribe and racial entitlements; hundreds of essays from 2000 to 2014 by nationally known experts and opinion-makers. (page 29)
7. People of all races jointly own Hawaii as full partners. It would be historically, legally, and morally wrong to push people with no native blood to the back of the bus. Why the metaphors of stolen car or stolen house are wrong. The battle for hearts and minds of Hawaii people of Asian ancestry. President Obama himself opposes tribalism and erecting walls between natives and immigrants. The history of the black civil rights movement is instructive — Martin Luther King's model of full integration won the hearts and minds of African Americans and of all Americans, defeating the racial separatism of the "Nation of Islam." (page 35)
8. Two questions asked by the Department of Interior focus on whether there should be a requirement for a minimum turnout and/or majority vote among ethnic Hawaiians in a referendum to ratify any proposed governing document. I will answer those questions and the larger question whether majority approval by all Hawaii voters should be required in order to allow a race-based government to be created and recognized. (page 46)
9. Administrative rule-making should not be used to enact legislation explicitly rejected by Congress during 13 years and megabucks spent pushing it. Legitimate authority for rule-making should not be regarded as a license for arbitrary and capricious rule-breaking. If the rules are changed in such a radical way to allow such a fully assimilated, scattered group as "Native Hawaiians" to get federal recognition, hundreds of other groups cannot be denied. (page 50)
10. The people and lands that might be cobbled together to create a Hawaiian tribe are fully integrated, fully assimilated, and widely scattered throughout all neighborhoods in Hawaii and all 50 states. Genuine tribes began long ago as demographically homogeneous and geographically compact; and the purpose of federal recognition is to enable them to continue their lifestyle and self-governance. But federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe would take things in the opposite direction — herding into demographic and geographic racial ghettos people and lands that have long been fully assimilated, widely scattered, and governed by a multiracial society. Map showing public lands likely to be demanded by a Hawaiian tribe; Census 2010 table showing number of Native Hawaiians in every state; Census 2010 table showing number of native hawaiians in every Census tract in Hawaii. (page 55)
11. Rule-making to give federal recognition to a "Native Hawaiian" governing entity would suddenly impose upon Hawaii a large body of federal Indian law which would override well-established Hawaii laws because of the supremacy clause in the Constitution. For 13 years various versions of the Akaka bill included protections, for Hawaii and for genuine Indian tribes, against some of those laws. But there would be no such protections if a new department of interior regulation simply adds "Native Hawaiian" to the list of federally recognized tribes. This section of testimony identifies some especially troubling components of federal Indian law and recalls some of the protections in various versions of the Akaka bill: Indian Child Welfare Act; Violence Against Women Act; Indian Non-Intercourse Act; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; land into trust (perhaps with Carcieri fix); no time limit for final settlement of past grievances. (page 76)
12. Why administrative rule-making to give federal recognition to Native Hawaiians would be harmful to the genuine tribes: huge new tribe competing for government benefits; competition from Hawaiian casinos in the lower 48 states; new rule for federal recognition opens the door to hundreds more phony tribes competing against the genuine tribes. (page 87)
13. Federal register question 8: "to be included on the roll, what should constitute adequate evidence or verification that a person has a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community?" Without such proof the racial group has not yet been converted into a political entity. (page 91)
14. Six cartoons by Daryl Cagle illustrating the social divisiveness of racial entitlement programs. Midweek newspaper, Honolulu, probably late 1990s to mid 2000s (page 95)
----------------------
Aug 19: This was the final day to submit testimony regarding the Department of Interior Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition by an administrative procedure without Congressional action.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-20/pdf/2014-14430.pdf
At least 2069 written comments were submitted. A large majority were opposed to the Department of Interior proposal. The following seven testimonies are especially valuable in opposition because they explicitly rely upon the fundamental principles of racial equality and the unity of all Hawaii's people under the undivided sovereignty of the State of Hawaii:
(1) Kenneth R. Conklin of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOI-2014-0002-0887
and
http://big09.angelfire.com/ConklinTestmnyDOI081514RulesChangeHawnTribe.pdf
(2) Keli'i Akina, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeGRIHKeliiAkina.pdf
(3) Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM136.pdf
and
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeHeritageVonSpakovsky.pdf
(4) Paul M. Sullivan
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposePaulSullivan.pdf
(5) H.W. Burgess
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeHWBurgess.pdf
(6) Sandra Puanani Burgess
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeSandraPuananiBurgess.pdf
(7) Jack Miller
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeJackMiller.pdf
** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: It is customary in this compilation to provide full text of each item. However, items (1) to (5) are on letterhead and/or heavily formatted, including footnotes; so they must be viewed in pdf format. Items (6) and (7) were submitted in plain text, and can be seen here.
(6) From Sandra Puanani Burgess of Honolulu, HI
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeSandraPuananiBurgess.pdf
http://www.regulations.gov/#! documentDetail;D=DOI-2014-0002-1660
Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20240
Re: Regulation Identifier Number 1090-AB05 Dear Secretary Jewell:
Aloha. My name is Sandra Puanani Burgess. I was born and raised in Honolulu and have lived here my entire life. I am married and have 1 child, 4 stepchildren and between my husband and I we have 7 grandchildren and 1 great grand child.
I am Hawaiian, Filipina and Chinese. Even though I am part Hawaiian I oppose any federal rule change or executive order that would give Hawaiians the right to form a separate sovereign nation with special rights, power, land and privileges not given to other citizens who live in our beautiful state. Those rights, power, land and wealth would be distributed to those whose only requirement would be to have just one
drop of Hawaiian blood, and many of them were not even born and raised here in Hawaii.
That is not only un-American. It is un-Hawaiian! The first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1840 began with these words: God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth, in unity. Hawaii has a long tradition of inclusiveness, giving full citizenship and full political rights to all inhabitants no matter where they came from.
The majority of the people living in Hawaii today would not be eligible only because they do not have the required Hawaiian blood, yet many have ancestors who were citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom before it became a Territory and then the 50th State.
I have Chinese and Filipino cousins, aunts and uncles. We have common ancestors who were here before 1893. Why should I be given special rights and privileges just because, by accident of birth, I happen to have Hawaiian blood and they do not?
Another important reason I oppose creation of a separate tribe or nation for Hawaiians is that I think it would divide and create havoc where once we all lived together in relative harmony in one of the most integrated places on earth.
When the government gives special treatment to one group based on their race or ancestry, it creates rivalries that harm political stability. That group will only seek more wealth and power for themselves instead of what is best for our entire State and all its citizens. Our country has fought a civil war and so many Americans gave their lives in order to end discrimination. Isnt it going backwards if our government now implements the practice of discriminating between citizens based on their race?
Just look at what that kind of divisiveness is doing in Iraq. Iraq cannot unite because they dont see themselves as Iraqi first. The population is divided into Sunni, Kurd or Shiite. Their violent struggle because they are not united as one people is a tragedy. Why does the United States government continually try to divide us into separate racial groups?
The idea of being American is what binds our country together. Let us keep the American and Hawaiian tradition of including all citizens no matter where they came from.
I pray you will say no to such nonsense. Instead of dividing our citizens into different and separate racial groups, unite us all as Americans with liberty, justice and equality for all.
Sincerely,
Sandra Puanani Burgess
(7) from Jack Miller of Kailua, HI
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. First, I strongly urge that the Secretary of the Interior not repeat NOT promulgate an administrative rule that would facilitate reestablishing a govt to govt relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. This would sow the seeds of hostile relationships between neighbors, risk civil disturbance and open the door for a plethora of new laws, statutes of regulations for American citizens living together with different ancestry. I feel that a race based government within the United States is patently unconstitutional. The last thing we need is for the DOI to take actions that would lead to hostilities and civil disturbances.
The following five threshold questions regarding whether the Federal Government should reestablish a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community are commented below:
* Should the Secretary propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community?
Answer: No. A huge mistake for other indigenous connected groups within the U.S. may follow the Hawaiian govt to govt relationship and weaken the current USA position of "united we stand" for a house divided cannot stand. The fewer sovereign entities within the USA the stronger and more united we remain. This may mean fewer lawsuits and less business for the lawyers.
* Should the Secretary assist the Native Hawaiian community in reorganizing its government, with which the United States could reestablish a government-to-government relationship?
Answer: No. In 1993, Senators Gorton and Brown warned their Senate colleagues that the apology resolution would be used to demand race based government handouts and to support a secessionist movement. Senator Inouye on the floor of the Senate promised his colleagues that the resolution would never be used in any such way. Twenty years later the Apology Resolution is often informally cited as legitimate authority to support Hawaiian claims the U.S. "stole" the Hawaiian land. A government to government relationship is not a good idea.
* If so, what process should be established for drafting and ratifying a reorganized Native Hawaiian government's constitution or other governing document?
Answer: Any process would be racially motivated and against the U.S. Constitution. The formation of a Native Hawaiian Government should not be encouraged for it may lead to civil violence. This we do not need. A fake Indian Tribe would only be a vehicle for legal protection of corruption in Hawaii.
* Should the Secretary instead rely on the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government through a process established by the Native Hawaiian community and facilitated by the State of Hawaii, to the extent such a process is consistent with Federal law?
Answer: A native Hawaiian organization to promote the highly respected cultural treasure of the Hawaiians is strongly supported but should be subject to the laws and regulations of the State and Federal governments.
* If so, what conditions should the Secretary establish as prerequisites to Federal acknowledgment of a government-to-government relationship with the reorganized Native Hawaiian government?
Answer: As a resident of the State of Hawaii, I beg the BOI to act in the best interest of all the people of Hawaii and not incite or encourage two governing entities within the State. We want the Aloha spirit and neighbor caring for neighbor not any racially biased government that would divide us. We do not need anyone to be inspired to promote civil disobedience in hopes of personal financial gain such as individual gifts of land ownership by the state.
LET THE ALOHA SPIRIT PREVAIL WITH RESPECT FOR ALL.
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/newswatchpremium/20140821_newswatch.html?id=272121341
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 21, 2014, Newswatch
Groups' testimony backs Interior proposal
A group of Native Hawaiian organizations led by the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement has submitted written testimony that supports having the U.S. Department of the Interior propose rules to facilitate a government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and Native Hawaiians.
Imua Hawaii, which includes the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Home Lands Assembly and CNHA, submitted testimony with more than 2,000 "statements of support" on Tuesday, the final day the Interior Department allowed for comments, a CNHA statement said. The groups "led a community-based effort to explain that the federal rule-making process would simply advance an option for the Native Hawaiian people to consider."
From late June to early July, the Interior Department held 15 meetings in Hawaii and five on the U.S. mainland to get input from the community on whether and how the process of re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians should move forward. An overwhelming majority of the testimony received was opposed to the idea of having the Interior Department proceed, with some questioning President Barack Obama's authority to undertake such a strategy without congressional approval.
------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13367/Standing-Room-Only-at-Grassroot-Gubernatorial-Forum.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Friday, August 22, 2014
VIDEO: Standing Room Only at Grassroot Gubernatorial Forum
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13367/VIDEO-Standing-Room-Only-at-Grassroot-Gubernatorial-Forum.aspx
By Andrew Walden
David Ige may have been afraid of the video, but hundreds of other people weren't as a standing-room only lunchtime crowd packed the downtown Honolulu Pacific Club for today's Grassroot Institute gubernatorial forum.
Video cameras from local TV stations lined the walls. Ige, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, cancelled out a day before the forum, claiming "we were not aware we would also be consenting to use of any recording."
Libertarian candidate Jeff Davis had his own theory, telling the audience: "I want to address the elephant in the room, his name is David Ige. Perhaps Democratic Party minders have got a hold of him now that Neil Abercrombie is out.... His reason was 'you can't trust the media.' ... I'd like to applaud ThinkTech for running this out 90 minutes straight without any editing."
Republican Party Chair Pat Saiki told reporters, "When the public was finally afforded a chance to hear from all of the gubernatorial candidates, it's a pity that Ige backed out because he wanted complete control over the interpretation of his messaging. Is this the quality of transparency and openness we can expect to see from the Democrat candidate?"
Grassroot Institute President Kelii Akina explained, "We made sure we met the requests and accommodations of each of the candidates. We were expecting to have all four parties represented today."
Ige's absence didn't stop Davis, Republican candidate Duke Aiona and Independent Party candidate Mufi Hannemann, from answering questions from the audience in a lively exchange of ideas.
--------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13368/Mufi-Duke-No-Consensus-Behind-Kanaiolowalu-Roll.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Saturday August 23, 2014
Mufi, Duke: No Consensus Behind Kanaiolowalu Roll
By Andrew Walden
At Friday's Grassroot Institute Gubernatorial forum, candidates were asked about their views on the Kanaiolowalu Roll. Here are some of their comments:
Mufi: "I'm not convinced, especially with what happened with the Department of Interior hearings, that there is consensus.... Secondly what I saw from that is that those who are non-Hawaiian need to understand the issue.... I don't see anything wrong with something so complex, so important to the future of the Hawaiian community that we need to take two steps back now...."
Duke: "Kanaiolowalu...was something that had a good intention to it. But if we're going to have a pathway to native Hawaiian governance, it's going to have to be through consensus. Its going to have to be through shared visions. Its going to have to in the whole Hawaiian community. Kanaiolowalu had a register of about 120,000 people. That is only about 35% of Hawaiians that live here...."
The complete video may be viewed here:
VIDEO: Standing Room Only at Grassroot Gubernatorial Forum
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13367/VIDEO-Standing-Room-Only-at-Grassroot-Gubernatorial-Forum.aspx
Comments on Kanaiolowalu begin at the 59:00 mark.
-----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/hawaiinewspremium/20140824__OFFICEOFHAWAIIANAFFAIRS_Memo_implies_nation_effort_leads_to_war_crimes_.html?id=272465201
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 24, 2014
Memo implies nation effort leads to war crimes
By Rob Perez
The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs administrator paid a controversial political scientist $25,000 to write a memo that calls into question the validity of OHA's nation-building effort, even raising the question of whether the office's trustees are committing war crimes by pursuing it.
But the board apparently has not been swayed by his arguments.
As part of his 44-page May 27 memo, David Keanu Sai, who contends that Hawaii is not part of the United States, recommended that OHA stop funding Kana'iolowalu, the nation-building effort, and refrain from pursuing federal recognition from the Obama administration. Both are key initiatives endorsed by OHA's board of trustees.
Chairperson Colette Machado said in emailed responses to Honolulu Star-Advertiser questions that she would have hoped that OHA Chief Executive Kamana'opono Crabbe consulted the board before signing a contract with Sai on "such a sensitive issue."
Another trustee, Peter Apo, told the newspaper that Crabbe showed poor judgment in agreeing to pay $25,000 in OHA funds for the memo, which applies much of the research Sai did for his doctoral dissertation, which is available online, and other papers to OHA's situation.
"I do question his judgment on that," Apo said.
Crabbe, OHA's chief executive since January 2012, has the authority to spend up to $25,000 without getting prior board approval.
This is the second time in recent years that OHA has done business with Sai, who received his master's and doctorate degrees in political science from the University of Hawaii and has long championed the idea that the United States is illegally occupying the islands.
OHA previously paid Sai $70,000 under a 2009 contract in which the agency agreed to help with his effort to publish a book based on his research on Hawaii land titles since the 1800s.
One of the provisions required that Sai present a manuscript within 12 months to his publisher, according to the contract, obtained by the Star-Advertiser through a records request. Nearly five years later, the book still hasn't been published.
Sai said OHA recently agreed to an extension allowing him more time to work on the manuscript and has withheld a final payment of $5,000 until the book is published.
Sai's initial research led him in the 1990s to co-found Perfect Title Co., which cited Hawaiian kingdom law to contend that existing land titles in Hawaii were defective. Sai said his book will detail how the title problem can be fixed.
Perfect Title shut down in 1997, and Sai eventually was convicted of first-degree attempted theft, a felony, for helping a couple try to reclaim an Aiea home that they lost through foreclosure. The couple's actions were partly based on the company's notion of invalid land titles -- something the real estate industry pooh-poohed.
In written responses to Star-Advertiser questions, Crabbe said Sai was hired based on his claim that OHA trustees and staff could be accused of war crimes if they proceeded with funding Kana'iolowalu.
"It was part of a follow-up due diligence effort so I could protect trustees and OHA leadership of any risks that might be incurred," Crabbe wrote. "I also provided Dr. Sai's memo to trustees so they could use it in their deliberations. I believe we should consider all points of view, even controversial ones, to fully understand this complex issue."
The memo cites numerous historical documents to make the claim -- considered ridiculous and politically unfathomable by many -- that the United States has illegally occupied the islands since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and that the kingdom still exists.
Sai argues that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian nation has never been extinguished and that the state government, given its illegal status, has no jurisdiction in the islands.
Under international law, Hawaii's status as an independent country is presumed to continue unless the United States can prove otherwise, according to Sai. The burden is on the United States to provide such proof, similar to the burden prosecutors face in overcoming a defendant's presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, he added.
Sai has taken his arguments to several international bodies, including the United Nations, but none has ruled that the kingdom still exists.
State and federal judges repeatedly have rejected such arguments, and the OHA board similarly has not been swayed despite allegations of war crimes.
Machado told the Star-Advertiser that the board has chosen to continue with the nation-building effort and to seek federal recognition.
"Trustees expect the administration will carry out our directives," she wrote.
Crabbe said his administration is committed to that task.
Sai told the Star-Advertiser his intention was not to tell OHA officials what to do but to provide them with detailed, documented historical information so they can make informed decisions.
"I'm not some activist off the street," Sai said.
Since obtaining his advanced degrees, which included a focus on international law and relations, Sai has become known in certain circles for his expertise in Hawaiian kingdom history leading up to and following the overthrow.
Earlier this year, he was invited to make presentations at Harvard University, the University of Massachusetts and New York University, among other campuses, and to Hawaiian groups on the mainland.
In his memo and in an interview, Sai contended that the state of Hawaii lacks the authority under international law to collect taxes in the occupied kingdom. Individuals who spend such "stolen" money, such as on OHA's nation-building effort, would be subject to prosecution for the war crime of pillaging, according to Sai.
The OHA board to date has approved nearly $4 million in expenditures on the nation-building effort.
The concern that some trustees voiced about the Sai memo mirrored the controversy that ensued when Crabbe wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry in early May seeking an opinion on the legal status of the kingdom.
Sai helped Crabbe write the Kerry letter, which the board promptly rescinded. Crabbe was taken to task for overstepping his authority by sending a document that didn't reflect the agency's or trustees' position, according to the board.
The Star-Advertiser obtained the Sai memo and his two contracts through an open-records request.
OHA initially refused to release the memo, claiming it was confidential because the document contained recommended approaches and strategies related to the ongoing nation-building initiative.
When the newspaper asked the agency to cite specific provisions of the law to justify keeping the letter secret, OHA had a change of heart and released the document.
-----------------
http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/26/obama-administration-proposal-effectively-authorize-americans-seceding/
The Daily Signal, August 26, 2014
This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Some Americans Seceding
Hans von Spakovsky
In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called "Native" Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to "reestablish" a "government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community."
Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.
It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don't meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a "Native." This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo "the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union."
>>> Legal Memorandum: The Obama Administration's Attempt to Balkanize Hawaii
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/the-obama-administrations-attempt-to-balkanize-hawaii
At the end of June, the Department of the Interior issued an "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" that set out the administration's plan, with the opportunity for the public to file comments ending on August 19. No doubt to its chagrin, the administration encountered strong opposition at a series of hearings the Interior Department held in Hawaii in June and July, with one official from the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs being loudly booed when she declared her support for the plan.
From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition.
In fact, as recently as a year ago, the head of Indian Affairs at the Interior Department, Assistant Secretary Kevin K. Washburn, told a House subcommittee that the administration did not "have the authority to recognize Native Hawaiians." Washburn told the subcommittee that "we would need legislation to be able to proceed down that road."
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-indian-and-alaska-native-affairs-oversight-hearing-3
Yet, suddenly, the administration is proceeding down the very road that it admitted it lacks the authority to travel.
Hawaii's own former attorney general, Michael Lilly, says that any effort to recognize Hawaiians as an Indian tribe is unconstitutional, because so-called Native Hawaiians don't meet any of the political requirements necessary for such recognition.
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2014/06/experts-cast-doubt-on-the-viability-of-hawaiian-nation-building/
Hawaii went from being an independent kingdom to a territory to a state and four commissioners from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have told President Obama that neither Congress nor the president can "reconstitute a tribe or other sovereign entity that has ceased to exist as a polity in the past." In other words, there is no Native Hawaiian government with which the administration can establish a government-to-government relationship because "it is an extinguished government, and therefore, no government at all."
http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/731/Akaka%20Letter%20September%202013%20Final.pdf
The Hawaiian state government already provides special benefits to Native Hawaiians, who are defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." As one commissioner has commented, this definition is similar to "the odious 'one drop rule' contained in the racial-segregation codes of the 19th and early 20th centuries."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217832/pandoras-box-ethnic-sovereignty/peter-kirsanow
The U.S. Supreme Court has called such ancestry definitions a proxy for race and held that they are discriminatory and a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-818.ZS.html
In the past, the U.S. Justice Department has consistently taken the same position.
At worst, the Obama administration's proposal is unconstitutional, and as a number of U.S. senators have told the administration, it is "at best offensive to the character of a country devoted to the advancement of all its citizens regardless of race."
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Letter-fr-Sens-Flake-Alexander-Coburn-Lee-to-Sec-Jewell-opposing-Native-Hawaiian-ANPRM-Aug-1-2014.pdf
The proposed rulemaking should be withdrawn and rescinded and the administration should stop engaging in unconstitutional behavior that is outside of its authority.
-----------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13414/Sai-Wong-Dwyer-Namuo-Rake-in-Millions-from-Kanaiolowalu.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, August 28, 2014
Sai: Wong, Dwyer, Namuo Rake in Millions from Kanaiolowalu
By Andrew Walden
The August 24, 2014 Advertiser story revealing $95,000 in Office of Hawaiian Affairs payments to convicted mortgage scammer Keanu Sai is drawing a response from Sai. In an August 25, 2014 post on the Hawaiian Kingdom Blog, Sai makes several allegations about Kana'iolowalu finances:
In his interview with (Star-Adv reporter Rob) Perez, Dr. Sai brought to his attention that $25,000.00 to do a memorandum needs to be kept in context. A prior memo contracted by OHA with an attorney that centered on strategies toward federal recognition cost $75,000.00.
Dr. Sai also told Perez that Norma Wong, a consultant to Kana'iolowalu, and close confidant and advisor to former Governor John Waihe'e, III, Chair of the Roll Commission, was paid two increments of $250,000.00 a year for a total of $500,000.00.
Chair Waihe'e also contracted Dennis Dwyer for a total of $1.3 million dollars to be Kana'iolowalu's federal lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Dwyer was also contracted by the Honolulu Rail Project's HART to be its federal lobbyist and was paid $1.43 million dollars from 2007 to 2013.
Dr. Sai also told Perez that Clyde Namuo, who was also the former CEO for OHA before Dr. Crabbe, was simultaneously collecting a full-time salary as Kana'iolowalu's Executive Director while he was also collecting a full-time salary as director for the Polynesian Voyaging Society.
None of these allegations were included in the Star-Advertiser report.
At their November 7, 2013 Board Meeting OHA Trustees voted to wind down Kana'iolowalu. According to OHA, only 21,418 Hawaiians had signed up for the Roll as of September 27, 2013. The Commission had burned through $3.3M of OHA resources and was demanding another $2.5M when the Trustees decided to pull the plug.
$1.3M for Dwyer plus $500K for Wong is nearly 55% of the $3.3M spent by the Roll Commission. Sai did not mention the amount of Namuo's alleged double dipping salary.
Dwyer, Wong, and Waihee were tied together in the mid-1990s KSBE Broken Trustees effort to evade responsibility for their corrupt doings. For years OHA has paid Dwyer an unknown amount of money for services related to federal recognition. Dwyer is a regular in OHA Trustees' executive sessions. Dwyer pops up again in efforts to lobby for federal transportation dollars to pay for Rail.
John Waihee III likes money. Nobody has yet explained how he gets his after that Right Star thingy.
-----------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/files/KWO914_EDIT_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for September, 2014, p.3 (published online 8/29/14)
Shared goals become Evident when you strip away the rhetoric
by CEO Kamana'opono Crabbe
Aloha mai kakou,
Over the past few months, it seems, we as Native Hawaiians have been looking for ways to draw divisions within our community when it comes to nation building.
For me, this is a recipe for an unhealthy community. Rather, now is the time to channel that energy and look for a better balance because we are all connected, and whether we like it or not, we are all in this together.
Perhaps some of this anger is because so much is still unknown. We know the U.S. Department of the Interior is looking at establishing rules to govern how it will interact with a Native Hawaiian nation, assuming the nation wants to interact with the federal government. But we don't know what the rule will say and what we will have to do if our nation decides to have a government-to- government relationship with the federal government.
In a way, they're asking us to trust them.
The same can be said for those pushing for independence. They've been sharing a legal claim that we can follow, but if we make an international claim, what happens next? Are there international bodies or countries that will support our cause? How would that work?
With so much unknown and subject to speculation, it is understandably difficult to reach consensus. But after listening intently to both sides, it's clear to me that when you strip out all the rhetoric, we all have a lot in common. We all want the same things. We want to preserve our claims to our national, or ceded, lands that have been acquired by the state and federal government, including military land. We want reparations for the past 120 years of occupation and trauma from the military, and rent if they continue to use our land.
We want to be able to use the land as an economic base, but we want to protect the sacred and historic sites as well.
All of this would be to give back to our people.
Can we get the state Department of Education to possibly pay us rent on ceded land in the form of the use of some facilities for Hawaiian-focused charter schools? Or get the University of Hawai'i to pay us rent on ceded lands in the form of better educational opportunities for our children?
We all want to leave Hawai'i a better place for generations to come.
I believe we have so much in common that we will come together. We just have to learn to see past our differences.
'O au iho no me ke aloha a me ka 'oia'i'o,
Kamana'opono Crabbe, Ph.D.
Ka Pouhana/Chief executive Officer
-----------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/files/KWO914_EDIT_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for September, 2014, pp. 5 and 8 (published online 8/29/14)
Department of Interior wraps up meetings on the continent
By Sarah Antone
The U.S. Department of the Interior is considering whether to end a disparity between Native Hawaiians and other indigenous groups through a rulemaking that has been widely discussed and commented on by Native Hawaiians and others. Native Hawaiians are the only major indigenous group in the 50 states that does not currently have a government-to-government relationship with the United States, but also lacks a process by which that relationship could occur.
As part of the federal government's effort to gather information, the DOI recently held five meetings on the U.S. continent, geared toward leaders and citizens of federally recognized Native nations. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs attended these meetings to listen to what was shared, especially by Native Hawaiians who attended, and also to answer questions.
These continent consultations were held in Minnesota, South Dakota, Seattle, Arizona and Con- necticut. Three other meetings with Native Hawaiian groups were held in Nevada and California. Combined with the 15 meetings held earlier this summer across Hawai'i, the DOI held 23 public meetings on this important issue, all of which were open to and attended by Native Hawaiians.
OHA reiterated its support for the creation of a rulemaking process or other executive action to establish a government-to-government relationship. OHA's first showing of support was made when it commented directly to the DOI regarding the proposed rulemaking process pathway. OHA has also encouraged other organizations and individuals to do the same by submitting an original comment of support. While OHA supports the rulemaking process, both OHA and DOI agree that the choice of what route to pursue belongs to the Native Hawaiian community.
Native Hawaiians, both on the continent and in Hawai'i, are passionate about this issue. "While we may not receive 100 percent consensus on the matter, we have seen growing support within the Hawaiian community to keep the creation of the rulemaking process open and on the table," says OHA's chief advocate, Kawika Riley. Riley stressed that the more time people have had to consider the questions, the more they have come forward to support providing this option for Native Hawaiians.
The Native Hawaiian community on the continent made their voices heard, expressing their desire to remain part of the nation-building process and stay connected to Native Hawaiian organizations and programs in Hawai'i. These views were shared with the OHA staff and trustees through informal meetings and discussions before, during and after these meetings. OHA encouraged the Native Hawaiian community to think deeply about the issues at hand and share their views directly with the DOI.
The DOI chose to pursue the most inclusive route of rulemaking by utilizing the Optional Supplementary Procedure through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ANPRM). The rulemaking process is designed to consider anyone and everyone's comments prior to making any decision. This was accomplished by including an extensive series of public meetings in Hawai'i and the continental United States. While this option is not required through federal regulations, the Department of Interior demonstrated an understanding regarding the amount of sensitivity and consultation this issue requires from the Native Hawaiian community. The responses should help the DOI determine if it should develop a formal administrative procedure that re-establishes a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. "This merely is an optional door. Native Hawaiians can choose whether or not they even want to knock on that door," says OHA's governance manager, Derek Kauanoe. "But if Native Hawaiians decide to knock on that door, we need to know that someone is going to answer."
Sarah Antone is the administrative assistant for OHA's Governance Program.
-------------------
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/thousands-testify-deadline-about-native-hawaiian-recognition
West Hawaii Today (Kona), August 30, 2014
and
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/thousands-testify-deadline-about-native-hawaiian-recognition
Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo), August 30, 2014
Thousands testify by deadline about Native Hawaiian recognition
By Nancy Cook Lauer
More than 5,000 comments about Native Hawaiian recognition are being processed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, according to a government website.
The deadline for submitting comments was Aug. 19, and the federal agency is still reviewing them, DOI press secretary Jessica Kershaw said this week. She said her agency is in the process of reading through a batch of 2,200 comments, excluding the write-ins and hand-delivered documents that are still being uploaded to the website regulations.gov.
"If those comments warrant the department moving forward, Interior would do so in early 2015," Kershaw said.
Hundreds of people in July testified on the issue in Keaukaha, Kona and Waimea. As elsewhere in the state, the vast majority testifying in person on Hawaii Island opposed the federal government getting involved in Native Hawaiian nation-building. That process is ongoing at the state level with a planned convention next year where delegates will decide what form of government should be created to address Native Hawaiian concerns.
Transcripts of the DOI hearings in Hawaii are available at
doi.gov/ohr/reorg/index.cfm.
The hearings that took place in Indian Country in five mainland states in early August are still being transcribed, Kershaw said. The written comments are available for review on the regulations.gov site.
It's not clear whether more people in written testimony support or oppose the federal recognition process, but there seem to be proportionally more in favor than testified in person.
Some Hawaii testifiers are objecting to testimony being allowed from Native Americans on the mainland. Their understanding of the issue has been tainted by a minority of Hawaiian leaders who are pushing their own agenda, said David Michael Kaipolauaeokekuahiwi Inciong II of Pearl City, Oahu, in an Aug. 3 letter to DOI.
"In light of these outrageous lies, we are asking you to let U.S. Indian tribes know that we are against both U.S. federal recognition for Hawaii and attempts of U.S. tribes to influence this process," Inciong said. "It has come to my attention that the majority of testimony already submitted online is running against the push to turn Kanaka Maoli into U.S. Hawaiian Indians."
The department asked residents to weigh in on whether the Obama administration should facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community and help the Native Hawaiian community reorganize its government.
It asked what process should be established for drafting and ratifying a reorganized Native Hawaiian government's constitution or other governing document, or if, instead, the federal government should rely on the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government through a process established by the Native Hawaiian community and facilitated by the state of Hawaii.
The meetings generated immense community interest, along with a firestorm of controversy from those Native Hawaiians for whom nothing less than a full return to the Hawaiian Kingdom will do. Others, such as Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board Chairwoman Colette Machado, favor the pathway to federal recognition.
"I also urge that it be a pathway that is open to us, but that the decision of when and how to walk down that path is left to our people," Machado told the panel at a Honolulu public hearing.
Regardless of where they stand on other aspects of the issue, most of the testifiers at the hearings didn't favor the concept of a tribe like the governance structure for American Indians.
It's a crucial issue for the state, where 21.3 percent of Hawaii residents reported in the 2010 census that they had some Hawaiian blood, and 5.9 percent said they were pure Hawaiian. It's even more important for Hawaii County, which, with 29.7 percent of residents with Hawaiian blood and 8.5 percent pure Hawaiian, leads the state in both categories.
In addition, some 1.8 million acres of land, 43 percent of the state and about the same percentage on Hawaii Island, is considered ceded lands, Hawaiian government and crown lands that were ceded to the state of Hawaii after annexation and statehood. They are now held in trust for the Hawaiian people, with revenues used for a public purpose.
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
or
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL (AKAKA BILL)
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2014 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
