Following is a table of contents of the articles in the order they appear lower on this webpage, for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. To see full text of the actual articles, in chronological order, scroll down below the index.
February 11, 2013
U.S. Apology Resolution 20th Anniversary -- Repeal It, Don't Celebrate It!
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Political Info
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6121
also in Hawaii Reporter
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=285856
April 11, 2013
Hawaiians Give Vote of No Confidence to Sovereign Hawaiian Nation
by Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Better Society Blog, April 11, 2013
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2013/04/president-akina-hawaiians-give-vote-of-no-confidence-to-sovereign-hawaiian-nation/
** also,
Hawaii Free Press, April 11, 2013
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9363/Hawaiians-Give-Vote-of-No-Confidence-to-lsquoSovereign-Hawaiian-Nationrsquo.aspx
June 2, 2013:
Dr. Kelli Akina, the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and former OHA trustee candidate, addressed the Conservative Forum for Hawaii at the Naniloa Hotel Crown Room in Hilo Hawaii, on Sunday June 2. Dr. Akina's topic was "E Hana Kâkou: The Advancement of Native Hawaiians and All Residents of the Aloha State."
See story at Hawaii News Daily, June 4, 2013
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2013/06/hawaiian-roll-call-bill-and-u-s-and-hawaiian-sovereignty-questioned/
A video of the entire one hour eight minute event is now available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bek8j0dEbTo&feature=youtu.be
June 13, 2013
Detailed rebuttal to Senator Brian Schatz' (D,HI) maiden Senate speech of June 11 which was entirely devoted to pleading with Senators to support the concept of federal recognition for the Akaka tribe.
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Political Info
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6453
The published article is a condensed version of a much more detailed webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/m3azruz
July 4, 2013
Hawaiians should avoid roll calls
Letter to editor in Honolulu Star-Advertiser
by Lela Hubbard [ethnic Hawaiian independence activist]
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20130704_Letters_to_the_Editor.html?id=214246821
July 15, 2013
The Trouble with the Kana'iolowalu Racial Registry
Hawaii Political Info
by Ken Conklin
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6551
August 29, 2013
"I have a dream" -- for Hawaii, 50 years later (Recalling Martin Luther King's speech, and how his dream applies to Hawaii in 2013. Calls for abandoning the Akaka bill, Kana'iolowalu process, and racial entitlement programs)
Hawaii Reporter
by Ken Conklin
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=424029
See greatly expanded version including detailed explanations and references at
http://tinyurl.com/n72ukh5
September 14, 2013
The annual convention of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies meeting in Dallas adopted a resolution opposing "the enactment of any provisions of the Akaka Bill to include the establishment of a native Hawaiians-only government, program, department or agency as well as the division of the people of Hawaii by race or ethnicity through congressional legislation, presidential order, executive branch powers, or via regulatory implementation ..."
http://www.RepublicanAssemblies.org/nfra-resolution-in-opposition-to-the-akaka-bill/#printpreview
September 16, 2013: 4 of the 8 members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights jointly wrote a strongly-worded 5-page letter to President Obama opposing any attempt to use executive action to give federal recognition to an Akaka tribe. The letter reiterated reasons for opposing the concept of the Akaka bill, expressed in several official statements by USCCR in previous years, and added objections to the new concept of using executive authority to do what Congress has refused to do for 13 years. The USCCR letter, dated September 16, 2013 on official letterhead and bearing the signatures of the 4 Commissioners, can be seen at
http://big09.angelfire.com/USCCR091613LtrOpposingAkakaExec.pdf
December 11, 2013
There will be much divisiveness and turmoil if the sovereignty movement succeeds
By Kenneth R. Conklin
Honolulu Star-Advertiser
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20131211_YES_The_time_might_be_ripe_again_to_pursue_action_for_Native_Hawaiians_self-determination.html?id=235350641
December 12, 2013
Honolulu Star-Advertiser online poll about Hawaiian sovereignty
56% voted against any form of sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians; 29% voted in favor of creating an Akaka tribe; 15% voted in favor of secession (independent nationhood for Hawaii).
http://hawaii-newspaper.com/polls/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
May 9, 2014
Building a Hawaiian tribe in the Legislature: Kana'iolowalu status report May 2014
by Ken Conklin
Hawaii Political Info
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/7455
May 10, 2014
Grassroot Institute Calls on OHA Trustees to Own Up for CEO Comments
News release by President Keli'i Akina, Ph.D.
The trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have embarrassed the State of Hawaii and must be held accountable for recent statements in a letter by its CEO to the U.S. Department of State questioning the legitimacy of American and Hawaii State sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands.
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=e2fab23e09
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, news release
May 12, 2014
Keli'i Akina, President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, was interviewed by Jay Fidell on the Think Tech Hawaii channel. The 52 minute video is entitled "Proud to be American and Hawaiian." Dr. Akina explains that OHA trustees, and their CEO, are officers of the State of Hawaii and must be held accountable for challenging the sovereignty of the United States in Hawaii and for requiring enrollees on the Kana'iolowalu racial registry to affirm "the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people." See the You-Tube video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv457qK_SGo#t=12
May 24, 2014
Michael Barone, The Washington Examiner
Obama Interior Department reviving a truly bad policy Congress has rejected
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-interior-department-reviving-a-truly-bad-policy-congress-has-rejected/article/2548872
May 26, 2014
Paul Mirengoff, attorney at Powerline think tank, opposes Obama administration efforts to create ethnic Hawaiian tribe.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/obama-looks-to-bypass-congress-and-promote-racial-spoils-in-hawaii.php
May 27, 2014
Stop Appeasing Hawaii's Racial Separatists
by Kenneth R. Conklin
Hawaii Political Info online newspaper and also webpage
http://tinyurl.com/ldwhk38
May 27, 2014
Native Hawaiians and Obama Overreach
by Roger Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity
National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/378839/native-hawaiians-and-obama-overreach-roger-clegg
May 27, 2014
Obama Administration Abuses Executive Power to Pursue Race-Based Government
by Ilya Shapiro, The CATO Institute
http://www.cato.org/blog/obama-administration-abuses-executive-power-pursue-race-based-government
May 27, 2014
Obama administration proposes race-based legal system in Hawaii
by Neil Munro, Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/27/obama-administration-seeks-race-based-government-in-hawaii/
May 28, 2014
Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Magazine
Divide and Conquer: Obama Inc. Wants Tribal Status for Hawaiians
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/divide-and-conquer-obama-inc-wants-tribal-status-for-hawaiians/
June 2, 2014
THE PEOPLE SPEAK
The Hawaii newspaper with largest circulation conducted an online poll advertised in the physical newspaper, asking "What kind of future do you favor for Native Hawaiians?" Four choices were offered. The winner, with 41% of the vote, was "No entitlements at all." In second place "Federal recognition" with 31%. "The status quo" got 22%; and "Independence" got only 6%.
http://poll.staradvertiser.com/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
June 4, 2014
Hawaiians Are Not A Tribe
by Keli'i Akina, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
The Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/04/hawaiians-are-not-a-tribe/
and
Indianz.com
http://www.indianz.com/News/2014/013913.asp
June 23, 2014
At DOI Hearing, Grassroot Institute Disputes Department's Authority to Recognize a Hawaiian Nation. Grassroot Institute offers comments questioning legality of and support for a Hawaiian government
by Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=5e128f2ffe&e=4a7cf86850
July 2, 2014
Jerry Coffee, hero of Cuban missile crisis and Viet Nam war
"Native Hawaiians Are Not A Tribe" and making them a tribe would ensure the death of aloha.
http://www.midweek.com/political-views-hawaii/coffee-break/native-hawaiians-tribe/
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
August 16, 2014:
Testimony on Department of Interior Proposal to Create a Hawaiian Tribe
The Sword and the Shield of Hawaii, August 16, 2014
http://tinyurl.com/k6lvlgn
See two related webpages:
text of DOI proposal:
http://tinyurl.com/ConklinTestimony081514
100-page Conklin testimony:
http://tinyurl.com/njhq2jw
August 19, 2014: 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
=================
=================
FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6121
Hawaii Political Info, February 11, 2013
and also
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=285856
Hawaii Reporter, February 11, 2013
U.S. Apology Resolution 20th Anniversary -- Repeal It, Don't Celebrate It!
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
The U.S. "apology resolution" (USAR) refers to P.L.103-150, a joint resolution passed in Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993 -- a resolution of sentiment commemorating the centennial of the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 and apologizing to Native Hawaiians for the U.S. role in the overthrow of the monarchy. Full text of USAR, and a comparison of it with the full text of the Newlands Resolution of 1898 whereby the U.S. accepted the Treaty of Annexation offered by the Republic of Hawaii, can be found at
https://www.angelfire.com/bigfiles90/2ResosCompared.html
In the Hawaii legislature regular session of 2013, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has submitted a concurrent resolution (companion House and Senate resolutions HCR6 and SCR2) to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the apology resolution. Text of the proposed Hawaii legislature concurrent resolution is at
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/HCR6_.pdf
On February 10, 2013 Ken Conklin submitted testimony opposing HCR 6 to the State of Hawaii House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs for its hearing scheduled for Wednesday February 13. The testimony is in the form of a new resolution (below) which could be substituted for the original one, along with extensive footnotes.
The best thing about HCR 6 is that it uses the word "commemoration" rather than "celebration." A commemoration is a remembrance of an event which might be celebrated or deplored, depending on what happened. For example, every year we commemorate the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which President Roosevelt called "A day that shall live in infamy." When it comes to the USAR, Nov. 23, 1993 is the day that shall live in infamy because that was the date when President Clinton signed it.
The U.S. apology resolution should be repealed, not celebrated. It is filled with falsehoods about history, and it has been used for many bad purposes which Senator Inouye promised his colleagues it would not be used for. It is cited repeatedly in the Akaka bill as the main justification for passing that bill -- this alone is a good reason to repeal the apology resolution.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT (GUT AND REPLACE)
To convey my reasons for opposing this resolution, I am providing below a
proposed amendment to HCR6 and SCR2 in the nature of a substitute (a process sometimes called "gut and replace"). Each "whereas" clause contains one or two footnotes providing extensive documentation to prove what is asserted.
Whereas the U.S. apology resolution (USAR) PL 103-150 incorrectly apologizes solely to Native Hawaiians for the U.S. role in overthrowing the monarchy in the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, but any apology (if owed at all) should be directed to all the multiracial population of Hawaii in 1893; and whereas the apology should especially include the large numbers of
Caucasians who were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom, many of whom served as judges, members of the legislature, and were a majority of department heads, teachers and officers of the government; and whereas the racially exclusive apology creates divisiveness because it causes ethnic Hawaiians to believe they are entitled to racially exclusive ownership of Hawaii and racially exclusive government handouts [n#1]; and
Whereas USAR is filled with twisted half-truths and outright falsehoods about the history of Hawaii and especially the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 [n#2]; and
Whereas Senator Inouye assured his colleagues during the floor debate in 1993, that USAR would never be used to justify a demand for secession, [n#3] yet numerous Hawaiian sovereignty groups have been using it that way for 20 years [n#4]; and
Whereas Senator Inouye assured his colleagues during the floor debate in 1993, that USAR would never be used to justify demands for restitution in the form of special race-based government handouts; [n#5] yet USAR has been cited in the "findings" preambles of every major bill introduced by Senators Inouye and Akaka to provide federal recognition to Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe, and to provide special race-based programs in housing,
healthcare, education, etc. [n#6]; and
Whereas USAR has prompted many ethnic Hawaiians to clog the courts with bogus assertions that the federal and state governments are illegal in Hawaii and hence lack jurisdiction over them to enforce requirements for vehicle registrations and driver licenses [n#7]; and
Whereas activists have used USAR to insist the U.S. flag must not fly over 'Iolani Palace, to assert ethnic Hawaiian takeovers of the Palace, and to oppose government regulations for use of Palace grounds[n#8]; and
Whereas USAR has been used in two different campaigns a decade apart by a Hawaiian sovereignty activist in collaboration with realtors to perpetrate a scam by asserting that the "illegal overthrow of the monarchy" means that deeds to private property are not valid unless re-certified by the activist acting as an agent of the Hawaiian kingdom, and clients are charged around $2,000 for a bogus title search, and bogus documents are filed with the Bureau of Conveyances placing a cloud on valid deeds, and ignorant clients are persuaded to stop paying mortgages on the theory that the mortgages are not valid, and title insurance companies are sued to pay the clients when mortgages are foreclosed [n#9]; and
Whereas USAR caused local and federal courts to be tied up for a decade in a ceded lands lawsuit filed by OHA and several individual ethnic Hawaiians where the USAR was the primary focus of attention, and a 5-0 decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court was overturned by a 9-0 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court [n#10]; and
Whereas the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held two months of hearings in 1894 with testimony under oath and cross-examination regarding the U.S. role in the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 and concluded that U.S. peacekeepers had neither caused nor assisted the revolution; and whereas a joint House/Senate Native Hawaiians Study Commission reached the same conclusion in 1983 following two years of public hearings and extensive commentaries by experts[n#11]; and
Whereas the people of Hawaii are disgusted by the gross abuse of the U.S. apology resolution to attack the sovereignty of the State of Hawaii and to disrupt the unity and equality of our people [n#12];
Now therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-seventh Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2013, the Senate concurring, that the Legislature hereby expresses its desire that PL103-150, commonly known as the apology resolution, be rescinded; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we ask both of Hawaii's U.S. Senators and all their colleagues, and both of Hawaii's Members of Congress and all their colleagues, to introduce and actively support appropriate legislation to rescind PL103-150; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, the Governor of the State of Hawaii, and the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
** Author's note: The footnotes are detailed, lengthy, valuable resources to prove the points made in the "whereas" clauses. See the complete testimony including the footnotes at
http://tinyurl.com/bkvv8e8
--------------------
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2013/04/president-akina-hawaiians-give-vote-of-no-confidence-to-sovereign-hawaiian-nation/
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Better Society Blog, April 11, 2013
** also,
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9363/Hawaiians-Give-Vote-of-No-Confidence-to-lsquoSovereign-Hawaiian-Nationrsquo.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, April 11, 2013
Hawaiians Give Vote of No Confidence to Sovereign Hawaiian Nation
by Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Hawaiians are rejecting an effort to impose a narrow political agenda on their community, choosing instead to affirm the Aloha spirit as the basis for society.
After nearly a year of efforts to enroll a registry of Native Hawaiians willing to constitute a sovereign nation, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission claim a mere 9,300 signatures against a stated goal of 200,000[1] and a 2010 US census count[2] of the Hawaiian population at 527,000 nationwide. Despite a budget of somewhere between four to six million dollars, not to mention funds of collaborating agencies and organizations, the effort has produced underwhelming results.
Organizers say that the low sign up reflects confusion of the movement with earlier efforts that unofficially attempted to enroll Hawaiians. Organizers claim[3] only 108,000 signed the earlier Kau Inoa roll after seven years.[4] The fact remains that the majority of Native Hawaiians have simply not been willing to participate in OHA's effort to create a sovereign nation.
A second excuse for low results offered by the organizers is that Hawaiians have insufficient fear that their entitlements and rights may be in jeopardy. A possibility that OHA and the Native Hawaiian roll Commission have not considered is that Hawaiians may prefer to rely upon their status as United States citizens and their rights and protections under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as a basis for their security. As a requirement to participate in the roll, individuals must sign a statement acknowledging the "unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people."[5] This requirement creates a litmus test based on political ideology, excluding from the roll those who acknowledge the sovereign status of the United States and the State of Hawaii.
The lack of support by Hawaiians for the roll is a strong indicator that the leadership of OHA and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission do not represent the will of the Hawaiian population. The roll efforts are an attempt to impose a narrow political agenda upon a constituency which values the benefits of United States citizenship as well as the Hawaiian tradition of inclusiveness.
Clearly, this is not government "of the people by the people and for the people," nor does it promote the Aloha spirit throughout society. The Grassroot Institute is a strong advocate for the constitutional rights and liberties of all people including Native Hawaiians and promotes the value of "E hana kākou"– all people in Hawaii working together for a better economy, government and society.
[1] Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Ka Wai Ola, Apr.2013, p. 13
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO0413_WEB.pdf
[2] Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. 2010 Census Summary File 1, Tables PCT8, PCT9, PCT10
[3] http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/112309054.html
[4] http://pw1.netcom.com/~halkop/kauinoa.html
[5] Office of Hawaiian affairs, Op.Cit., p. 14
--------------------
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2013/06/hawaiian-roll-call-bill-and-u-s-and-hawaiian-sovereignty-questioned/
Hawaii Political Reporter, June 4, 2013
Hawaiian Roll Call Bill and U.S. and Hawaiian Sovereignty Questioned
By Ed Gutteling and Ross Armetta
** Excerpts focusing on June 2 major speech by Dr. Keli'i Akina, President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Dr. Kelli Akina, the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and former OHA trustee candidate, addressed the Conservative Forum for Hawaii at the Naniloa Hotel Crown Room in Hilo Hawaii, on Sunday June 2. Dr. Akina's topic was "E Hana Kâkou: The Advancement of Native Hawaiians and All Residents of the Aloha State."
Dr. Akina began with the moving Oli Aloha welcoming chant taught to him by his mentor Winona Beamer, emphasizing aloha for all. He then defined the biggest threat to all Hawaii, and all Hawaiians, as being the present threat of ending the aloha spirit of inclusiveness (Relating to the Hawaiian Roll Call Bill). Specifically he addressed the Akaka Bill as wanting to impose a government entity on Native Hawaiians similar to that of Native American Indians which would establish government to government relations but impede government to people relations.
Dr. Akina noted that the racial divisiveness of the Roll Call Bill was contrary to the spirit of the founding documents of America: the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution – as well as the Hawaiian Constitution of 1841.
Dr. Akina also stated that when the Federal Akaka bill failed, the Hawaii State Government removed the most controversial provision of the federal bill and passed that provision as state law.
The state version of the law relates to the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission which would define Hawaiians by blood lines based after the arrival of Captain Cook – which Dr. Akina believes to be a racially divisive mechanism that is contrary to the spirit of aloha.
Dr. Akina contrasted the Roll Call's racial division with the racial inclusion of the Kingdom of Hawaii's Constitution of 1841. The 1841 Constitution was a declaration of rights stating equality for all : "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth, in unity and blessedness".
Dr. Akina mentioned that this enlightened Hawaiian document, instituted by King Kamehaeha III, preceded the United States ending racial inequality (the ending of slavery) by two decades.
Dr. Akina also stated that the commission had wasted millions of dollars promoting this roll, but had only gathered 9300 signatories of the estimated 500,000 eligible Hawaiians. Dr. Akina believes the lack of support by Hawaiians for the roll is a strong indicator that the leadership of OHA and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission do not represent the will of the Hawaiian population.
Dr. Akina also mentioned scandals of corruption and cronyism in OHA as described in the recent series of three articles in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. He implied that those articles portray, OHA trustees in violation of their sworn oaths of office, were promoting racial divisiveness, and were consolidating power to preserve their positions of influence rather that furthering the lives of Native Hawaiians collectively. [** A later correction to this article from Dr. Akina notes that he was talking about corruption and mismanagement at the Department of Hawaiian Homelands -- DHHL -- which is what the newspaper articles had reported]
Dr. Akina stated that only by each individual Hawaiian becoming an owner of property, of attaining their own wealth and self-reliance, could true advancement occur. As long as OHA and DHHL refused to relinquish control of the land and assets under their control and release it to their constituents, there would be a perpetual cycle of dependency and lack of economic advancement for the Hawaiian People – that it is contrary to, and destructive of, the very concept of aloha.
Dr. Akina concluded by urging all residents to participate in OHA elections and as candidates – as all residents are entitled to do by law. Dr. Akina believes that only by enlightened reconsideration of OHA's mission could true advancement occur, for Native Hawaiians and all Hawaii residents.
Dr. Akina's presentation was followed by a question and answer session, in which several Native Hawaiians, including Hawaiian Sovereignty advocate and former U. S. Marine locally known as Uncle Sam, with tears in his eyes, strenuously objected to Dr. Akina's presentation, claiming that the United States lacked legitimacy of sovereignty based on historical records and the ill-legitimate, armed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, (that many believe effected by Sanford Dole and mercenaries – NOT by official U.S. action) as a nation as well as the U.S. President (Cleveland), at the time, strongly opposing the armed overthrow make the current government ill-legitimate and therefore not legally recognized by Hawaiian Sovereigns. It was also mentioned that President Cleveland spoke strongly and eloquently about the overthrow to the U.S. Senate and House on December 18, 1893. President Cleveland's speech is readily available on-line and does provide insight on the matter by those who lived through the overthrow.
Legal Scholar, Dwight Vicente raised the point that Hawaii is not technically a state in the union as it was incorporated under the Monroe Doctrine. That is why there are 50 stars (states) and only 13 stripes – the original and full states in the Union that signed and recognized the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. One of the participants claimed that the one of the legal articles referenced in 1959 to achieve statehood is non-existent and therefore Hawaii is not legally a state.
Dr. Akina gracefully responded to the questions and statements briefly pointing out that it was common for nations to change rule and be succeeded by others throughout history. Many could point to grievances about the legality or the legitimacy of the succession, including several of Hawaii's monarchs when they too ascended to power. Dr. Akina's emphasis seemed to be that in practical terms this is where we are – time does not go backwards – and that we are better off to strive toward the ideals of the U.S. and Sovereign Hawaiian Constitutions relating to equality and recognition of all people as Hawaiians.
Dr. Akina conveyed that it was important to emphasize the inclusiveness of all the Hawaiian community (aloha) and not seek or cause divisiveness, which would harm everyone. He again praised the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Hawaiian Kingdom's own constitution, of equality for all: government by consent of the governed.
The event was attended by at least 65 people including local Council Member Gregory Illagan, and Representative Faye Hanohano, and former State Senate Candidate Daryl Smith as well as several Hawaiian groups, and legal scholars Tim Rees and Dwight Vicente. It was recorded by Hawaii Political Reporter and will be aired on Na-Leo channel 53 at 9PM on the upcoming (June 4 ) and next Tuesday. The group was representative of the local community in general and included persons and parties from diverse ideologies.
Although strong emotion was present the spirit of aloha prevailed. The Conservative Forum (a non-profit , non-partisan organization) and the Naniloa Hotel provided a seemingly appreciated, by the majority of attendees, educational and communicative venue for this complex and powerful issue. The Forum occasional hosts a variety of events. Information can be found on their website.
Dr Akina's full presentation (over 1 hour) will be available in the next several days via links on the Conservative Forum of Hawaii, Hawaii Political Reporter‘s, and Hawaii News Daily‘s websites.
** Note by webpage editor Ken Conklin: A video of the entire one hour eight minute event is now available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bek8j0dEbTo&feature=youtu.be
--------------------
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6453
Hawaii Political Info, June 13, 2013
Maiden Speech by Senator Schatz Pleads for Akaka Tribe
by Ken Conklin
[The published article is a condensed version of a much more detailed webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/m3azruz
]
On June 11, 2013 Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D,NV) said, "Mr. President, I would ask the Chair at this time to recognize the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Schatz, who replaced Senator Inouye. I understand he is going to give his maiden speech in the Senate today."
Senator Schatz waited six months before giving his maiden speech. He then squandered his political capital by choosing a topic which other Senators consider unimportant and would benefit only large, wealthy institutions serving a 21% racial minority of Hawaii's people.
Senator Schatz gave his speech around noontime, leading up to the Tuesday afternoon Republican and Democrat caucus luncheons. The speech was squeezed into a quorum call during a pause in a contentious discussion of a bill to overhaul America's immigration laws. Such scheduling might be expected for a speech in praise of a Little League team that won a championship.
The press release at
http://tinyurl.com/pewdnky
said "Following his remarks, several of his Senate colleagues voiced their support for his efforts on behalf of Native Hawaiians" and included quotes from Senators Maria Cantwell (D,WA), Lisa Murkowski (R,AK), Mark Begich (D,AK), and Al Franken (D,MN), all of whom serve on the Indian Affairs committee alongside Schatz. The press release uses the phrase "colleagues voiced their support," giving the impression that those other Senators gave speeches of support on the Senate floor, or at least entered their written statements into the record. But Senator Schatz is misleading us. None of those statements by other Senators appear anywhere except in his press releases; see the entire 333 page Congressional Record for June 11 at
http://tinyurl.com/pa5n7n3
The full text of Schatz' speech is in another press release entitled "Schatz Delivers Major Floor Speech On Achieving Fairness for Native Hawaiians" at
http://tinyurl.com/qdfb28l
and is also on pages S4071 to S4073 in the Congressional Record.
The best overall rebuttals to the general concept of creating a federally recognized Akaka tribe are:
Kell'i Akina, Ph.D., the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and 2012 OHA trustee candidate (37,835 votes), addressed the Conservative Forum for Hawaii at the Naniloa Hotel Crown Room in Hilo Hawaii, on Sunday June 2. Dr. Akina's topic was "E Hana Kâkou: The Advancement of Native Hawaiians and All Residents of the Aloha State." It was an extraordinary event, highly inspirational. A video of his speech, a little over an hour, includes a description of his background; a chant he delivered in Hawaiian; his speech filled with patriotism and conservative principles in relation to OHA, DHHL, and Hawaiian sovereignty; and a Q&A period. See the video at
http://tinyurl.com/kcxhy3b
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. 302-page book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" A webpage providing the cover, entire Chapter 1, detailed Table of Contents, and how to order the book is at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
There have been hundreds of articles published in local and national media opposing the Akaka bill during the years from 2000 to now, including statements from President Bush, several Senators, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, several public opinion polls, editorials by the Wall Street Journal, etc. See an index in chronological order, with full text in annual subpages, at
http://tinyurl.com/5eflp
Also see "Why all America should oppose the Hawaiian government reorganization bill, also known as the Akaka bill" at
http://tinyurl.com/ypops
A point-by-point rebuttal to 23 of the most significant, misleading or false statements made by Senator Schatz is provided on a webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/m3azruz
Here are a few of them.
Schatz1: June 11th marks a public holiday in the State of Hawaii ... to honor Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Kingdom of Hawaii ...
Rebuttal1: Kamehameha is remembered as "The Great" because his major accomplishment was to unify Hawaii under a single sovereignty. What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Senator Schatz or Congress rip asunder.
http://tinyurl.com/n9f5fp
and
http://tinyurl.com/bszgr
Schatz3: I want to ... carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians ... because it is right to seek justice.
Rebuttal3: Dividing the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines is NOT justice, it is apartheid. No other state has 21% of its people being Indians, let alone 21% who would be eligible to join a single tribe and sit on both sides of the negotiating table as citizens of both the tribe and the state. No tribe has its lands widely dispersed as separate enclaves scattered in numerous places throughout the state, creating jurisdictional chaos. See a map showing the federal and state government lands which the Akaka tribe is likely to demand. Note that the map does not show the extensive holdings of Hawaii's largest private landowner Bishop Estate (Kamehameha Schools), which are also widely scattered and likely to be reincorporated out of the State and into the tribe:
http://tinyurl.com/bgx25
Schatz6: [F]ederal policies and actions intended to strip Native Americans of their languages, weaken traditional leadership and family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural practices, and break communal bonds ... were as harmful and unjust to Native Hawaiians as they were to Alaska Natives and American Indians.
Rebuttal6: In regard to Native Hawaiians, this is a scurrilous accusation unbecoming of a U.S. Senator. The United States never stripped ethnic Hawaiians of their language, and never prohibited their religious and cultural practices. The ancient Hawaiian religion was abolished by Liholiho Kamehameha 2 in 1819, the year before the first American missionaries arrived, and 74 years before the monarchy was overthrown. The U.S. encouraged and fostered Hawaiian culture and a native land base by passing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, and by making hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for Native Hawaiian programs including the Polynesian Voyaging Society, the Native Hawaiian Education Act, Alu Like, Papa Ola Lokahi, and at least 150 other federal programs referred to later in Senator Schatz' statement. The Kingdom government, headed by full-blooded native Kings, established a policy of converting the public schools from Hawaiian to English as the language of instruction, to the point where 95% of all the schools were already using English by 1892 (year before the revolution).
http://tinyurl.com/6zrka
Schatz8: From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Government as a distinct political entity. We extended full and complete diplomatic recognition ... Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century after contact.
Rebuttal8: The Kingdom of Hawaii was NOT defined by race. It is a falsehood when Senator Schatz says "Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation." Throughout its history, a majority of the cabinet ministers and judges, nearly all the department heads, and 1/4 - 1/3 of the members of the legislature (both appointed and elected, both Nobles and Representatives) were Caucasians. During the Kingdom's final years, most of the population were ethnic Japanese and Chinese invited by the Kings to work on the sugar plantations or to become businessmen. Thousands of Caucasians, Japanese, and Chinese were subjects of the Kingdom either by being native-born in Hawaii or by being naturalized. Caucasians and Asians were full partners in the Kingdom.
Schatz9: But, on January 17, 1893, the legitimate government of the Native Hawaiian people was removed forcibly, by agents and armed forces of the United States.
Rebuttal9: This is a scurrilous lie. The 162 U.S. peacekeepers who came ashore in January 1893 did not take over any buildings, did not invade the Palace grounds, did not arrest the Queen, did not give any supplies or assistance to the armed militia of local men who carried out the revolution. The largest nationality of origin in the Annexation Club were Portuguese. A majority of the leadership group of the revolution (Committee of Safety) were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom, and the others were long-time residents and business owners disgusted with the corrupt monarchy.
Schatz10: The illegality of this action has been acknowledged in contemporary as well as modern times by both the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.
Rebuttal10: Congress has conducted major inquiries on two occasions, taking testimony under oath in a Senate committee during a two month period (Morgan Report 1894) and conducting hearings with expert testimony and public comment during a two year period (Native Hawaiians Study Commission 1983); and both times, after careful deliberation, reached the conclusion that the U.S. was not responsible for the revolution and does not owe any reparations to Native Hawaiians. See a summary of the conclusions and links to the full text of both reports at
http://tinyurl.com/f4cqt
Schatz18: In 1993, the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, legislation known as the Apology Resolution
Rebuttal18: See a detailed critique of the apology resolution and the bad effects it has had, at
http://tinyurl.com/bkvv8e8
Bruce Fein, an attorney specializing in Constitutional law, wrote a booklet published June 1, 2005 which included a point by point refutation of the apology resolution; that portion is featured at
http://tinyurl.com/ajz9s
Schatz20: Native Hawaiians experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment and incarceration; and, Native Hawaiian children are over represented in the juvenile justice system. Hawaiian families rank last in the nation in average annual pay and face the highest rates of homelessness.
Rebuttal20: There are two main processes whereby genuine data are skewed to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims. (a) Anyone with a single drop of Hawaiian native blood is counted as Native Hawaiian; and at the same time they are NOT counted as any of their other ethnic or racial heritages. Thus it looks like Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented in nearly all bad economic, social, and medical problems. (b) According to Census 2010, ethnic Hawaiians have a median age of only 26, while everyone else in Hawaii has a median age of 41. Of course young people have lower incomes, and greater rates of crime (especially accompanied by violence) than middle-aged people. That's why ethnic Hawaiians SEEM TO BE overrepresented in the criminal justice system and low income groups -- not because they are bad people and not because they are discriminated against, but simply because they are youthful as a group and experiencing the problems of youth regardless of race.
http://tinyurl.com/d5a7po5
In any case, it's unclear why a sovereign Akaka tribe would improve the allegedly bad statistics. Indians on the mainland fare worse when they live on sovereign tribal reservations than when they live in racially integrated towns under state and county jurisdiction.
Schatz23: This landmark effort is widely supported by the State of Hawaii, our Congressional delegation and our citizens.
Rebuttal23: Racial separatism in general, and the Akaka bill in particular, are NOT supported by a majority of Hawaii's people. See this webpage created in 2006: "Akaka Bill -- Roundup of Evidence Showing Most Hawaii People and Most Ethnic Hawaiians Oppose It"
http://tinyurl.com/omewe
See a survey in 2005 which called every household in Hawaii that had a published landline telephone number and found that 67% of respondents opposed the Akaka bill:
http://tinyurl.com/cwxgg
Nearly the same result was obtained in 2006:
http://tinyurl.com/k5hxc
See also the Zogby poll in December 2009:
http://tinyurl.com/y9x9q7u
In 2012-2013 only 9300 ethnic Hawaiians signed up for the racial registry Kana'iolowalu during the first year, out of the 527,000 identified in Census 2010.
http://tinyurl.com/mkhrb2t
But even if Hawaii's people wanted the Akaka bill to pass, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly called it racist in official statements published on letterhead in 2006
http://tinyurl.com/ocap3
and again in 2009
http://tinyurl.com/kqt39k
and again in 2010
http://tinyurl.com/ycfxmjz
-------------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20130704_Letters_to_the_Editor.html?id=214246821
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 4, 2013, Letter to editor
Hawaiians should avoid roll calls
Gov. Neil Abercrombie has dirtied his hands by signing Kanaiolowalu legislation, including House Bill 785, that passed the Legislature this year. The legislation contained unconstitutional clauses that undermine the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association as well as the corollary: the right not to associate.
Hawaiians who have registered in any Office of Hawaiian Affairs registry, Kamehameha Schools database, Kau Inoa, etc. are now forced members of Kanaiolowalu, the Native Hawaiian roll.
Hawaiians are now a captured Indian tribe instead of members of a nation with the potential, once we resurrect our government, to be recognized in the family of nations with the right to have the United States compensate us handsomely for its illegal invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom and forced abdication of Queen Liliuokalani.
Lela M. Hubbard
Aiea
---------------------
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6551
Hawaii Political Info, July 15, 2013
The Trouble with the Kana'iolowalu Racial Registry
by Ken Conklin
SPECIAL NOTE: PBS Hawaii has announced that its program "Insights" scheduled for Thursday July 18, 8-9 PM, moderated by Dan Boylan, will focus on the Kana'iolowalu project. Among the panelists will be state Senator Clayton Hee, formerly head of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and Dexter Kaiama, an attorney and Hawaiian independence activist who is working closely with Keanu Sai and filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes against Hawaii judges and prosecutors. As usual for the media, there will probably not be a moderator or panelist who will defend multiracial unity and equality.
Kana'iolowalu is a racial registration process supported by the Hawaii state legislature and using government money. The word as described by its supporters seems benign and friendly: striving together to achieve a goal, like the droplets of water in a stream. But the word has much more violent, warlike undertones. Kamehameha the Great was called "Kana'iaupuni" where that word "na'i" means "conquest" or "conqueror." "Olowalu" means "to rush or attack in concert" and also "dodging the onslaught of spears." So "kana'iolowalu" can best be translated as "conquest through swarming" -- a method of warfare like the blitzkrieg, whereby attackers surround, rush, and overwhelm an enemy.
The main trouble with Kana'iolowalu is philosophical and moral. The state legislature is creating a list of people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. Once the list is created, the legislature intends to grant governmental powers to that racial group and then hand over state government money and land to it. Should our government be supporting a process intended to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines?
There are also many important practical and legal troubles with the actual process currently underway.
In Act 195 (2011) the legislature created the foundation for a state-recognized tribe by declaring that ethnic Hawaiians are are Hawaii's only indigenous people, and by setting up the Kana'iolowalu process to create a list of them. Now, in Act 77 (effective July 1, 2013) the legislature has authorized the Kana'iolowalu racial registry to enormously expand its pitifully small enrollment by automatically dragging in the names of everyone whose Hawaiian native ancestry has been previously verified by OHA, Kamehameha Schools, other race-based institutions, or birth certificates on file at the state Board of Health. See the news report by Associated Press in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser of July 8, 2013.
http://tinyurl.com/ohhk4p5
There are at least three scenarios where the Board of Health might certify ethnic Hawaiians for the racial registry. They range from a completely voluntary confirmation requested by individual applicants, to an involuntary process where Kana'iolowalu tells BOH to have clerks or computers examine every birth certificate on record to compile a list of names of everyone who has "Native Hawaiian" on the certificate. Whatever method is used, BOH must deploy personnel and budget to this new task, without additional funding, diverting resources from other important responsibilities. People with no native blood will go to the back of the line while waiting to get certified copies of their birth certificates for normal purposes like applying for driver licenses, passports, etc.
It's troubling enough when a government rounds up everyone with a specific racial heritage and creates a list of their names. But the biggest trouble comes when that list is put into action to eventually take government land and money currently held on behalf of all Hawaii's people and hand it over to the racial group. Most of Hawaii's people probably oppose that idea; and perhaps even a majority among ethnic Hawaiians oppose it. Certainly it would be unconstitutional to do that, although Hawaii seems to do many unconstitutional race-based things faster than the U.S. Supreme Court can strike them down.
The main practical trouble with Kana'iolowalu is that it has already failed in its effort to appear to be a political entity and not merely a racial registry. Such a small percentage of ethnic Hawaiians signed up for it that the leadership decided to automatically add more than a hundred thousand names from earlier registries. Those registries were entirely racial with no pledge of political, civic, or cultural allegiance. Thus most of the names on the expanded Kana'iolowalu roll will be there based entirely on race, destroying any pretense that it is a political group.
It's at least immoral, and probably illegal, to drag people's names into a new membership roll containing political affirmations which those people might not support, and without asking their permission.
After more than 7 years and millions of dollars in advertising and recruiting, only 108,000 people had placed their signature on the Kau Inoa registry -- out of 527,000 ethnic Hawaiians counted in Census 2010. That's barely 20%, yet they would be presumed to make decisions for the other 80%. There is no quorum or membership threshold below which Kana'iolowalu must remain unactivated. Ethnic Hawaiians (and others) who oppose the whole concept are left on the outside and have no way to oppose it even if they are a majority. Should the 21% of Hawaii's people who have a drop of Hawaiian blood be allowed to dictate that our entire population and lands be divided along racial lines? 20% (Kau Inoa signers) of a 21% minority (ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii) is only four percent of Hawaii's people; and if the enrolled membership makes decisions by majority vote, that's only two percent of Hawaii's people deciding the future for us all. Those two percent will be the most aggressively activist racial partisans in Hawaii, guaranteeing permanent racial strife and unending lawsuits.
More trouble comes from the fact that 237,000 ethnic Hawaiians live outside Hawaii, which is about 45% of the total 527,000 in the U.S. Should the State of Hawaii transfer land and money to the control of a "tribe" where 45% of its people live outside the state? See "Census 2010 Native Hawaiian data -- some political implications for the Akaka bill, Act 195 state recognized tribe, and the Hawaiian grievance industry racial victimhood allegations" at
http://tinyurl.com/d5a7po5
A powerful and persuasive speech rejecting racial separatism and ethnic nationalism, and supporting the aloha choice of unity and equality, was given on Sunday June 2, 2013 by Dr. Keli'i Akina, the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and a graduate of Kamehameha School. A news report about the speech is at
http://tinyurl.com/no4h5ng
A video of the entire one hour eight minute event is at
http://tinyurl.com/kcxhy3b
This has been a summary of a much more detailed essay at
http://tinyurl.com/qb3ch29
** An abbreviated version of this essay was published on Hawaii Reporter July 16, where the editor deleted the paragraph about Keli'i Akina's speech. See
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=393722
** A greatly expanded version with details and references is on a webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/qb3ch29
-----------------------
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/i-have-a-dream-for-hawaii-50-years-later/123
Hawaii Reporter, August 29, 2013
[This 1100 word article is a summary of a much more detailed essay on a webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/n72ukh5
]
"I have a dream" -- for Hawaii, 50 years later
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
On August 28, 1963 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln memorial.[1] It was undoubtedly the most powerful civil rights speech of the 20th Century. How sad it is to see Dr. King's dream for race relations in America mocked by the nightmare developing in Hawaii.[2]
I certainly cannot begin to match Dr. King's eloquence. But on the 50th anniversary of his greatest speech, I offer my own dream for Hawaii's future as a tribute to Dr. King and a ho'okupu (offering) to my hanai (adopted) homeland.
My dream is summarized in a single paragraph. Each element of the dream has a footnote providing detailed explanations and references. Readers might be surprised that I find it necessary to say these things. That's why the footnotes are very important, even if lengthy and emotionally difficult.
My dream for Hawaii
I have a dream that someday all Hawaii's people will embrace the concept that we are all equal in the eyes of God,[3] and we are all fully imbued with the Aloha Spirit.[4] I have a dream that all Hawaii's people will embrace the fact that we are Americans.[5] I have a dream that all Hawaii's people will embrace the fact that we have a right to be treated equally under the law by our federal and state governments; and will therefore put aside and repudiate racial entitlement programs.[6] I have a dream that all Hawaii's people will put aside and repudiate efforts to create a race-based government and to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines.[7] I have a dream that someday Caucasian boys and girls who are born and raised in Hawaii will be treated as locals, keiki o ka 'aina, kama'aina; and that malihini and kama'aina Caucasians will no longer be subjected to racial epithets and racial hate crimes.[8]
Visits to Hawaii by Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King
Dr. King visited Hawaii a month after Statehood and gave a speech at the legislature on September 17, 1959 in which he said: "I come to you with a great deal of appreciation and great feeling of appreciation, I should say, for what has been accomplished in this beautiful setting and in this beautiful state of our Union. As I think of the struggle that we are engaged in in the South land, we look to you for inspiration and as a noble example, where you have already accomplished in the area of racial harmony and racial justice, what we are struggling to accomplish in other sections of the country, and you can never know what it means to those of us caught for the moment in the tragic and often dark midnight of man's inhumanity to man, to come to a place where we see the glowing daybreak of freedom and dignity and racial justice." It is significant that Dr. King and some of his fellow civil rights leaders wore Hawaiian leis in their fateful 1965 Alabama march from Selma to Montgomery, when many were severely clubbed, and bitten by police dogs.[9]
Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, was remembered in a Honolulu Advertiser obituary on February 1, 2006, where it was noted that she "first came to Honolulu in June 1987 in an effort to establish Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday. Hawai'i was then one of seven states that had not declared it a state holiday, following the establishment of the federal holiday in 1983. ... A year later, King returned to the state Capitol to witness then-Gov. John Waihee signing the holiday into law. ... Hawai'i, among the last three states to mark the holiday in honor of the fallen civil rights leader, held its first Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 1989."[10]
Greatly shortened notes. The complete notes are at
http://tinyurl.com/n72ukh5
[1] A printed transcript of the speech can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/5wwjbwt
An 18-minute video of the actual speech is at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
[2] How sad it is to see Dr. King's dream for race relations in America mocked by the nightmare developing in Hawaii. What nightmare? See
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
[3] Hawaiian sovereignty activists have twisted the beautiful Kumulipo creation legend. See "Religion and Zealotry in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement -- How Religious Myths are Used to Support Political Claims for Racial Supremacy in Hawaii" at
http://tinyurl.com/2n4hy
[4] The Aloha Spirit is very real, very powerful, and universally present in all persons and all of nature. See "The Aloha Spirit -- what it is, who possesses it, and why it is important" at
http://tinyurl.com/66w4m2
[5] "Hawai'i's Fifth Column: Anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement" at
http://tinyurl.com/5t3nc
"Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal? Was it a theft of a nation owned by kanaka maoli and stolen by non-kanaka maoli?"
http://tinyurl.com/72xeb
See photocopies of letters granting full-fledged diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Hawaii as the rightful successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii.
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/RepublicLettersRecog.html
"Was the 1898 annexation illegal?"
http://tinyurl.com/4e5bw
"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now"
http://tinyurl.com/2748fgg
"HAWAII STATEHOOD -- A Brief History of the Struggle to Achieve Statehood, and Current Challenges"
http://tinyurl.com/3eh3e
"Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959" at
http://tinyurl.com/n2zzeo
So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai
http://tinyurl.com/3vdttyp
"Hawaii Statehood Day 2006 -- Celebration at Old Territorial Capitol Building (Iolani Palace) Disrupted by Hawaiian Ethnic Nationalist Wannabe-Terrorists"
http://tinyurl.com/pdt88
[6] A list compiled several years ago identified 856 grants totaling approximately $322,220,808 which are for Hawaiians only.
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html
OHA and DHHL Cost to State of Hawaii Treasury: more than $3 Billion
http://tinyurl.com/k7rpyk4
Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes to Expand the Evil Empire
http://tinyurl.com/lbaj4at
Kamehameha School Racially Exclusionary Admission Policy, and Tax-Exempt Status, in View of Rice v. Cayetano
http://tinyurl.com/e3mlm
[7] History of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill in the 113th Congress (January 2013 through December 2014).
http://tinyurl.com/n7tf6ea
Hawaii begins to create a state-recognized tribe -- Act 195.
http://tinyurl.com/3rzjdrf
Major Articles Opposing the federal Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) -- INDEX for years 2000 - 2013
http://tinyurl.com/5eflp
[8] Road Rage vs. Racial hate Crime [Waikele incident]
http://tinyurl.com/2x34n5
Southern Poverty Law Center major report on racial hate crimes against Caucasians in Hawaii
http://tinyurl.com/kkpf74
Book review of UH Press "Asian Settler Colonialism."
http://tinyurl.com/8mkdmj
Anti-Caucasian writings and speeches by UH Professor Haunani-Kay Trask
http://tinyurl.com/2comb
[9] Text of Dr. King's speech to the Hawaii legislature on September 17, 1959, along with photos including his use of leis at the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march, can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/mk8fhh5
[10] "Coretta Scott King warmly remembered in Islands", Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, February 1, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/lk2rvel
-----------------
http://www.RepublicanAssemblies.org/nfra-resolution-in-opposition-to-the-akaka-bill/#printpreview
Resolution of the Convention of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies
Adopted at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) National Convention, September 14, 2013
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE AKAKA BILL
(The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act)
WHEREAS, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) wants Americans of all backgrounds to have the opportunity to prosper and pursue happiness;
WHEREAS, the NFRA values many aspects of the traditional Hawaiian culture and recognizes these as major contributors to the essence and spirit of Hawaii;
WHEREAS, the NFRA recognizes the heritage and valuable contributions to society of all ethnic groups in the United States;
WHEREAS, the NFRA recognizes the blessings of more than 200 years of integrated society and civil rights for all in Hawaii since the people of Hawaii were unified;
WHEREAS, the NFRA believes that addressing social and other problems affecting descendants of native Hawaiians to help them become self-reliant in modern Hawaii is a matter for all the people of the 50th state to resolve;
WHEREAS, the NFRA encourages personal sovereignty, self-determination, color blindness, equal opportunity and a level playing field whereby anyone can make the most of his/her life;
WHEREAS, the NFRA recognizes that those who wish to succeed in the United States can and will achieve success without special rules, racial preferences, set asides, and the like;
WHEREAS, the proposed Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Bill seeks to divide Hawaii along racial lines, permit the establishment of laws which distinguish between people of different ethnicities, and create a new, ethnically-exclusive government or governing entity which duplicates the services provided by our existing governments; THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, that the NFRA in convention at Dallas, Texas, September 14, 2013, in advocacy of equal rights, opposes the racially and ethnically discriminatory legislation called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Bill, known as the Akaka Bill; Be it further
RESOLVED that the NFRA opposes the enactment of any provisions of the Akaka Bill to include the establishment of a native Hawaiians-only government, program, department or agency as well as the division of the people of Hawaii by race or ethnicity through congressional legislation, presidential order, executive branch powers, or via regulatory implementation; Be it further
RESOLVED that the NFRA opposes any governmental attempt to grant preferences, privileges, and special subsidies or payouts to any single ethnic or racial group in violation of American principles of racial equality, equal opportunity and equal protection under the law; and be it further
RESOLVED that copies of this resolution shall be posted on the NFRA website, transmitted to NFRA membership, and be distributed to all members of Congress, the Chairs of the State Republican party of Hawaii, and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
-----------------
September 16, 2013: 4 of the 8 members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights jointly wrote a strongly-worded 5-page letter to President Obama opposing any attempt to use executive action to give federal recognition to an Akaka tribe. The letter reiterated reasons for opposing the concept of the Akaka bill, expressed in several official statements by USCCR in previous years, and added objections to the new concept of using executive authority to do what Congress has refused to do for 13 years. The USCCR letter, dated September 16, 2013 on official letterhead and bearing the signatures of the 4 Commissioners, can be seen at
http://big09.angelfire.com/USCCR091613LtrOpposingAkakaExec.pdf
-----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20131211_YES_The_time_might_be_ripe_again_to_pursue_action_for_Native_Hawaiians_self-determination.html?id=235350641
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Wednesday December 11, 2013
ISLAND VOICES [Guest commentaries]
There will be much divisiveness and turmoil if the sovereignty movement succeeds
By Kenneth R. Conklin
This newspaper and its predecessors have repeatedly editorialized in favor of the Akaka Bill or executive action to create a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe.
The latest version of the Akaka Bill, which passed its Senate committee in September 2012, says the Akaka tribe would have the same status as all other federally recognized tribes without any of the limitations found in previous versions of the bill.
For example, it explicitly puts the Hawaiian tribe under the same law as mainland tribes for regulating gambling casinos. That version of the bill is the final legacy of U.S. Sens. Dan Akaka and Dan Inouye; it's what the Hawaiian establishment has always wanted, and what executive action would create.
Hawaii's people need to be informed about the large body of federal Indian law that would suddenly come into Hawaii, drastically changing or replacing long-settled state laws. Here are a few: Indian Non-Intercourse Act(s); Indian Reorganization Act of 1934; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Indian Child Welfare Act; inherent powers of self-government.
The supremacy clause of the Constitution says federal law (including Indian law) overcomes state law whenever there's a clash. With passage of the Akaka Bill, thousands of federal laws and court decisions would suddenly become operational in Hawaii, causing massive disruption to our legal system.
The turmoil would be comparable to a ship bringing thousands of invasive species, which overwhelm and destroy our ecosystem. Some consequences would be as immediately visible as poisoning or traumatic injury; many would at first go unnoticed but develop gradually like heart disease or cancer.
Federal Indian law would allow the Akaka tribe to remove huge amounts of land from the state and county tax base, forcing taxes to be raised or services greatly reduced. The authority to regulate zoning, labor laws, workman's compensation for injury, enforcement of contracts, child custody, civil and criminal law, would be removed from the state and counties on tribal lands or for ethnic Hawaiians everywhere. Jurisdiction would shift to tribal courts, where laws and procedures could be very different and inherently favorable to tribal interests.
A federally recognized Akaka tribe would also have the U.S. Department of Justice providing lawyers and funding to support tribal litigation. The state, counties, small businesses and individuals would be forced to spend enormous amounts of money and time dealing with unfamiliar laws and procedures in front of hostile tribal judges.
A mainland tribe's reservation is often in a single location far removed from non-Indian towns. But in Hawaii there would be chaos among conflicting jurisdictions due to tribal lands being interspersed among state, county and private lands. Consider all the parcels owned by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kamehameha Schools. In addition there would be numerous small and large parcels transferred from county, state and federal jurisdiction because of settlement negotiations or lawsuits.
No other state has 20 percent of its population who are racially Indian, let alone 20 percent eligible to join one single tribe. Hawaii would have a major voting bloc who elect the state legislators and administrators who negotiate against the tribe, while that same voting bloc also elects the tribal leaders who will make demands against the state officials. Numerous state and county legislators and administrators, or their spouses and family members, would actually be members of the tribe whose leaders make demands against them. Talk about conflict of interest!
Federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe would permanently divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines, promoting political and legal battles while greatly worsening racial hostility. It's a recipe for disaster. Stop it.
Kenneth R. Conklin, an activist against Hawaiian sovereignty and race-based policies, was a co-plaintiff in the successful lawsuit to allow non-Hawaiians to run for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee.
-----------------
On Thursday December 12, 2013 the Honolulu Star-Advertiser ran an online opinion poll on the front page of its website beginning at midnight and ending at 4:00 PM.
The question was:
Generally, what's your sentiment on Native Hawaiian sovereignty?
The choices were:
A. Support independence under U.N.
B. Support nation within U.S. integration
C. Oppose it
The results, as recorded in the online poll archive, were as follows:
http://hawaii-newspaper.com/polls/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
C. Oppose it (56%, 1,893 Votes)
B. Support nation within U.S. integration (29%, 974 Votes)
A. Support independence under U.N. (15%, 530 Votes)
Total Voters: 3,395
** Ken Conklin analysis: More people voted in this poll than in any other poll during the past three weeks. And at 56%, significantly more people voted against any form of ethnic Hawaiian sovereignty than voted in favor of either the independence or Indian tribe models combined (Akaka bill, Kau Inoa, and Kana'iolowalu). Opponents outnumbered tribe supporters nearly 2-to-1. Opponents outnumbered secessionists nearly 4-to-1. Queen Liliuokalani is quoted in many places as having said "The voice of the people is the voice of God." The people have now spoken once again, with basically the same results as in other polls and surveys conducted in previous years in the Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Maui News, and Grassroot Institute two telephone polls which called every publicly listed telephone number in Hawaii. It's time for Hawaii's people to move forward in a spirit of reconciliation with aloha for all. E hana kakou -- let's all work together.
-----------------
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/7455
Hawaii Political Info, May 9, 2014
Building a Hawaiian tribe in the Legislature
Kana'iolowalu status report May 2014
by Ken Conklin
This essay is about what the legislature of the State of Hawaii has been doing during recent years to create a state-recognized tribe out of thin air for ethnic Hawaiians, and where that process stands in May 2014.
Important issues are raised:
Has the Roll Commission for the Kana'iolowalu racial registry followed the requirements in its enabling legislation from 2011?
Was it morally or legally acceptable for the Roll Commission to massively augment its miserable performance by grabbing 87,000 names from previous registries without the permission of those people, creating the impression that they have signed on to two major affirmations not present in the previous rosters for which they actually did register?
Did the Roll Commission take seriously its obligation to verify the political affiliation requirement in the 2011 law, or did it take seriously only the requirement to verify racial ancestry, thereby making the roll nothing more than a list of people with at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood?
Why has the Roll Commission been enrolling children aged 17, 16, or even younger, many of whom were enrolled by a parent or grandparent, even though Act 195 requires minimum age 18?
Will the Hawaiian tribe now being created truly be an autonomous political entity outside the state, as is now being asserted, and therefore not subject to state law regarding open meetings and disclosure of income and expenditures; or will it actually be nothing more than a state government agency?
News reports about a May 5 2014 legislative hearing failed to describe these issues, which are discussed in detail below.
This essay is NOT about the failed Akaka bill in Congress from 2000 through 2012, whereby ethnic Hawaiians would get federal recognition as an Indian tribe; and it is NOT about ongoing discussions inside the Obama administration whereby an ethnic Hawaiian tribe would be federally recognized through bureaucratic procedures or an Executive Order.
Here is a list of the sections in a detailed webpage which analyzes these issues at
http://tinyurl.com/l26kh8o
(A) The enabling legislation for the Kana'iolowalu process and the Roll Commission
(B) Requirements imposed by Act 195 (2011) on the enrollment process, and how the actual application for registration used by the Roll Commission failed to comply
(C) May 5, 2014 State of Hawaii Senate Committee on Hawaiian Affairs hearing about the progress of the Roll Commission
(D) Will the Hawaiian tribe really be an autonomous government outside the State of Hawaii, as former Governor and Roll Commission Chairman John Waihe'e insists?
(E) Will the delegates who write a governing document, or the members of the eventual Hawaiian tribe, allow people with no Hawaiian native blood to become members, and if so, with what rights?
(F) Additional information, including three published articles about the May 5 legislative hearing on the Roll Commission
-----------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=e2fab23e09
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, news release
DATELINE: May 10, 2014, Honolulu, Hawaii
CONTACT: Keli'i Akina, (808) 591-9193 akina@grassrootinstitute.org
Grassroot Institute Calls on OHA Trustees to Own Up for CEO Comments
HONOLULU, Hawaii -- May 10, 2014 -- The trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have embarrassed the State of Hawaii and must be held accountable for recent statements in a letter by its CEO to the U.S. Department of State questioning the legitimacy of American and Hawaii State sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands. The letter was ostensibly motivated by legal questions "..that stem from an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States as a result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government." Although the trustees have rescinded the May 5th letter from OHA CEO Kamanao Crabbe to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the board's policy of pursuing the establishment of a sovereign government of Native Hawaiians may be consistent with the questioning of American and Hawaii State sovereignty. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission are on record for requiring applicants for the Native Hawaiian Roll to "...affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Hawaiian people." OHA's own promotion of "Nation-building" efforts is premised upon the same historical arguments of Keanu Sai presented by Crabbe in the letter as grounds for questioning the legitimacy of the Hawaii State Government. Thus, while distancing themselves from the letter of its CEO, the trustees of the office of Hawaiian affairs have propagated policies that would naturally give rise to such a letter.
Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., president of the Grassroot Institute says: "How embarrassing and offensive that sitting government officials on the board of OHA should allow for the questioning of US and Hawaii state sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands. We call upon the trustees of OHA to take responsibility themselves for giving rise to the confusion evident among the staff of OHA and throughout the community. We also call upon all voters in the State of Hawaii to exercise their right and duty to hold government agencies such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs accountable as we go to the polls in 2014."
The ultimate responsibility of OHA's trustees for the views expressed in CEO Crabbe's letter is evident upon close reading. Apparently, Crabbe does not consider his views to be personal but representative of the leaders of OHA and the leadership of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. He writes, "My executive staff, as public officials, carry out the policies and directives of the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs." He also cites a panel discussion and presentation at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, involving John Waihee III, Chairman of the Roll Commission, as authoritative for the claims in his letter.
The letter from OHA CEO Kamanao Crabbe to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry can be read in its entirety here.
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Crabbe-050514_KP_Letter_to_US_State_Dept.pdf
###
For more information or for press inquiries contact Grassroot President Keli'i Akina at (808) 591.9193 or email akina@grassrootinstitute.org.
-----------------
On May 12, 2014 Keli'i Akina, President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, was interviewed by Jay Fidell on the Think Tech Hawaii channel. The 52 minute video is entitled "Proud to be American and Hawaiian." Dr. Akina explains that OHA trustees, and their CEO, are officers of the State of Hawaii and must be held accountable for challenging the sovereignty of the United States in Hawaii and for requiring enrollees on the Kana'iolowalu racial registry to affirm "the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people." See the You-Tube video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv457qK_SGo#t=12
-----------------
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-interior-department-reviving-a-truly-bad-policy-congress-has-rejected/article/2548872
The Washington Examiner, May 24, 2014
Obama Interior Department reviving a truly bad policy Congress has rejected
BY MICHAEL BARONE
Some bad ideas are hard to kill. An example is the proposal to treat Native Hawaiians like an Indian tribe. Former Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) advanced legislation to do that for years, but it did not pass even when Democrats had supermajorities in Congress.
But, as Barack Obama has said, he is not going to be stymied by the old superstition that only Congress can pass a law. The Interior Department has announced it "is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship that Congress has established between that community and the United States."
Actually, Congress has declined to establish such a relationship, and the only "government-to-government" relationship with Native Hawaiians, the state of Hawaii's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which was ruled unconstitutional as racially discriminatory by the Supreme Court in the 2000 case of Rice v. Cayetano.
The apparent analogy here, one invoked by Akaka, is to Indian tribes. But as four members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission pointed out in a September 2013 letter to President Obama, the analogy is faulty. Federally recognized Indian tribes "are defined by political structure and the maintenance of a separate society." Native Hawaiians have not been a separate society for nearly 200 years. The kingdom of Hawaii in fact encouraged immigration from abroad and, far from frowning on intermarriage, tended to encourage it. Hawaii had a population of 1,360,301 in the 2010 Census, but only 80,337 people reported themselves as being solely of Native Hawaiian ancestry and another 209,633 reported mixed ancestry including Native Hawaiian.
When Hawaii was admitted to the Union more than 50 years ago, advocates of statehood were proud of its mixed racial heritage. Setting people of Native Hawaiian descent (and how much Native Hawaiian blood would you have to have to qualify?) aside as a special group, as a quasi-government, perhaps entitled to special benefits, is entirely contrary to this aloha tradition and to the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. If the Interior Department pushes ahead on this, it will be violating the Constitution by usurping Congress' power to make laws and by imposing a system of racial discrimination.
-----------------
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/obama-looks-to-bypass-congress-and-promote-racial-spoils-in-hawaii.php
Powerline, May 26, 2014
OBAMA LOOKS TO BYPASS CONGRESS AND PROMOTE RACIAL SPOILS IN HAWAII
BY PAUL MIRENGOFF
When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we also pledge allegiance to the Republic for which it stands -- "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The modern American left has put each of these qualities up for grabs. For example, implementing "social justice" would make it logically impossible to provide justice for all of us as individuals.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/social-justice-a-nonsensical-concept.php
The left is also unfavorably disposed to the idea of one indivisible nation. The Akaka Bill was a good example. As Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow explained,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703411304575093180795586118
this legislation, which the House passed in 2010, would have enabled the nation's approximately 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians to organize themselves into one vast Indian tribe. That tribe would have been endowed with the "inherent powers and privileges of self-government," including the privilege of sovereign immunity from lawsuit. By clear implication, the tribe would also have had the power to tax, to promulgate and enforce a criminal code, and to exercise eminent domain.
Existing Indian tribes have a degree of sovereignty. But this was an attempt to establish and empower a tribe where none existed, and to do so along racial lines. Naturally, as Heriot and Kirsanow explained, the attempt was really about funneling billions of dollars to ethnic Hawaiians, a Democratic constituency.
Under the Akaka Bill, a federal commission appointed by the Secretary of the Interior would have decided who could join this special tribe. These commissioners would have been charged with examining applicants' backgrounds to ensure that only "qualified Native Hawaiians" with the right amount of Hawaiian blood join the tribe. Thus, the Akaka Bill would have granted privileges to a race, not a real tribe.
The Senate didn't pass the Akaka Amendment. But now the Obama administration may be gearing up to bypass Congress and establish a Native Hawaiian tribe.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking is couched in terms of re-establishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. However, it's doubtful that a "Native Hawaiian community" exists except as a left-wing construct, and certainly it has no government. Like the Akaka Bill, Team Obama is seeking to create a new government within the United States, not to re-establish contact with one.
Last year, in response to reports that President Obama would attempt to implement the Akaka Bill through executive action, the four Republican-appointed members of the Civil Rights Commission (Heriot, Kirsanow, Abigail Thernstrom, and Todd Gaziano) wrote a letter to him warning against any attempt to confer tribal status upon Native Hawaiians.
The letter made these main points:
Neither Congress nor the President has [the] power to create an Indian tribe or any other entity with the attributes of sovereignty. Nor do they have the power to reconstitute a tribe or other sovereign entity that has ceased to exist as a polity in the past. . . .
Real tribes -- the kind the Federal government may recognize -- are defined by political structure and the maintenance of a separate society, not by bloodlines. A mere shared blood quantum among the members of a group is not sufficient for the federal government to recognize an Indian tribe. . . .
The efforts to obtain federal recognition of native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe or other sovereign entity are attempts to create a tribe out of a race. There is no native Hawaiian entity, let alone a governing body that has existed on anything approaching a continuous basis since 1900. . . .
There is no political unit presently governing Native Hawaiians, and judging from the response thus far to the state-sponsored enrollment process, there may be far less interest in creating one than the country has been led to believe. Additionally, the very high percentage of people reporting mixed-race ancestry as opposed to pure Native Hawaiian ancestry indicates that a "predominant portion of the petitioning group" does not comprise a distinct community.
The irony of the current demand to confer tribal sovereignty on members of the Native Hawaiian race is that the Kingdom of Hawaii, which is now pointed to as evidence that this racial group once functioned as a distinct and separate Native Hawaiian polity, was actually an impressively modern multi-racial society in which immigrants were not only welcome, they were sought after. The Hawaiian monarchs ruled over anyone who was a member of their political community, not merely Native Hawaiians. . . .
Rewriting history to create a tribe out of the Native Hawaiian race would open a Pandora's box for other groups that seek tribal status. Cajuns are an identifiable ethnic group in Louisiana who have had a continuous presence there for over two hundred years. Their ancestors may have been none too pleased when Napoleon sold the lands of the Louisiana Purchase to America, and they had no opportunity to assert sovereignty. Should Cajuns be allowed to seek tribal status?
Should the Amish of Pennsylvania or the Hasidic Jews of New York be allowed to seek tribal status? Both groups have far more separation from mainstream society, much lower rates of intermarriage, and all-encompassing rules governing the lives of members than do Native Hawaiians. Both groups also have histories stretching far back.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that the proponents of Hawaiian statehood were at pains to stress the state's multiracial character. Proponents emphasized that Hawaiians, regardless of racial background, were Americans in spirit.
If native Hawaiians wished to receive tribal status, this was the time to raise the issue. Instead, 94.3 percent of all Hawaiians voted in favor of statehood -- and they did so after their representatives rejected separate tribal enclaves in Hawaii that were being created at the same time in Alaska for the Inuit and other native Alaskans. . . .
But back then, in 1959, liberals were serious when they pledged allegiance to a Republic consisting of one nation indivisible nation.
-----------------
Stop Appeasing Hawaii's Racial Separatists
by Kenneth R. Conklin
Full essay on webpage at http://tinyurl.com/ldwhk38
Somewhat shorter version at Hawaii Political Info online newspaper on May 27, 2014
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/7514
Approximately 35,000 ethnic Hawaiians have signed the racial registry in the Kana'iolowalu process. An additional 90,000 names were stolen from previous racial registries without their permission and added to the new registry. Every one of those 125,000 people have provided proof of their Hawaiian race. Proof of race was the only proof demanded for any of these registries. The whole thing is all about race. [note 1]
Furthermore, they seek to create a separate government exclusively for their racial group. That makes them racial separatists. Their new government will then demand money and land from an ever-shrinking State of Hawaii; i.e., from all the rest of us.
The 35,000 who directly signed up for the Kana'iolowalu registry signed an official declaration whose first line clearly says "I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance." That means they do not acknowledge the sovereignty of the United States in Hawaii. These are the people who support OHA CEO Kamana'o Crabbe's letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding confirmation of their belief that the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist as a sovereign independent nation. They say there was no Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the U.S. They say the statehood vote of 1959 was improper. However delusional and misguided those belief are, these people are secessionists in addition to being racial separatists.
Most ethnic Hawaiians are proud to be Americans. But some say they are victims of an armed American invasion and 121-year belligerent occupation of their independent nation of Hawaii. Those activists blame the U.S. for the revolution of 1893 that overthrew the Hawaiian monarchial government. People who believe this twisted historical narrative clearly view the U.S. as an enemy and an oppressor of the ethnic Hawaiian people.
It's time for the government of the State of Hawaii to stop its policy of appeasement toward these anti-American racial separatist secessionists. The people of Hawaii should express outrage toward them, and toward the politicians who coddle and appease them. Soon the Roll Commission will publish all their names. Then we should let them know our disapproval of what they are doing, while treating them with the respect they deserve as human beings and the aloha they deserve as our fellow citizens of the United States.
The law sending 20% of ceded land revenue to OHA is not in the state Constitution; it is merely an ordinary law which the legislature should repeal at the earliest opportunity. The legislature should offer a Constitutional amendment, and the voters should approve it, to abolish OHA. The legislature should repeal Act 195 (2011) which authorized the Kana'iolowalu process and Act 77 (2013) which authorized the theft of 90,000 names from previous racial registries. The legislature should pass a resolution urging Congress to repeal the apology resolution (1993), because that's what encouraged the growth of anti-American secessionist attitudes and demands for reparations. [note 2] The legislature should pass a resolution urging Congress to repeal and de-fund all the Hawaiian racial entitlement programs, because addiction to the flow of federal dollars for those programs is what has caused Hawaii's racial entitlements empire to demand federal recognition for a phony Hawaiian tribe as a way to protect those illegal race-based programs against court challenges. [note 3] Let government provide help to needy people based on need alone, not race. If ethnic Hawaiians are truly the neediest people, then they will get most of the help even when help is based on need alone.
Recently we have seen Russia take over Crimea. Now the ethnic Russians living in other parts of eastern Ukraine, and especially the Donetsk region, are demanding ethnic separatism and an ethnic-based government. During the last couple of decades we have seen ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Darfur, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and other places, with tragic consequences. We must not allow the scourge of ethnic separatism and demands for race-based government to destroy our beloved Hawaii. [note 4]
NOTES
1. May 2014 progress report on the Kana'iolowalu process and work of the Roll Commission in carrying out the enabling Act 195 (2011) and Act 77 (2013):
http://tinyurl.com/l26kh8o
2. U.S. apology resolution 20th anniversary -- A resolution was introduced in the Hawaii legislature to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the U.S. apology resolution; and testimony was offered to the Hawaii legislature in the form of a substitute resolution explaining that the apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed. Detailed analysis of the falsehoods in the apology resolution and the bad consequences:
http://tinyurl.com/bkvv8e8
3. The main reason OHA is seeking federal recognition for a phony Hawaiian tribe is addiction to the flow of federal dollars for racial entitlement programs, and a need to protect those illegal programs against court challenges. Oswald Stender, an OHA trustee, clearly stated that's OHA's main motive in an article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser of May 25, 2014: "Stender said OHA's board of trustees met with the Interior Department earlier this month to discuss obtaining federal recognition to protect Native Hawaiian entitlements from legal challenges. ... Stender said while the goal is self-governance, OHA is asking the federal government only for recognition, not governance. 'All we want to do with the Interior is to get the president to recognize Hawaiians as being indigenous so we can protect our entitlements,' he said in a telephone interview. 'This effort that we're doing now has nothing to do with governance. ... The entitlement issue is very serious and we want to protect these entitlements, so that's the only way do it,' Stender said." How did these racial entitlements get established? Over a period of decades, Hawaii was the only state that had both of its Senators, Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka, serving on the Indian Affairs committee. Why did they serve there when there are no Indian tribes in Hawaii? Every time a bill went through the committee to provide federal megabucks for housing, healthcare, education etc. to all federally recognized tribes, Akaka and Inouye inserted "and Native Hawaiians." It's contrary to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause to give government handouts to racial groups which are not federally recognized tribes. Sooner or later someone who has "standing" will succeed in lawsuits nullifying all those programs unless the phony Hawaiian tribe gets created and recognized. The new strategy is to recognize them as an "indigenous" group even before they create their "tribe", to be sure the job gets done while Obama is still President. The complete newspaper article containing the Oswald Stender quotes and a description of the new rule-making process in the Department of Interior to recognize a Hawaiian tribe is behind a paywall at
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/hawaiinewspremium/20140525_Rule_aims_at_recognition_for_Native_Hawaiians.html?id=260584281
4. See 302-page book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
** Most of this essay was published in Hawaii Political Info online newspaper on May 27, 2014 at
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/7514
-------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/378839/native-hawaiians-and-obama-overreach-roger-clegg
National Review Online, May 27, 2014
Native Hawaiians and Obama Overreach
By Roger Clegg
As is its habit, the Obama administration chose a Friday afternoon to announce an important initiative, namely its consideration of "an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." As is also its habit, the administration is attempting an end-run of Congress here, which has repeatedly refused to go down the road of making Native Hawaiians into some sort of Indian tribe -- and rightly so. The Supreme Court has made clear that Native Hawaiians are an ethnic group -- and they are, conversely, not a political entity -- so that singling them out for special treatment is unconstitutional, as well as divisive and unfair. The Bush administration and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said so, too, as did a National Review cover story, but apparently the Obama administration is committed to playing the race card, whenever and wherever possible.
----------------
http://www.cato.org/blog/obama-administration-abuses-executive-power-pursue-race-based-government
The CATO Institute blog, May 27, 2014
Obama Administration Abuses Executive Power to Pursue Race-Based Government
By ILYA SHAPIRO
The administration has apparently decided to combine the alarming developments I chronicled in my last two blogposts, which dealt with racial discrimination in Hawaii and President Obama's abuse of executive power. In a classic Friday-afternoon news dump -- and on the eve of a holiday weekend, no less -- the Interior Department issued an advance notice of proposed rule-making (ANPR) to "solicit public comments on whether and how the Department of the Interior should facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." (Our friends at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii broke the news; it helps that their weekend starts six hours after Washington's!)
This would be an end-run around both Congress and the Constitution, marking the first step toward the creation of a race-based government in Hawaii. That is, with variations of the Akaka Bill stalled in Congress for over a decade -- and Daniel Akaka no longer in the Senate, and congressional Democrats on their heels more generally -- the administration has decided that this is yet another area where it can't wait for the legislative branch. Even setting aside the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendment and policy problems with any proposed racial governing body, this brazen executive action raises serious separation-of-powers concerns.
As recently as September 2013, four members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission wrote a letter to President Obama, urging him not to unilaterally push for a Native Hawaiian government. After extensive historic and legal analysis, the letter noted that "conferring tribal status on a racial group is itself a violation of the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution." Moreover, "as beyond the scope of Congress's powers as it would be for Congress to attempt to organize Native Hawaiians as a tribe, we believe it would be doubly so for you to attempt to do so by executive action."
Quite so. I just wish that the next time the executive branch wanted to piggyback off my ideas, it would pick some reform proposals rather than mixing two blatantly illegal policies I've criticizing.
For more, see Roger Clegg at NRO
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/378839/native-hawaiians-and-obama-overreach-roger-clegg
and Grassroot's continuing investigation.
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2014/05/department-of-interior-secretly-planning-native-hawaiian-recognition-since-2012/
---------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/27/obama-administration-seeks-race-based-government-in-hawaii/
Fox News, The Daily Caller, May 27, 2014
Obama administration proposes race-based legal system in Hawaii
By Neil Munro
President Barack Obama's administration has quietly suggested it is willing to create a two-tier race-based legal system in Hawaii, where one set of taxes, spending and law enforcement will govern one race, and the second set of laws will govern every other race.
The diversity proposal is portrayed as an effort to create a separate in-state government for people who are "native Hawaiians."
If Obama succeeds, "what's to prevent creating similar [self-governing racial] groups out of say, Cajuns, or Orthodox Jews or Amish?" said Gail Heriot, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
"If you can do that with groups that are already part of the mainstream, you can balkanize the country," said Heriot, who is a law professor at the University of San Diego.
But the proposed measure to increase legal diversity is illegal because the president doesn't have the power to grant one group of Americans the status of a separate government, she said.
"There is no constitutional basis for conferring such status, and Congress has repeatedly refused to confer this status," said Carissa Mulder, a spokeswoman for two members of the federal Commission on Civil Rights.
"This seems to be yet another case of the Obama administration ignoring the law to achieve its policy objectives," she added.
The move was announced Friday before Memorial Day as White House officials and congressional Democrats stepped up predictions that the president will try to bypass congressional opposition to his progressive policy preferences.
Last week, for example, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid suggested the president would reduce enforcement of federal immigration law because the House has not agreed to double the current inflow of almost two million immigrants and guest workers per year.
The proposed new legal regime for Hawaii is sketched in a federal document released Friday, dubbed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
"The Secretary of the Interior is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community," said the document.
The goal, it claimed, is "to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship that Congress has established between that [Hawaiian] community and the United States."
The move is likely intended to protect lucrative financial set-asides for Americans who are also part of the Hawaiian racial group, said Heriot.
These set-aside, which include cheap loans, are being threatened by the Supreme Court's move to curb racial divisions and imposed racial diversity. In 2000, for example, the court's Rice vs. Cayetano decision allowed non-Hawaiians to participate in the election of trustees for the state's wealthy Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
The office holds a large tract of land in Hawaii under a legal trust, which generates revenue that is distributed to racial Hawaiians.
The 7,300 square kilometers of land were granted as a trust to the native Hawaiians in 1920 instead of creating a new tribal reservation that would have segregated Hawaiians from America's mainstream government, economy and society. The transfer was solidified in 1959 when Hawaiians voted to become a state in the union, and in 1978 by the creation of the office to oversee use of the trust.
The land was awarded as trust, not a reservation, because Hawaiians were full citizens, said Heriot. "They're part of the mainstream," she said.
The Cayetano decision shows the court doesn't want to encourage further moves toward tribal and racial separatism by granting more power to the race-based groups, such as the Office of Hawaiian affairs, she said.
"Once they made that decision, it's pretty clear that whole [office] is in jeopardy," over the long run, said Heriot.
In response, Hawaiian groups lobbied Congress to pass the Akaka bill, named after Sen. Daniel Akaka, a native Hawaiian senator.
The bill would have imposing variety on Hawaiians' shared government, via the creation of a tribal government for Hawaiians.
That bill would have converted Hawaiians' status from normal Americans into to subgroup similar to American Indians. Many Indians live on reservations governed by tribal governments since they were overrun during the European settlement of north America. The Akaka bill would also have transferred the Hawaiian land to the new tribe, allowing it to be used to generate wealth via gambling and other businesses for racial Hawaiians, she said.
But the Akaka bill has failed to gain any traction since 2010, prompting advocates to try this new regulatory end-run around Congress, said Heriot.
Heriot and three other members of the civil rights commission opposed the Akaka bill.
------------------------
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/divide-and-conquer-obama-inc-wants-tribal-status-for-hawaiians/
Frontpage magazine, May 28, 2014
Divide and Conquer: Obama Inc. Wants Tribal Status for Hawaiians
by Daniel Greenfield
There's no end to the malicious acts of political vandalism coming out of Washington D.C. lately. This latest one would use indigenous legislation to revert Hawaiians from Americans to tribal members.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/27/obama-administration-seeks-race-based-government-in-hawaii/
Obama's administration has quietly suggested it is willing to create a two-tier race-based legal system in Hawaii, where one set of taxes, spending and law enforcement will govern one race, and the second set of laws will govern every other race.
The diversity proposal is portrayed as an effort to create a separate in-state government for people who are "native Hawaiians."
"There is no constitutional basis for conferring such status, and Congress has repeatedly refused to confer this status," said Carissa Mulder, a spokeswoman for two members of the federal Commission on Civil Rights.
Illegal alien amnesty is also illegal. So is running guns to drug dealers to shut down the Bill of Rights or putting a man in jail for making a movie that offends Muslims.
Obama's philosophy is to do whatever he wants and dare what's left of the government to stop him.
The move was announced Friday before Memorial Day as White House officials and congressional Democrats stepped up predictions that the president will try to bypass congressional opposition to his progressive policy preferences.
The proposed new legal regime for Hawaii is sketched in a federal document released Friday, dubbed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
"The Secretary of the Interior is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community," said the document.
Hawaiian groups lobbied Congress to pass the Akaka bill, named after Sen. Daniel Akaka, a native Hawaiian senator.
The bill would have imposing variety on Hawaiians' shared government, via the creation of a tribal government for Hawaiians.
That bill would have converted Hawaiians' status from normal Americans into to subgroup similar to American Indians. Many Indians live on reservations governed by tribal governments since they were overrun during the European settlement of north America. The Akaka bill would also have transferred the Hawaiian land to the new tribe, allowing it to be used to generate wealth via gambling and other businesses for racial Hawaiians, she said.
The larger agenda is divide and conquer. Create countless subdivisions with special rights and privileges. Set groups against each other and turn government into the ultimate arbiter of the conflicts you've created. It's a familiar pattern from history.
Sadly history is repeating itself.
-------------------
Every day the Honolulu Star-Advertiser posts a "Big Question" poll which offers several possible answers and asks readers to vote online. On June 2, 2014 the question was
What kind of future do you favor for Native Hawaiians?
Readers were offered the following choices.
A. Federal recognition (nation-within-nation model)
B. Independence
C. The status quo
D. No entitlements at all
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. Notice that the "ballot position" of the four choices places the newspaper's preferred answer at the top of the list, and the choice it most strongly disapproves is at the bottom. 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). The independence activists don't have much money, but make more noise than any other group.
Nevertheless, the "silent majority" spoke loud and clear, in favor of abolishing all racial entitlements. Here are the results:
http://poll.staradvertiser.com/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
June 2, 2014
What kind of future do you favor for Native Hawaiians?
D. No entitlements at all (41%, 529 Votes)
A. Federal recognition (nation-within-nation model) (31%, 393 Votes)
C. The status quo (22%, 283 Votes)
B. Independence (6%, 118 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,288
------------------------
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/04/hawaiians-are-not-a-tribe/
The Daily Caller, June 4, 2014
and
http://www.indianz.com/News/2014/013913.asp
Indianz.com, June 4, 2014
Hawaiians Are Not A Tribe
by Keli'i Akina
President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
On the surface, Hawaii is a melting pot of all races and national origins. Beneath that surface, there is brewing an attack upon Constitutional protections against racial discrimination which could have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the nation. The Department of Interior's advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is the latest move in its process of paving the way for federal recognition of a race-based government of Native Hawaiians.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201404&RIN=1090-AB05
This represents an egregious overreach of executive power.
From a sentimental point of view, Americans can easily feel sympathetic toward the idea of righting the supposed wrongs done to Hawaiians as a tribe. The problem with this thinking is that Hawaiians never were and certainly are not today a tribe. From the time the Hawaiian Kingdom was established by its first monarch King Kamehameha through the 1893 abdication of the throne by its last monarch Queen Lili'uokalani, citizenship in Hawaii was never based upon race. If the Hawaiian Kingdom were somehow to be reinstated today, there would be no racial tribe to give anything back to, as the Hawaiian citizenry consisted of Polynesians, Caucasians, Asians, and others who lived under a constitutional monarchy.
The executive branch is using the construct of a native tribe to attempt an end-run around both the Supreme Court and Congress. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Rice v. Cayetano case that Native Hawaiian is an ethnicity (like, for example, Portuguese or Hispanic) and not a tribal or political category. Congress, from 2000 to 2012, rejected all attempts through the numerous versions of the Akaka Bill to redefine ethnic Hawaiians as a political tribe with a "government to government" relationship to the United States. That having failed, in 2012 the executive branch, through the Department of the Interior, began laying the groundwork for administrative rules to officially recognize a Native Hawaiian tribal government,
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1090-AB05
again, something which does not exist. That effort coincided with the passage in the same year of the State of Hawaii's Act 195
http://kanaiolowalu.org/about/act195/
which established the Native Hawaiian Roll within the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for creating a roll of racially Hawaiian citizens (i.e., tribe members).
The effort of the Native Hawaiian Roll to redefine Hawaiians as a political tribe has met with little support. The commission responsible for administering the roll, which was open between July 20, 2012 and May 1, 2014, claims that approximately 125,631 Native Hawaiians have "signed up."
http://kanaiolowalu.org/news/story/?id=48
In fact, most never "signed up," as official registration requires enrollees to endorse an affidavit which states: "I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Hawaiian people and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance."
http://kanaiolowalu.org/pdfs/FINALrev1_RegistrationFor_20120803.pdf
The majority of names on the roll were transferred from non-political lists of ethnic Hawaiians who have not affirmed such a statement.
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/rolling-forward
Yet the executive branch is undeterred. So obvious are its efforts to create a tribe by fiat that four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights were moved to send a letter to President Obama, dated September 16, 2013,
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Akaka-Letter-September-2013-Final.pdf
telling him that, "Executive action implementing provisions of the Akaka bill would be … unwise and unconstitutional." They also reiterated that "whatever the perceived or actual wrongs that were done to native Hawaiian rulers in the late nineteenth century, there was not then a distinct ‘tribe' of native Hawaiians living separately from the rest of society, and there certainly has not been any in the 120 years since."
So, to what end does the executive branch labor? Who benefits from the redefining of ethnic Hawaiians as a tribe for purposes of federal recognition? Ultimately, it may come back to the tried-and-true motivations of money and power -- at least among "tribal" leaders and the political and corporate elite in Hawaii who, with their national counterparts, have dominated Native Hawaiian politics for decades. It is likely that any Native Hawaiian government entity would be able to lay claim to sizeable land holdings and revenues -- and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been working to expand its role and powers as a developer.
In a broader sense, however, a larger beneficiary may be those who traffic in racial identity politics. The legal reverses suffered in recent years would be wiped away by a philosophy that raises racial identity to the level of sovereign nationhood. Not only would this open the door to other groups to petition for special legal status based on their standing as a racial community, but it would force a reconsideration of how far the equal protection of the Constitution can actually reach.
-------------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=5e128f2ffe&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Press release, June 23, 2014
At DOI Hearing, Grassroot Institute Disputes Department's Authority to Recognize a Hawaiian Nation
Grassroot Institute offers comments questioning legality of and support for a Hawaiian government
HONOLULU, Hawaii -- June 23, 2014 -- Today, the Department of the Interior held the first of a series of public meetings intended to solicit comments on a proposed rule that would, "facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community."
The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii was one of several groups to offer comments and testimony on the proposed rule. In its written comments, the organization urges the Department of the Interior not to pursue the proposed rule, pointing out that there is no historical basis for a Native Hawaiian government as envisioned by the rule; that there are serious questions as to the legality of the nation-building process; that there is a distinct lack of support among Native Hawaiians for the creation of a Hawaiian nation; and that the Department does not have the authority to recognize a Hawaiian government.
In commenting on the question of recognizing a Native Hawaiian government, Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute, emphasizes that the only such historical relationship was with the Kingdom of Hawaii, a multi-ethnic state that would not qualify as a race-based tribe:
"[T]he Supreme Court has been clear that tribes are political and not racial entities. The procedure for recognizing a tribe does not include the creation of one where no such entity existed. While the historical circumstances of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy may be cause for debate, it is undeniable that there has never been an exclusively Native Hawaiian tribe or government either at the time of the overthrow or in the 120 years since."
In addition, Grassroot pointed out the lack of participation in the Native Hawaiian Roll process as evidence of a general lack of support among Native Hawaiians--especially given the fact that the majority of those enrolled were imported via other lists. Moreover, there remain serious questions about the constitutionality of the race-based Roll process and the concept of a race-based tribe or government in general.
Disputing the authority of the DOI to act in this matter, Dr. Akina commented that:
"The Department of the Interior does not have the authority to recognize a Hawaiian government because the Constitution gives Congress the power to ratify treaties and recognize tribes. Neither the Executive Branch nor the states have the power to create or recognize a tribal government, which thereby makes both the existing nation-building process and any action by the Department of the Interior vulnerable to legal challenge."
Dr. Akina, who was present at today's hearing for the purpose of reiterating the Grassroot Institute's written comments, was optimistic about the outcome of the DOI hearings.
"Though we believe the Department's proposed rule to be precipitous, unconstitutional, and unwise, there is a silver lining," he stated. "To date, many of the questions about the formation of a Native Hawaiian government have been ignored. While we may be no closer to getting answers to our concerns, we do have a forum to voice them. The expensive, time-consuming effort to tribalize Native Hawaiians has done little to help the state or the Native Hawaiian community. This is an excellent opportunity for the average citizen to have their voice heard on a critical issue that threatens to divide and reshape our state."
Grassroot Institute's written comments on the proposed rule can be read in full here:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2014/06/grassroot-institute-comments-on-proposed-doi-rule/
Grassroot Institute Comments on Proposed DOI Rule
by Malia Hill, Jun 23, 2014, Blog, Native Hawaiian Issues, Testimony
Grassroot Institute Comments on Proposed DOI Rule
Beginning on June 23, 2014, the Department of the Interior began a series of public meetings intended to solicit comments on whether it should pursue a proposed rule to, "facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. Below you will find Grassroot Institute's written comments submitted in response to this ANPRM.
The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii writes to urge the Department of the Interior not to propose an administrative rule facilitating a government to government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, nor to assist that community in organizing a government entity. Though there are myriad reasons and concerns that we have related to the establishment of a Native Hawaiian government and its effect on the state of Hawaii and the Native Hawaiian community as a whole, for the purposes of this comment, we will focus on the three areas that most concern the ANPRM:
1.) The lack of historical basis for the government envisioned; 2.) The lack of support for such a governing entity among the Native Hawaiian people and accompanying questions about the state process; and 3.) The possibility that action from the Department of the Interior is premature and infringes on the powers allocated to the Congress under the Constitution and that there are further questions regarding the Constitutionality of the government envisioned.
There is no historical basis for a Native Hawaiian government as envisioned by this rule
It is easy to feel sympathetic toward the idea of righting the supposed wrongs done to Hawaiians as a tribe. The problem with this thinking is that Hawaiians never were and certainly are not today a tribe. From the time the Hawaiian Kingdom was established by its first monarch King Kamehameha through the 1895 abdication of the throne by its last monarch Queen Lili'uokalani, citizenship in Hawaii was never based upon race. If the Hawaiian Kingdom were somehow to be reinstated today, there would be no racial tribe to give anything back to, as the Hawaiian citizenry consisted of Polynesians, Caucasians, Asians, and others who lived under a constitutional monarchy.
The fact that the proposed rule is framed in the idea of "re-establishing" a relationship with a Native Hawaiian government means that the Department is specifically calling back to the Kingdom of Hawaii. After all, there has never been a Native Hawaiian tribe with a treaty relationship to the United States. The closest historical analogue to the Native Hawaiian government envisioned in the proposed rule is the multi-ethnic citizenry that existed under the Hawaiian monarchy. However, the Supreme Court has been clear that tribes are political and not racial entities. The procedure for recognizing a tribe does not include the creation of one where no such entity existed. While the historical circumstances of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy may be cause for debate, it is undeniable that there has never been an exclusively Native Hawaiian tribe or government either at the time of the overthrow or in the 120 years since.
The Native Hawaiian community is not united behind the state nation-building effort (which, in addition, raises questions of Constitutionality)
Another reason for urging caution in the Department's adoption of a rule recognizing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community is the fact that said community has demonstrated a distinct lack of support for the State's nation-building process. Though powerful government interests may portray Native Hawaiians as unified behind the state effort, the reality is very different. This lack of support is well-illustrated by the story behind the Native Hawaiian Roll.
In 2011, the Hawaii State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Act 195 which established the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, an agency to operate within the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The purpose of the Commission is to enroll Native Hawaiians who will become the citizenry of a Native Hawaiian governing entity.
Charged with the duty to prepare a roll of "qualified" Native Hawaiians, the Commission is required to certify that the individuals enrolled meet the definition of Hawaiian for the purposes of the Act. Moreover, the Commission itself has the ability to determine whether an individual satisfies the criteria for enrollment as follows:
"Has an ancestor who lived in Hawaii prior to 1778; or is a direct descendant of an ancestor who was eligible for Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1921; and has maintained a significant cultural, social or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community and wishes to participate in the organization of a Native Hawaiian entity and is 18 years of age or over."
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission was required to file a report before the opening of the 2012 legislative session, and their filing on December 28, 2011 outlined its setup and plans. The initial enrollment effort was launched on July 20, 2012 with a signing ceremony at Washington Place. At the time, the Commission outlined a detailed plan to enroll eligible Hawaiians for one year (through July 20, 2013) with the goal of registering 200,000 Native Hawaiians in that period.
In 2013, due to the underwhelming response from the Native Hawaiian community and lower-than-expected enrollment numbers, the Commission and OHA supported a legislative proposal intended to boost the enrollment process and results. Enacted as Act 77 SLH 2013 and signed into law on May 24, 2013, the law in question amended Section 10H-3 HRS to require the Commission to include in the Roll anyone who had previously been accepted as a Native Hawaiian by OHA, Kamehameha Schools, or by another Hawaiian registry program. This wholesale importation of additional names into the Roll was effective July 1, 2013.
The wholesale importation of names from other sources into the Native Hawaiian Roll has the effect of further distorting the success of the enrollment process. Those who signed up for the Roll through official channels were (in addition to meeting eligibility requirements on ancestry) required to agree with an affidavit, stating, "I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Hawaiian people and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance." The majority of names on the roll were transferred from non-political lists of ethnic Hawaiians who have not affirmed such a statement. Therefore, the majority of Native Hawaiians on the Roll did not "sign up" for it. Moreover, it cannot be known how many of those "imported" into the list would have objected to the language of the affidavit or the goals of the Roll.
A further complication is raised by the state laws governing the creation and management of the Roll. The constitutionality of Section 10H-3 HRS (as amended by Act 195 and Act 77) is brought into question by the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano, and it appears that the state is attempting to do precisely what the Court said was proscribed by the Fifteenth Amendment
In Rice, the Court held that the definitions of both "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian" under state law (based on ancestry in the Islands prior to 1778) were racial classifications and that restricting voting rights based on this definition therefore violated the Fifteenth Amendment. That amendment protects citizens against discrimination in the elective franchise based on race, and applies to any election of public officials or in which public issues are decided.
Despite the holding in Rice, Section 10H-3 HRS uses ancestry as one of its primary bases for eligibility, excluding anyone who does not have an ancestor who lived in Hawaii before 1778 or is not a descendent of a person eligible for HHCA in 1921. However, the courts have been consistent in rejecting the use of ancestry as a proxy for race, and the conditions of eligibility for the Roll are in clear violation of the Rice decision and the Fifteenth Amendment.
The Roll was reopened briefly in the spring of 2014 for the purposes of boosting Native Hawaiian participation in an election for a Constitutional Convention to be held later this year. However, there remain only about 125,631 Native Hawaiians eligible to participate in the nation-building process through the Native Hawaiian Roll. This is out of the approximately 527,077 Native Hawaiians living in the U.S. according to the 2010 census. That means that more than 75% of Native Hawaiians would not be able to participate in the creation of the proposed government entity. To say that this signifies a lack of support for a separate government on the part of the Native Hawaiian people is an understatement. In fact, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been urged on multiple occasions to delay the nation-building process in order to allow the Native Hawaiian community to debate and discuss the issue further.
A look at the history of the relationship between the Native Hawaiian community and the elites who have managed its trusts and land provides a simple explanation for the reluctance to embrace the creation of a Native Hawaiian government. Because it has been made clear that the primary motivation for the creation of the governing entity is the protection of revenues and entitlements for Native Hawaiians, it is understandable that such motives should be looked on with suspicion. Concerns about possible corruption and continued use of land and revenues by an entrenched elite have led many Native Hawaiian groups to reject the state effort outright and insist that the sovereignty issue be handled without government interference.
The proposed rule is premature and infringes upon powers allocated to Congress
As mentioned above, there is no precedent for a Native Hawaiian tribe, nor for the recognition of any tribe based on race. In fact, this was one of the major barriers to the passage of the Akaka Bill, and that problem is not solved by relying on the state nation-building effort and an accompanying administrative rule. The Department of the Interior does not have the authority to recognize a Hawaiian government because the Constitution gives Congress the power to ratify treaties and recognize tribes. Neither the executive branch nor the states have the power to create or recognize a tribal government, which thereby makes both the existing nation-building process and any action by the Department of the Interior vulnerable to legal challenge.
In September 2013, four members of the eight member US Commission on Civil Rights wrote a letter to President Obama specifically addressing the possibility of an executive action to recognize a Native Hawaiian tribal government: "We believe that provisions of the Akaka bill are both unwise and unconstitutional. Executive action implementing provisions of the Akaka bill would be at least as unwise and unconstitutional." The letter provides evidence that there has been no continuous Native Hawaiian governing entity and that Native Hawaiians are not a tribe. Thus, a key argument of the commissioners is that… "Neither Congress nor the President has to power to create an Indian tribe or any other entity with the attributes of sovereignty. Nor do they have the power to reconstitute a tribe or other sovereign entity that has ceased to exist as a polity in the past." The commissioners' letter is attached.
And this is assuming that the creation of a race-based government survives an equal protection challenge -- something that Rice v. Cayetano casts into considerable doubt, regardless of whether the acting body involved was Congress, the state, or the executive branch. To proceed in creation of an administrative rule recognizing a Native Hawaiian government before it can be demonstrated that the current nation-building effort will sustain either political or legal challenges is premature. Considering the political and social upheaval that could accompany the creation of a Native Hawaiian tribe in the state of Hawaii, we urge the Department to put any such action on hold while its legality and support are in question.
Conclusion
We recognize the unique contributions of the Native Hawaiian people and sympathize with the desire to help the Native Hawaiian community and preserve their culture. However, we strongly dispute that these causes are advanced by the recognition of a race-based governing entity. There is no legal basis for the recognition of a Native Hawaiian government, and there remain serious questions of constitutionality regarding its creation. The likelihood that such an effort fails a legal challenge as well as the lack of support for such action even within the Native Hawaiian community make this proposed rule premature and ill-advised. We urge the Secretary not to proceed with any action to foster the recognition or creation of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments.
Sincerely,
Keli'i Akina, Ph.D.
President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
----------------
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
-------------------
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
----------------
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)
----------------
August 19, 2014: 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.
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
