(c) Copyright 2016
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
=============
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM AUGUST 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
August 2, 2016: OHA candidate Keli'i Akina says OHA policy positions are out of sync with the needs of ethnic Hawaiians whom they are supposed to represent -- examples of $33 Million wasted seeking federal recognition as a tribe, and new effort to expand the Northwest Hawaiian Islands national monument thereby banning fishing inside a 200-mile limit.
Aug 6:
(1) Long-time Hawaiian independence activist Laulani Teale provides extremely clear explanation of why ethnic Hawaiian acquiescence to federal recognition would be a waiver of their rights under international law to seek restoration of independence, and how that explanation is included in a report by 2 experts on international law hired by OHA.
(2) A Hawaiian independence group says it has acquired a 40-page document from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which states that department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have given OHA the authority to be sole decision-makers on whether ethnic Hawaiian activists claiming to protect "sacred places" are threats to public safety.
Aug 10: Civil Beat columnist Ian Lind article notes apparent team effort by OHA candidates Keli'i Akina and Mililani Trask to oust incumbent trustees. Online comment by Akina says people must work together to solve practical problems despite differences on longterm goals; online comments by Ken Conklin fully endorses Akina and partly supports Trask, in view of Conklin's fundamental principles.
Aug 11: Civil Beat reporter Chad Blair summarizes the issues, seats, and candidates in the primary election for OHA on August 13.
Aug 13-14: OHA primary election results: Incumbent Colette Machado (Moloka'i) got more than 50% of votes (after removing blanks) and wins with no wait for November; Hawaii Island challenger Mililani Trask got more votes than incumbent and chairman Robert Lindsey, but with less than 50%, so they will battle in November general election; At-large incumbent Haunani Apoliona got 24% of votes in field of 7 while challenger Keli'i Akina placed second with 13%, and they will battle in November general election (41% of voters left blanks).
Aug 16: OHA at-large candidate Keli'i Akina position statement directed toward ethnic Hawaiians says he opposes OHA spending money to seek tribal status, but he supports racial entitlement programs such as Hawaiian Homelands and he supports the existing set-aside of ceded land revenues to benefit ethnic Hawaiians.
Aug 17: OHA secretly funded a survey of ethnic Hawaiians and non-ethnic Hawaiians in January to help incumbent trustees discover how ethnic Hawaiians rank priorities, and results show "nationhood" is lowest priority. Results were the same in 2003 surveys.
Aug 19: Keli'i Akina Hawaii Statehood Day holiday message "... proud to be Hawaiian and proud to be American. That's worth celebrating, and it's worth celebrating in the company of all Americans, from multiple ethnic backgrounds, who can all rightly call themselves Hawaiians."
Aug 21: On the Sunday of the weekend celebrating Hawaii Statehood Day holiday, 100 sovereignty activists air grievances at Iolani Palace.
Aug 29-30: 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects unanimously dismisses lawsuit to block race-based election of delegates to a constitutional convention to write a constitution for a Hawaiian tribe, because the groups trying to conduct the election decided not to go forward with it and disbanded; thus the court ruled the lawsuit is moot. Several news reports are provided.
September 2, 2016: "Free Hawaii" blog warns that OHA chairman Robert Lindsey, who suffered a stroke a few months ago and might be medically unable to perform his duties, might be seeking re-election solely for the purpose of then resigning so that his fellow trustees, or the governor, can choose his successor rather than allowing the voters to make that choice.
Sep 7: OHA hires public relations company for $294,000 for 2 years to boost its image; OHA survey asking how people rank priorities shows that both ethnic Hawaiians ad non-ethnic-Hawaiians place "nationbuilding" as least important.
Sep 9: Grassroot Institute president notifies members about federal lawsuit in Guam regarding whether a government-sponsored election to choose independence vs. statehood vs. compact of free association can have voting eligibility restricted by race. Conklin provides two recent news reports identifying the legal issues.
September 22-24, 2016: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ANNOUNCES IT HAS ISSUED A FINAL RULE (REGULATION) WHEREBY ETHNIC HAWAIIANS CAN CREATE A TRIBE AND GET FEDERAL RECOGNITION FOR IT. Several news reports are provided, including the Department of Interior announcement and links to the full text of the rule (172 pages) and a DOI summary of answers to Frequently Asked Questions (7 pages). A few blog posts by independence activists are also provided.
Sep 25:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser online poll "What do you think about the new federal process that would recognize a future Native Hawaiian government, if one emerges?" 4 choices. Winner with 51% of the votes: "Negative; oppose sovereignty movement"
(2) Article in "The Atlantic" magazine portrays Robin Danner as a hero in seeking to reduce the percentage of native blood quantum required for a DHHL homeland lease, in order to rescue grandchildren of lessees from bring thrown out of "their" family house after grandparent leaseholder dies. Hidden agenda is to vastly increase the number of DHHL-eligible ethnic Hawaiians in order to make it easier to satisfy a major requirement for ratification of tribal governing document to satisfy newly finalized Department of Interior regulation for a Hawaiian tribe to get federal recognition.
Sep 26:
(1) Honolulu Star-advertiser editorial in favor of the DOI rule (and online comment by Ken Conklin);
(2) Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper commentary by independence activist Walter Ritte (and online comment by Ken Conklin, initially censored out)
(3) 30-minute video of Keli'i Akina conversation with newspaper publisher Andrew Walden about what's happening with the newly proclaimed Department of Interior final regulation for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe. Links to text of H.R.3764, discussed in conversation, a bill in Congress which would block federal recognition through administrative action and require recognition solely by Congressional action.
Sep 27: Independence activist Leon Siu, in the Free Hawaii Blog, describes how "Obama attacks Hawaiians with DOI rule change." Siu says the U.S. should recognize and establish a government-to-government relationship not with a fake Indian tribe but with the real, continuing Kingdom of Hawaii.
Sep 28:
(1) Ethnic Hawaiian regular columnist at Honolulu Star-Advertiser notes that not all ethnic Hawaiians think or feel the same way (so no surprise there are disagreements over the proposal to create a Hawaiian tribe);
(2) Ethnic Hawaiian columnist at Honolulu Civil Beat, who was primary author of proposed tribal constitution, says "Making Things Right For All Native Hawaiians -- Queen Liliuokalani's charge to the Hawaiian Kingdom is reflected in the Interior Department's new government-to-government rule."
END OF INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM AUGUST 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
================
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/oha-violates-trust-responsibility-to-native-hawaiians/
Honolulu Civil Beat, August 2, 2016
OHA Violates Trust Responsibility to Native Hawaiians
The debate over a marine monument shows the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' once again out of sync with the interests of Native Hawaiians.
By Keli'i Akina
(Editor's note: The writer is a candidate for trustee-at-large in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.)
The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs is angling for a "co-trusteeship" of an expanded Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. But a July 22 letter to President Barack Obama from former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka and former state Govs. Ben Cayetano and George Ariyoshi point out, "The proposed expansion will impact the state's ability to continue its trust responsibility to native Hawaiians."
I agree. Papahanaumokuakea expansion would put money in OHA's pockets at the expense of Hawaii's local food supplies and native Hawaiian fishermen. Unfortunately, Papahanaumokuakea is not the only place where OHA's interests are diametrically opposed to those of native Hawaiians. In fact, it's the latest example of a long-running pattern.
According to Trustee Lei Ahu Isa, OHA wasted $33 million on its failed effort to impose federal tribal recognition on native Hawaiians -- $33 million that could have done wonders to ease homelessness and other issues plaguing native Hawaiian communities. But this money was directed instead toward Washington lobbyists and a handful of politically connected OHA insiders pushing an agenda opposed by thousands of Hawaiians at last year's Interior Department hearings.
To keep its spending secret, OHA has amassed the worst transparency record of any state agency. For years, OHA lawyers argued that OHA was not even subject to state laws.
OHA's ceded lands litigation began in 1994 with a lawsuit against a plan from the Gov. John D. Waihee administration to build affordable housing projects in Lahaina and Kailua-Kona. OHA's lawyers got paid for 15 years of futile litigation from 1994 to 2009. Meanwhile, Native Hawaiians are leaving Hawaii because we can't afford to live here anymore.
OHA trustees in 2007 blocked the County of Kauai from constructing a juvenile residential drug treatment facility near the Hanapepe Salt ponds. Nine years later, Kauai County is still struggling to find a location to build this badly needed facility. Thanks to OHA, hundreds of Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian children on Kauai are not getting the help they need to get off methamphetamines and other drugs.
OHA's interest in Mauna Kea consists entirely of the collection of rent money. Trustees are now threatening to sue because the $1 million per year rent deal they originally signed isn't good enough anymore. The lawyers will profit, but Hawaii will lose the Thirty Meter Telescope and the jobs and science education opportunities that come with it.
OHA will also lose its $1 million per year. Native Hawaiians gain individual self-determination by participating in education and scientific exploration. TMT is being thrown away in OHA's quest for more rent money.
OHA's excessive spending came to the attention of auditors who in 2015 reported, "OHA will run out of funds" because the OHA Trust Fund has been drained by amounts ranging from $5 million to $30 million per year every year since 2005. OHA has little to show for its Kakaako Makai properties, except expensive drawings produced by politically connected architects. Other OHA properties, such as Waimea Valley, have been placed into limited liability companies with little to no transparency.
Instead of cutting wasteful spending on Cook Island junkets and padded crony contracts, OHA is looking for ways to extract money from other organizations' projects. Proportionally, no one suffers more from OHA's disruption of Hawaii's economy than native Hawaiians.
We all need to ask ourselves whether OHA really embodies the state's trust responsibility to native Hawaiians. Without OHA transparency, how can anybody claim it does?
About the Author
Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., is the president/CEO of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
---------------------
https://www.facebook.com/notes/laulani-teale/why-federal-recognition-does-in-fact-sell-out-the-lahui/10157265910440346
Laulani Teale Facebook page, Saturday August 6, 2016
Why Federal Recognition Does In Fact Sell Out the Lahui
I am someone who does my absolute best to build unity in almost every situation, given the possible options. And generally, I'm good at it. But when there is an element that is so divisive that not taking a stand allows a questionable agenda to run over others, it is better as a person of peace to stand with those who are jeopardy.
"Federal Recognition" of a "Native Hawaiian Governing Entity" is a good example of this. It puts 123 years of people fighting illegal US rule into jeopardy by accepting US rule (which has never been done before), and accepting subservient status as a "Domestic Dependent Nation", or tribe.
I am not making this up. Last year, OHA paid two law professors, James Anaya and Robert Williams, to write a report called "STUDY ON THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY RELATING TO THE SITUATION OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE". This is the most often-cited document by OHA's "nation-building" forces and their counterparts. Generally, the study is very pro-fed rec, and in my opinion, they missed a lot of stuff. However, they didn't miss everything.
On pages 24-25 of the "Study", Anaya and Williams examine the DOI's proposed rule, and its possible effects. Here is what their report says: "Native Hawaiian acceptance of the proposed federal rule could be used to imply acquiescence to the sovereignty of the United States over Hawai'i, which undoubtedly is a premise of the proposal." P. 24
Digest that for a minute.
It goes on:
"implied acquiescence to U.S. sovereignty could be interpreted as prejudicing the claim for restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy and an independent Hawai'i, insofar as that claim relies on the assertion that the U.S. presence in Hawaii is today illegal. But any inference of acquiescence could be overcome by a unilateral declaration by the proponents of the claim affirming that acceptance of the proposed federal rule is limited to the specific, practical objectives of the rule and does not imply a general acceptance of U.S. sovereignty over Hawai'i or a waiver of any claim challenging that sovereignty." p. 24-25
Ok, so let's get this straight. Anaya and Williams (OHA's main international legal experts) say that acceptance of the DOI rule does in fact imply that we acquiesce to being ruled by the US.
That is a big one. There is no treaty between the US and Hawai'i. Our kupuna never agreed to US rule. The 38,000 signatories on the Ku'e petitions made that very clear. The 1959 Statehood plebiscite specifically skirted international law by not even offering options for restoration, independence, or even free association, and a plebiscite that offers a choice between integration or integration is invalid. So that doesn't count either. This would be the first time that "Native Hawaiians" (at least those recognized as such by the federal government), or the people of Hawai'i in any form, actually agreed to governance by the United States of America. Ever.
Then there is part two of their analysis, where Anaya and Williams say that "any inference of acquiescence could be overcome by a unilateral declaration by the proponents of the claim affirming that acceptance of the proposed federal rule is limited to the specific, practical objectives of the rule and does not imply a general acceptance of U.S. sovereignty over Hawai'i or a waiver of any claim challenging that sovereignty."
Ok, so they are now saying that the above problem of implied acquiescence can be overcome, so don't worry. How can it be overcome? By "unilateral declaration by the proponents of the claim" (in other words, those advocating for fed rec) "affirming that acceptance of the proposed federal rule ... does not imply a general acceptance of U.S. sovereignty over Hawai'i or a waiver of any claim challenging that sovereignty."
So according to Anaya folks, all we need in order to ensure that fed rec is not used against us is for the advocates of fed rec to stand up and clearly declare that acceptance of the rule in no way implies acquiescence to US possession.
Well, gosh, that's easy!
...Right?
Except that, for some reason, this is not happening. At all.
The closest thing to such a declaration, ever, was that line in the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha's constitution that says: "we reserve all rights to sovereignty and self-determination, including the pursuit of independence." But this is not protective. Why? For one thing, the document represents neither the Hawaiian people nor the "proponents of the claim" (fed rec advocates). Many people opposed the process that created the document; some (including an M.D., an award-winning Hawaiian Studies Professor, and others) even got arrested opposing it. On the other hand, some of those working on the document were independence advocates who are not said "proponents" at all, and how much influence they had is unknown. It is reasonable to hypothesize that they may well have authored that line -- maybe even leveraged their own participation in the process in order to get it in -- and may not agree to the DOI rulemaking at all. They could easily be described by the US and its integrationists as just part of the "fringe" (a term often used by fed rec advocates to describe the entire mass of the independence movement), like the rest of us. And the document itself was written under a lot of admitted time pressure, and therefore is not, er, excellent by even its own participants' standards.
Furthermore, since the very controversial 'Aha was not officially addressing the DOI rule in the first place, that particular connection is insufficient to serve as the protection that Anaya them say is needed to avoid the implication of acquiescence.
Back in the Kana'iolowalu days, I made a simple, repeated request to their Roll Commission: fairly and thoroughly articulate resistance to this process in your official report. I explained the dual purpose for this: one, to protect our lahui from claims of acquiescence. Two, to protect you all from looking foolish when people resist you, which they will. I made this request at at least two board meetings, and personally discussed it with multiple commissioners, including the chair, John Waihe'e.
Never happened.
The obvious question here is: why? Why would Kana'iolowalu refuse to include language that would protect our lahui from claims that we were now voluntarily agreeing to US rule? Why would the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha likewise resist such protection (note: this is admittedly hearsay; I heard it said by several 'Aha participants)? Why is there not one major federal recognition advocate visibly standing up and saying, "I do not relinquish my claim to the Kingdom," or "Let us be clear that this Rule is limited ONLY to the claims outlined and is in no way to be construed as acquiescence to rule by the United States," or even just plain, "we have the right to independence," or "I stand for independence"?
Maybe they did not actually read the Anaya/Williams report. That's fair. Heck, I will admit I only caught that particular quote in the past week or so myself. The report is long, and we are all busy people. Numerous summaries (by OHA and others) have floated around at various times, and it is way easy these days to read a summary (or even headline) and feel like you have read a whole report. Dangers of social media.
That might explain some folks. But not all. It does not explain the lack of inclusive or protective language in Kana'iolowalu's report, after the matter was clearly explained to the commissioners. It does not explain the lack of protective language by OHA's "nation-building" staff, who should be reasonably expected to have read the report in full. It does not explain the TOTAL lack of this kind of protection in federal recognition efforts.
I do not want to say that our own people are selling us out. They are in a compromised position. The process sells us out.
I know and dearly love SO many on the fed rec team. I know their families. They have been my aunties, my uncles, my brothers & sisters on other fronts, my bosses (really good bosses, btw), my aloha 'aina partners. I've laughed and cried with them, carried their babies over many stones, and they have carried mine too. They are real people, they work hard, and they care about the 'aina and people. And I am a peacemaker -- intra-'ohana accusations are something I abhor and stand very strongly against. As a peacemaker, I spend choke time reframing, re-strategizing, redirecting accusations into something more kakou. I can't stand being put in a position where opposing a bad maneuver means opposing kanaka.
So when I say we are being sold out, let's be clear: federal recognition itself sells us out. It is the age-old, tried-and-true method of "carrot-and-stick".
"Carrots": more federal money. A seat at the table (or at least, under it). Maybe, MAYBE more land (none is "on the table" yet, but hey, if we get a seat at said table, we can at least ask nicely for some of it back). Good paying jobs, upon which those Hawaiians who are struggling to "make it" in the colonial system depend, lest they become houseless or lose their mortgaged 'aina. A distinctive status to get the US to use that which it is willing to recognize to protect at least the "indigenous claims" it is willing to let us fight it for, and protect our ability to speak for ourselves from crazy Koch-funded, lawsuit-happy ranchers and irritating non-Hawaiian independence activists.
"Sticks": fear of crazy Koch-funded, lawsuit-happy ranchers and irritating non-Hawaiian independence activists. Loss of federal funds, upon which important programs have become dependent. Fear of being bombed by North Korea or (fill in the blank) if the US withdraws. The very real threat that the US could withdraw and leave all of its bombs in the soil and reefs, with no EOD resources to deal with them. Fear of neocolonial dictatorship or other crappy outcomes. Fear of not being able to pay the mortgage. Fear of being cut off from overseas family, because the US might hold independence against us. Individual fears of successors being disenrolled for all eternity, as happened to so many following the Dawes roll of 1893.
Those carrots are not cheap, and those sticks are not soft. The price: acquiescence to US rule. Everyone knows this is the deal. If it were not, the "proponents of the claim" would already be making the "unilateral declaration" recommended by Professors Anaya and Williams in their report to OHA.
But they are not.
That is why I am saying that Federal Recognition sells out the lahui.
Because it does.
-------------------
http://freehawaii.info
Free Hawaii, Saturday August 6, 2016
Posted by the Koani Foundation at 2:10 PM
ALERT! - OHA PARTNERS WITH US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
We want to let you know of a recently revealed partnership between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the US Department of Homeland Security.
This partnership, which had previously been "under the radar," is designed to exclude community input as well as input in particular from Hawaiian cultural practitioners regarding many Hawaiian historic and sacred sites such as Mauna Kea, heiau, burial sites, etc.
A 40+ page document from the US Department of Homeland Security states, among other things, that the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has decided to change the way US federal activities can be carried out in Hawai'i.
Simply put, this means several very important and significant changes are on the way.
First, this partnership between OHA, the US Department of Homeland Security and FEMA is designed to make OHA the sole source of input to these two US federal agencies regarding Hawaiian sacred sites.
Secondly, OHA will be given the authority to interface with FEMA and approve FEMA activities throughout Hawai'i.
To date, OHA has not released any data on this or even made any of their OHA-US federal agreement discussions public.
Significantly, FEMA & OHA will have the right to exempt certain federal activities from the formerly required community consultation process.
Finally, and most importantly, it opens the door wide to the assertion of US homeland security threats and possible subsequent US federal law enforcement actions against Mauna Kea protectors or any other cultural site protection in the future.
All of this appears to be patterned after the already existing Mauna Kea Development model whereby the state of Hawai'i government went to OHA, convinced them to change their minds about opposing TMT, and then came to an agreement to work only with OHA and ignore other stakeholders and interested parties, including cultural practitioners.
Under this format only FEMA and OHA recognized and approved Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO) would be able to participate. All other community input would be excluded.
In light of the upcoming OHA elections, and the need for truth and transparency throughout OHA which has been absent for so long, we ask you to take the above information into careful consideration as you decide who to vote for OHA trustees on August 13th and in November.
Mahalo.
------------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/ian-lind-are-oha-candidates-trask-and-akina-teaming-up/
Honolulu Civil Beat, August 10, 2016
Are OHA Candidates Trask And Akina Teaming Up?
They have very different backgrounds, but they share a desire to reform the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
by Ian Lind
Just days before Saturday's primary election and more than a week after walk-in and absentee voting began, longtime Hawaiian sovereignty activist and Office of Hawaiian Affairs candidate
has publicly denied claims she has teamed with Kelii Akina, president and CEO of the politically conservative Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, to oust two OHA incumbents.
"I am supportive of those candidates that are open, transparent and accountable to the beneficiaries and the public of any decisions impacting OHA," Trask wrote in an Aug. 7 Facebook post. "Further, I will work with any trustee that embraces and supports reform."
However, Trask said emphatically that she has not endorsed any other OHA candidate.
While Trask did not specifically name Akina, supporters commenting on the post were quick to draw the connection, accusing Akina of dropping her name and then promoting the misleading impression they were working together or "teamed up" in the campaign.
To which Trask replied: "Aloha FB friends, mahalo for your astute insight!"
But not all of those visiting Trask's Facebook page were satisfied by her generalized denial of a link with Akina. One pointedly asked Trask to state directly whether or not she supports Akina "and his agenda."
"If I was running for trustee and was posed this question I would answer it honestly," wrote a commenter identified as Zachary Keanaaina. "My answer would look like this ... 'I have never and will never support Keli'i Akina in his agenda in limiting the special rights we Kanaka have left'. Simple and to the point."
Misleading Impression
The appearance of a team effort began when Akina interviewed Trask for a 30-minute episode of "E Hana Kakou," a weekly television program broadcast online by ThinkTech Hawaii and made available on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE-FtsVmN6s
The interview was headlined, "Akina and Trask: Working Together and Challenging the Office of Hawaiian Affairs."
Akina's campaign followed by quickly issuing a press release about the interview. The purpose of the interview, according to the release, was "to communicate that they are working together" to reform OHA.
According to the press release: "Akina opened the discussion, stating, 'We are working together. We're going to tell you why we're working together because what's at stake is far beyond anyone's political agenda.'"
The press release was almost immediately picked up by Hawaii Free Press, a politically conservative on-line newspaper, which repeated the "working together" headline with a small but significant twist: "Keli'i Akina and Mililani Trask Team-up to Reform OHA."
The "team-up" claim was then repeated via social media, leaving the distinct impression the two had become one of those politically improbable odd couples.
Clashing Viewpoints
In some ways, Trask and Akina could not be more different.
Trask was an early leader in and advocate for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, a self-described "realist" who was among the founders of Ka Lahui Hawaii, a Hawaiian nationalist movement advocating native self-determination as a "nation within a nation" since the late 1980s. In recent years, she has been a frequent participant in international settings as an advocate for Hawaiian rights and human rights more generally.
Akina, on the other hand, has been strongly opposed to Hawaiian sovereignty in any form, calling the proposals "race based" and discriminatory. And the Grassroot Institute has gone further, opposing any programs granting special preferences to Hawaiians, and has been closely tied to those who have gone to court challenging these Hawaiian programs as unconstitutional.
These past and potential lawsuits are widely seen as threatening a variety of programs, including those providing federal funds for Hawaiian health, education or housing, and extending even to things like Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy giving preference to Hawaiian students.
The push to garner federal recognition for Hawaiians through congressional action was, at least in significant part, an attempt to prevent a future court ruling that could potentially jeopardize all programs specifically benefiting Native Hawaiians.
The Grassroot Institute utilized a network of conservative think tanks to lobby actively against the so-called "Akaka Bill," the congressional effort long championed by then-U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka. The bill, which was amended several times, would have granted legal recognition to Native Hawaiians' self-governance, and legal protection to programs benefiting Hawaiians.
And Akina was the lead plaintiff in the federal lawsuit that derailed the Na‛i Aupuni election of delegates to a Native Hawaiian political convention last year. As a result of court rulings in the case, the election was cancelled and all candidates were invited to take part in the convention.
But both candidates have also said they share a concern about transparency and accountability, and see these issues as key to reforming OHA's leadership.
Second Time Around
During the 2014 elections, Trask and Akina were among 16 candidates vying for three at-large OHA positions. Both were among the top vote-getters who made it past the primary, but they finished just out of the money when the general election votes were counted. Trask ended in fourth place, just 10,570 votes short of being elected. Akina finished another 10,372 votes behind Trask.
During the 2014 election, Trask was endorsed by trustee Robert Lindsey, who was later elected chairman of OHA's board of trustees. This year, she is returning the favor by trying to unseat Lindsey, who is finishing his second term as trustee representing Hawaii Island. Lindsey suffered a stroke earlier this year, and just returned to OHA at the end of June following a three-month medical leave.
Akina, meanwhile, is among six challengers hoping to unseat Haunani Apoliona, who has been an OHA trustee since 1996 and served as chair from 2000 to 2010.
Appealing To Non-Hawaiians
One surprise is that during their broadcast interview, Trask and Akina publicly appealed to non-Hawaiians to give them the additional votes necessary to oust Lindsey and Apoliona.
In the video interview, Trask said: "Unless we get the support of the non-Hawaiian voters, we are just not going to be able to clean up the situation at OHA ... We need the other voters to join us to help clean it up."
Prior to 2000, only those of Hawaiian ancestry could serve as OHA trustees or vote in OHA elections. A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Rice v. Cayetano opened OHA elections to all registered voters, and a second lawsuit led to a decision allowing non-Hawaiians to run for election as trustees.
However, in past elections as many as half of all voters left their OHA ballots blank. This could reflect a view of some voters that these decisions are best left to Hawaiians themselves. For others, it's likely the more practical matter that the low- or no-budget campaigns of most OHA candidates provide insufficient information for many non-Hawaiian voters to choose between unfamiliar candidates.
In any case, the influence of non-Hawaiians on the outcomes of OHA elections remains a sore point for many Hawaiians, who may find Trask's appeal to those same non-Hawaiian voters inconsistent with her longstanding support for Hawaiian self-determination.
About the Author
Ian Lind is an award-winning investigative reporter and columnist who has been blogging daily for 15 years. He has also worked as a newsletter publisher, public interest advocate and lobbyist for Common Cause in Hawaii, peace educator, and legislative staffer. Lind is a lifelong resident of the islands. Read his blog here.
http://www.ilind.net/
-------
** Keli'i Akina online comment
In order for to make progress and solve the problems Hawaiians and all people face, we must learn to work together regardless of our political opinions. When it comes to ending homelessness and ensuring jobs, education, and healthcare for all our citizens, we must look beyond the labels that divide us. Democrats and Republicans, Hawaiian sovereignty activists and American patriots, religious and non-religious persons -- all of us need to to find the common ground where we agree to do good for society. This does not mean that we eliminate our diversity and vigorous debate over the issues, but it does mean that when it comes to meeting the real needs of all people in this state, we must work together wherever we can. This is my philosophy of E Hana Kakou - Let's work together!
------
** Ken Conklin's online comments:
There's a real chance this year for Hawaii voters to overthrow the establishment at OHA and change its policies. The three OHA seats on the ballot are occupied by Haunani Apoliona, Colette Machado and Robert Lindsey, all of whom have been OHA trustee for many years and have spent somewhere between $33 Million to $50 Million pushing to create a phony Hawaiian tribe and get federal recognition for it.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different outcome. Voting for the incumbents would be insane.
I fully endorse Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., to replace Apoliona. Akina, like most ethnic Hawaiians, is proud to be American and proud to be Hawaiian. And he's a professor of business ethics too!
Although I detest the racism and secessionist views of Mililani Trask and Alapai Hanapi, I will hold my nose and vote for them because they are strong opponents of the tribal concept and they have the best chance to oust incumbents Lindsey and Machado.
Here are my 4 fundamental principles regarding Hawaiian sovereignty. Although I am not a spokesman for Dr. Akina, I believe he subscribes to these principles; and that's why I fully endorse him. 2 principles concern equality; 2 concern unity.
Two principles of racial equality
1. I believe we are all equal in the eyes of God(s). Hawaiian sovereignty activists (both tribalists and secessionists) push an ugly twisted version of the beautiful creation legend Kumulipo, asserting that anyone with a drop of Hawaiian blood is a child of the gods and brother to these islands in a way nobody else can be, and therefore entitled to political power. That's racism. It's Hawaiian religious fascism. For details see
http://tinyurl.com/j4o2cdj
2. I believe our government should treat us all equally under the law regardless of race. That's why I oppose hundreds of racist government programs which, by law, hand out benefits only to people who have a drop of the magic blood.
Two principles of political and racial unity
3. I believe Hawaii should remain unified with the United States, and therefore I oppose the movement to rip the 50th star off the flag and make Hawaii an independent nation. Some independence activists say they accept the fact that people with no Hawaiian blood should have fully equal rights in an independent nation, and they point to the fact that's how it was in the Hawaiian Kingdom. But nearly all of them actually support racial supremacy through such mechanisms as guaranteeing that ethnic Hawaiians would have a majority in the legislature, or racial restrictions on who can vote on sensitive topics like immigration and foreign policy.
4. I believe the lands and people of Hawaii should remain unified under the single, undivided sovereignty of the State of Hawaii. Therefore I oppose the tribal concept of creating a phony Hawaiian tribe, giving it federal recognition, and breaking apart the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines.
----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/incumbents-look-to-hold-off-reformers-in-oha-trustee-elections/
Honolulu Civil Beat, August 11, 2016
Incumbents Look To Hold Off Reformers In OHA Trustee Elections
Trustees Apoliona, Machado and Lindsey want another term. Could high-profile challengers upset the status quo?
By Chad Blair
Possibly the safest electoral seats in Hawaii have been on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees.
For 20 years, voters have consistently returned the same people to the board of OHA, which is charged with improving the lives of Native Hawaiians regarding land, culture, economic self sufficiency, health, education and governance.
Saturday's primary election to fill four seats on the board features two trustees who have served since 1996 -- Colette Machado and Haunani Apoliona -- and have rarely experienced a close election. Another trustee, Robert Lindsey Jr., has served since 2007.
The seats up for election include Apoliona's at-large position, Lindsey's Hawaii Island seat, Machado's Molokai seat and the Kauai seat currently held by Dan Ahuna (who is unopposed).
Machado and Apoliona are past OHA chairs and Lindsey is the current chair.
Machado and Apoliona are also chair and vice chair, respectively, of OHA's Committee on Resource Management, which has a huge kuleana (responsibility): to recommend policies for management of the OHA's investment portfolio and other financial matters, and to develop policies for land acquisitions, dispositions, development and management. Its core operating budget was $36 million in 2015.
Generally, the current OHA board has operated with a certain steadiness, although there are continuing legal battles with trustee Rowena Akana, who is on the outs with the current board leadership.
High-Profile Issues
In recent years OHA has been embroiled in several high-profile issues:
* The actions of Kamana'opono Crabbe, OHA's Ka Pouhana or CEO, after Crabbe sought an opinion from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry regarding the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
* The indirect financial assistance for the Nai Aupuni self-governance convention (OHA gave about $2 million to a nonprofit that gave money to Nai Aupuni).
* The fight over telescopes and cultural and environmental rights on Mauna Kea (the board rescinded its support for the Thirty Meter Telescope project).
This election, several challengers are campaigning to shake up the OHA board.
They include a former trustee and independence activist, Mililani Trask, and Kelii Akina, head of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Though they have very different backgrounds, there has been speculation that they might be in cahoots because both want to reform OHA.
"OHA needs to be more transparent and it needs to be more accountable," Trask said in her Civil Beat candidate questionnaire. "OHA staff and trustees are unaware of the rules and ethical standards they are required to follow as a state agency. Training for all OHA trustees and personnel should be undertaken yearly by the Office of Information Practices, state and county ethics commissions and a compliance officer retained to advise the BOT and staff on these regulations and to review office procedures and report on deficiencies and violations."
Trask is also worried about OHA's funding and helping Hawaiians struggling to find housing, jobs and an education. Too many Hawaiians, in her view, are incarcerated or dealing with drug addiction.
Akina took the lead role in suing to halt a scheduled Nai Aupuni election of convention delegates, forcing Nai Aupuni to cancel the election last fall. He believes the self-governance process is unconstitutional.
In his candidate questionnaire, Akina said there are two ways he would change OHA:
"First, I will work to stop OHA from continuing to waste tens of millions of dollars on creating a divisive, race-based sovereign nation. Instead, I will insist that those funds be spent on meeting real needs of Hawaiians, such as solving the problem of homelessness, and providing for education, housing, job opportunity and health care. Secondly, I will work for term limits so that the same trustees do not remain in office for decades, continuing to pursue failed policies."
Akina believes that OHA should work to unite people rather than divide them.
"That's the Hawaiian way, which recognizes that we are all boats in the same harbor," he said.
Past Runners-Up
Trask and Akina finished fourth and fifth, respectively, in the OHA at-large trustee race in 2014. The top three finishers, including Akana, were incumbents who each were returned to office that year.
Lindsey easily won his Hawaii Island trustee contest in 2012 while Kauai Island trustee Ahuna defeated 10 other candidates.
In addition to Akina, Apoliona also faces five other challengers for the at-large seat: Daniel Anthony, Douglass Crum, Leona Mapuana Kalima, Paul Ledwith Mossman and Kealii Makekau.
In her candidate questionnaire, Apoliona said OHA "is performing its mandate, but not enough is being done due to internal and external barriers."
Those barriers include limited OHA resources, costs of "threatened and actual" litigation, weak support from Congress for Native Hawaiian issues and a need for "improved communication methods and means for disseminating accurate information and facts to leaders and the public," she said
Apoliona is also concerned about the high incarceration rates of Hawaiians.
As well, she would like the elected leaders of a Native Hawaiian governing entity (such as one that could come from the Nai Aupuni convention process that was held in February) to "renegotiate or litigate" over ceded lands revenues for all Hawaiians. The lands are 1.8 million acres that belonged to the Hawaiian monarchy prior to the 1893 overthrow.
Calls For An Audit
Makekau, meanwhile, wants "a complete, independent fiscal forensic audit of all holdings and resources followed by a review of the Board of Trustees policy handbook and master plan by a committee of the whole."
According to his candidate questionnaire, Makekau (who lost to Apoliona in 2012, a race Akina also lost) wants term limits for OHA trustees. He does not believe the agency is fulfilling its mandate. He argues that the focus on the formation of a government entity or tribe similar to Native Americans came "at a failed cost of $33 million plus."
Meanwhile, he said, OHA "let economic opportunities like a medical marijuana dispensary and the development of the Kakaako Makai properties remain sidelined without a master plan either due to incompetence or instructions that the new tribal entity will have the first shot at that and more."
Machado, who was unchallenged for her Molokai trustee seat four years ago, faces challengers Jerry (Manuwa) Flowers and Alapai Hanapi this year.
OHA elections are open to all registered voters in Hawaii. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the top two finishers will face off in the November general election.
"If you care about our host culture and the future of Hawaii, you should take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and vote in the OHA races this election year," Crabbe said.
-----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/challenger-posts-early-lead-in-hawaii-island-oha-race/
Honolulu Civil Beat, August 13, 2016
Two OHA Seats Will Head To A Nov. 8 Runoff
Colette Machado has won her Molokai seat but the at-large seat and Hawaii Island seat will be on the general election ballot.
By Chad Blair
Challenger Mililani Trask posted a slight lead over incumbent Robert Lindsey Jr. in the Hawaii Island race for Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees.
Lindsey, the OHA chair, had 24.9 percent of the vote, compared with 26.2 percent for Trask. Bo (Craig) Kahui came in third with 8.3 percent. [** Ken Conklin's note: Those were the only three candidates. All the remaining "votes" were blanks.]
Lindsey and Trask will face off in the Nov. 8 general election.
OHA positions are usually among the safest electoral seats in Hawaii, with challengers rarely coming close to unseating incumbents.
Two other longtime members of OHA running for re-election held significant leads over their challengers.
Former chair Haunani Apoliona had 24.2 percent of the vote and was trailed by Kelii Akina who had 12.7 percent in the race for the at-large seat. Five others — Daniel Anthony, Douglas Crum, Leona Mapuana Kalima, Kealii Makekau and Paul Ledwith Mossman — each collected about 5 percent of the vote or less. Apoliona and Akina will face each other in the Nov. 8 general election.
A third sitting OHA trustee, Molokai Trustee Colette Machado, had 24.1 percent and was ahead of Jerry Flowers (8 percent) and Alapai Hanapi (13.9 percent). But, when blank ballots and over votes are eliminated, Machado drew more than 50 percent plus 1 of the votes cast and will retain her seat without going to a run off.
Kauai Trustee Dan Ahuna was unopposed and so is automatically re-elected.
Trask, a former OHA trustee, and Akina, head of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, have each called for major reform of the agency.
To win an OHA outright in the primary election, a candidate must exceed 50 percent of the votes cast. Otherwise, the top two candidates will face each other in the Nov. 8 general election.
OHA is a quasi-governmental agency responsible for helping Native Hawaiians.
It was established at the 1978 constitutional convention in recognition of the importance of the host culture and the particular needs of kanaka maoli.
----------------------
Official statewide results of the Hawaii primary election of August 13, 2016
http://results.elections.hawaii.gov/2016/primary/histatewide.pdf
------------------
** Akina for OHA press release, August 14, 2016
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATELINE: August 14,2016, Honolulu, Hawai'i
CONTACT: Kainoa Castillo, Kainoa@keliiAKINA.com, (808) 223-1232
Keli'i Akina Wins Seat in OHA Trustee-at-Large Run-off
Challenges 20-Year Incumbent Haunani Apoliona
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- August 14, 2016 - In a field of seven Primary Election candidates for Trustee-at-Large in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., secured one of two seats in the November General Election run-off. Dr. Akina received 32,113 votes (12.7%) as the leading challenger to twenty-year incumbent Haunani Apoliona, who received 61,216 votes (24.2%). The remaining five candidates who did not make the cut-off received a total of 55,666 votes (22.1%), and 136,489 voters (41%) left their OHA Trustee-at-Large option blank.
Akina said, "I am tremendously grateful to all of our supporters for the opportunity to become one of two general election contenders for the important seat of OHA Trustee-at-large. The majority of voters chose not to vote for the incumbent, sending a loud message that they want new leadership at OHA. Now, with only one challenger to an incumbent who represents two decades of OHA's failed policies, the public has a clear choice for new leadership going into the general election."
Akina continued, "Under its current leadership OHA has wasted tens of millions of dollars in the failed pursuit of a federally recognized race-based nation, something the majority of Hawaiians do not want. Instead, OHA should be using its funds to meet the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and health-care. It's also time for OHA to stop dividing Hawaii's people and start uniting them in the Aloha Spirit."
Dr. Akina is available for interviews and has posted his positions on the issues at
www.keliiAKINA.com
###
Keli'i Akina Campaign Committee
PO Box 62312
Honolulu, HI 96839
------------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/18091/Akina-Protect-Hawaiian-Entitlements-from-OHA-Federal-Recognition-Scheme.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Tuesday August 16, 2016
Akina: Protect Hawaiian Entitlements from OHA Federal Recognition Scheme
By Dr Kelii Akina PhD
My Stand on Hawaiian Issues - Setting the Record Straight
by Keli'i Akina. OHA At-Large Candidate, campaign webpage August 15, 2016
https://www.facebook.com/AkinaForOHA/posts/961066877352418:0
Because there has been some inaccurate information circulated about me, I am writing to set the record straight. I want to tell you exactly where I stand on several issues important to the Hawaiian people.
I promote the Hawaiian value of racial inclusiveness and the practice of Aloha toward all people as expressed in the 1840 Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution: "God hath made of one blood (koko) all nations of men to dwell on the earth," in unity and blessedness. Therefore, I seek harmony between being Hawaiian and being American. I am proud to be Hawaiian and proud to be American. Yet, at the same time, I uphold the legal status of Hawaiian assets for Hawaiian beneficiaries.
For many years I have fought to protect native Hawaiian entitlements and ensure that they are used to meet the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, education, jobs, and healthcare. In court and in the media, I have defended Hawaiian entitlements against the schemes of OHA and the federal government (such as race-based nationhood) that would jeopardize their legally protected status.
If elected Trustee-at-Large, I would consider it a very sacred responsibility to serve in OHA to reform it so that OHA's funds are spent on meeting the real needs of our Hawaiian people rather than being wasted on failed political agendas.
I also believe that OHA, as a state government agency, must stay out of the business of Hawaiian nationhood as that is not the province of, nor should it be determined by, the United States or Hawaii State governments. At the same time, OHA must not interfere with the rights of any people to pursue self-determination or to lawfully protest the US or state governments. These are, in fact, our First Amendment rights.
You should also know that I am completely committed to the protection of the primary Hawaiian entitlements as secured by law. These include the Hawaiian Homelands and the Ceded Lands trusts. I affirm these rights of native Hawaiian beneficiaries and do not promote taking assets away from Hawaiians to give to non-Hawaiians. I also affirm the rights of the Ali'i trusts, such as the Kamehameha Schools, to use their private property rights (as the estates of private individuals) according to the wills of their benefactors. I am, after all, a proud alumnus of Kamehameha Schools as are my four children.
While my political campaigns must be completely separate from and cannot be funded by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a 501 c(3) non-profit organization, I want you to know that Grassroot Institute affirms the advancement of native Hawaiians, and its most significant expression of this was to elect me, a native Hawaiian, to become its President/CEO and chief policy director. Grassroot Institute acknowledges the legally protected status of Hawaiian entitlements under the Statehood Act, the private property rights of Alii Trusts, and the First Amendment rights of Hawaiian sovereignty or independence advocates to organize and protest the government. (In fact, at Grassroot, we protest the government all the time!)
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me.
E Hana Kakou/ Let's work together!
Keli'i Akina, Ph.D.
Candidate for OHA Trustee-at-Large
------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/18098/OHA-Funds-Voter-Sentiment-Survey-to-Help-Incumbents.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Wednesday, August 17, 2016
OHA Funds Voter Sentiment Survey to Help Incumbents
by Andrew Walden
A voter survey paid for by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs reveals that Native Hawaiians see nation-building as a bottom of the barrel issue -- but OHA isn't telling anyone except incumbent Trustees.
Hired by OHA, the Bishop Street PR firm Stryker Weiner & Yokota early this year surveyed 743 Hawaiians and 496 non-Hawaiians. The results were provided to Trustees at a Board of Trustees meeting January 28, 2016 -- just in time for campaign season -- in a 21-page power point presentation under the nondescript agenda heading of "Presentation by Stryker Weiner & Yokota."
No other department of the State of Hawaii engages in this type of open electioneering.
The survey attracted our notice only when incumbent Trustee Robert Lindsey, in the Ka Wai Ola August, 2016 election insert (pg3), commented on the survey results, writing:
"Our lahui, when surveyed in 1978 (OHA's founding), and recently (four months ago), have made it clear; 'bread and butter' issues (education, health, housing, and jobs) are what's important to them. It wants OHA to focus on these issues. In 2016 the majority of respondents see nation-building as a bottom of the barrel issue. OHA must refocus, reboot, and rethink its basic priorities if it is to be in alignment with the wishes of our people."
Even after Lindsey's revelation, OHA did not respond to our request for a complete copy of the survey results. One OHA source -- not realizing that Lindsey let the cat out of the bag -- expressed surprise that we were aware of the survey's existence. Finally, from another source, we were able to get a copy of a Power Point presentation outlining the survey results.
Readers may see it in full >>> HERE.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/For%20presentation%20to%20Trustees%20012116%20FSR.pptx
Highlights include:
A survey of voter attitudes toward OHA -- broken down by county -- and the reasons for those attitudes (pg 7-10):
Pg 8: Of the Native Hawaiian organizations listed, OHA has the lowest favorability rating.
Pg 9: People on the Big Island are wiser to OHA than the rest.
Pg 10: Perceptions of poor management and not representing the Hawaiian people effectively - top two reasons for unfavorable rating. -- Of Hawaiians only 8% base their unfavorable opinion of OHA on "OHA influenced/run by State or American government."
Sampling of voters' political priorities and their awareness of OHA initiatives (pg 11-14):
Pg 11: Among Hawaiians student scholarships and community grants are two of the three most widely recognized OHA initiatives.
Pg 13: "Our lahui, when surveyed in 1978 (OHA's founding), and recently (four months ago), have made it clear; 'bread and butter' issues (education, health, housing, and jobs) are what's important to them. It wants OHA to focus on these issues. In 2016 the majority of respondents see nation-building as a bottom of the barrel issue." OHA Chair Robert Lindsey, Ka Wai Ola, Aug, 2016. This proves that the survey was made available to at least one incumbent Trustee facing an electoral challenge.
Detailed voter segmentation information (pg 15-18):
Pg 15: 48% of Hawaiians say they have never voted in an OHA election.
Pg 16: Hawaiians on Big Island are most likely to vote in every OHA election. Hawaiians on Oahu are the most likely to have never voted in an OHA election.
Pg 17: Hawaiians with neutral opinion toward OHA re least likely to vote in OHA elections.
Pg 18: Non-Hawaiians with a very unfavorable opinion of OHA most likely to vote in every OHA election.
Do Trustees have access to more detailed results, perhaps breaking down voter sentiment by gender, age, income, and ethnicity?
Why is a department of the State of Hawaii funding voter sentiment research for the benefit of incumbents' campaigns?
--------------
** Ken Conklins note:
SCIENTIFIC SURVEYS MEASURING PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF "HAWAIIAN NATIONHOOD" COMPARED WITH OTHER ISSUES
In 2003 two different scientific surveys were done to discover the relative importance of various priorities as ranked by the people of Hawaii in general, and by ethnic Hawaiians in particular. One survey was paid for by the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, and conducted by the professional data-gathering and analysis company Ward Research. The other survey was paid for by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- it included data gathered both at public long-range planning meetings hosted by OHA in numerous neighborhoods, and also a survey conducted by the professional data-gathering and analysis company SMS Research which is frequently hired by OHA to do in-house surveys.
Both surveys produced remarkably similar results. It is also interesting that the results were nearly the same for ethnic Hawaiians as for the general public. Top priorities are education, healthcare, housing, the environment, and traffic. The lowest priorities are Native Hawaiian rights, race-based handouts -- and, lowest of all -- ethnic Hawaiian "nationhood" (i.e., the Akaka bill).
For complete details, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/prioritieshawnonhaw.html
-----------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/18106/Statehood-Backed-by-Silent-Majority-of-Hawaiians.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Friday, August 19, 2016
Statehood Day Message from Keli'i Akina
Statehood Backed by Silent Majority of Hawaiians
By Dr Kelii Akina PhD
Candidate for OHA Trustee-at-Large
As an American, I am proud that Hawaii is a state of the union. The 50th state represents our nation's breadth and diversity. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, we span the globe, not for domination but for beneficence. What we practice and live within our borders -- being "one nation under God, indivisible ..." -- extends across the world "... with liberty and justice for all."
As a Hawaiian, I am proud to be part of the great people of the United States. No other nation could better fulfill the aspirations of Hawaiians as expressed in the 1840 Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom: "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth, in unity and blessedness. God has also bestowed certain rights alike on all men..." These are the values embedded within America's most cherished document, the Declaration of Independence.
In 1959, Governor William Quinn presided over the greatest celebration Hawaii's people had ever seen, following a resounding 93% plus affirmation of statehood by all people of Hawaii. Moloka'i, with a preponderantly native Hawaiian population, led the way in the vote!
Today, we would do well to celebrate again the great union of the United States and Hawaii. Current detractors who seek to undo this union are truly a minority, although a vocal one. I have traveled throughout these islands, visited the Hawaiian Homestead lands, spoken with those who are too shy to go to public hearings, talked with aged kupuna and young workers. The silent, yet vast majority of ethnic Hawaiians, like myself, are proud to be Hawaiian and proud to be American. That's worth celebrating, and it's worth celebrating in the company of all Americans, from multiple ethnic backgrounds, who can all rightly call themselves Hawaiians.
----------------------
http://khon2.com/2016/08/21/supporters-of-sovereignty-air-grievances-at-iolani-palace/
KHON TV, Sunday August 21, 2016
Supporters of sovereignty air grievances at Iolani Palace
By Web Staff
More than a hundred people gathered at Iolani Palace Sunday as part of an event calling statehood the "second overthrow, return to the crime scene."
It was organized by the group Nation of Hawaii, led by longtime activist Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele.
He says that statehood suppressed the United Nations' decolonization process toward sovereignty that he says was abused by Japanese-Americans in partnership with the plantation owners of the Big Five corporations, thereby bypassing Native Hawaiians.
"We know today, we have facts to prove that the UN process was kidnapped or hijacked. Therefore, our national sovereignty in 1959 basically was put on hold, suppressed when Hawaii became a state. So today is a discussion of all that. But we want to see. We want to get the anger out. We know that. ... Let's move forward now to make Hawaii a better place to live."
---------------------
https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/ninth-circuit-dismisses-challenge-to-native-hawaiian-governmental-elections-as-moot/
Turtle Talk [online news blog catering to Indian tribes], Monday August 29, 2016
Ninth Circuit Dismisses Challenge to Native Hawaiian Governmental Elections as Moot
by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here is the opinion in Akina v. State of Hawai'i.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/15-17134.pdf
An excerpt:
These appeals concern recent efforts by a group of Native Hawaiians to establish their own government. The plaintiffs are Hawaii residents who challenge that process. They appeal the district court's order denying their request for a preliminary injunction to stop activities related to the drafting and ratification of self-governance documents. Separately, another group of Hawaii residents appeals the district court's denial of their motion to intervene in the plaintiffs' lawsuit. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal of the preliminary injunction order as moot, and we affirm the district court's denial of the motion to intervene.
Briefs here.
https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/ninth-circuit-materials-in-kelii-akina-v-state-of-hawaii/
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/court-denies-appeal-in-case-about-native-hawaiian-election/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Monday August 29, 2016, breaking news at 11:45 AM
Court denies appeal in case about Native Hawaiian election
Associated Press
A federal court is dismissing an appeal in a case challenging efforts by Native Hawaiians to establish their own government.
Plaintiffs are trying to stop Native Hawaiian groups from drafting and approving documents about self-governance. They're challenging a related election because it included only Native Hawaiians, saying it's unconstitutional to hold a race-based election.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said today that the appeal was moot because the election had been canceled.
Last year, a group called Nai Aupuni tried to hold an election for 40 delegates who would draft a Native Hawaiian self-governance document. The poll was considered a major step toward self-governance. But another group sued Nai Aupuni and the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction in December to stop the election.
--------
** Online comment to the above article, posted by Ken Conklin along with the Grassroot news release below:
The substantive issues raised in the lawsuit have not been decided. This particular lawsuit has been dismissed because the race-based election was cancelled, making it no longer necessary for a court to stop the election. But if OHA et. al. decide to try again to hold a race-based election, then a similar lawsuit can be filed again to stop it.
----------------
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=70283e2af2&e=b42938d9ce
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, news release, August 29, 2016
Grassroot Institute Affirms Results of Lawsuit Despite 9th Circuit Ruling
Watchdog group says suit has been successful in educating the public about problems with nation-building process
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- (August 29, 2016) -- In the wake of the latest ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii affirmed the overall results of the Akina v. State of Hawaii litigation. According to the Institute, the suit has been very successful in educating the public about the problems in the state's nation-building process.
With the help of the group Judicial Watch, a group of Native Hawaiians and other concerned citizens brought suit against the state for launching an unconstitutional election. The plaintiffs then sought a preliminary injunction that would halt any race-based vote. Because the ratification of the Native Hawaiian Constitution has been indefinitely suspended -- and because Na'i Aupuni, one of the defendants, has been dissolved -- the Ninth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.
"Overall, our litigation is achieving its objectives. Through the course of this lawsuit, we have seen the state cancel one unconstitutional election and postpone another one indefinitely," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We have seen Na'i Aupuni -- the organization that was created for the purpose of holding the election -- shut down. And thanks to our efforts, more questions are being asked about how funds intended for the benefit of Native Hawaiians should be spent."
Dr. Akina continued: "At present, we are reviewing all of our options regarding the decision in order to determine what our next step will be. We cannot forget that during oral arguments, the defendants claimed that OHA has set aside money for a ratification vote. The state has not yet discarded its disastrous nation-building plans, but this suit has put them on notice. We will not allow an unconstitutional and divisive election to go forward, unchallenged, in Hawaii," Dr. Akina concluded.
The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii reaffirmed its commitment to defending the Constitution and expressing the concerns of Native Hawaiians opposed to the state's race-based nation-building process.
---------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32868725/court-denies-appeal-in-case-about-native-hawaiian-election
Hawaii News Now [3 TV stations in Honolulu]
Court denies appeal in case about Native Hawaiian election
By CATHY BUSSEWITZ
Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) - A federal court is dismissing an appeal in a case challenging efforts by Native Hawaiians to establish their own government.
Plaintiffs are trying to stop Native Hawaiian groups from drafting and approving documents about self-governance. They're challenging a related election because it included only Native Hawaiians, saying it's unconstitutional to hold a race-based election.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday that the appeal was moot because the election had been canceled.
Last year, a group called Nai Aupuni tried to hold an election for 40 delegates who would draft a Native Hawaiian self-governance document. The poll was considered a major step toward self-governance. But another group sued Nai Aupuni and the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction in December to stop the election.
-----------------------
http://www.dailyprogress.com/court-denies-appeal-in-case-about-native-hawaiian-election/article_ab4aacab-28f7-585f-9527-a9b3d9671ebd.html
The Daily Progress [Charlottesville, VA 22901], Tuesday August 30, 2016
[Typical AP news report published in numerous newspapers nationwide]
Court denies appeal in case about Native Hawaiian election
By CATHY BUSSEWITZ Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) -- A federal appeals court Monday dismissed an appeal about whether a vote seen as a step toward self-governance for Native Hawaiians should be open only to Native Hawaiians or to all of the state's registered voters, saying the issue does not merit consideration because the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction against such a vote.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said it was dismissing the appeal because the Nai Aupuni group of Native Hawaiians dissolved in April. The group did not want non-Native Hawaiians to elect 40 delegates to draft a self-governance document.
Kelii Akina, who was among those saying it wasn't right for non-Native Hawaiians to be excluded from the vote, said he and the other plaintiffs were reviewing the appeals court decision to determine whether it would take additional legal steps.
The appeals court cited the Supreme Court's December decision halting the vote and said it is possible that another Hawaii-based group may try to hold an election toward self-governance in the future.
But because no vote is scheduled, any opinion by the appeals court issued now would be "an impermissible advisory opinion that would, at most guide any future ratification efforts," said the decision by a panel of three judges.
The lawyer who used to represent Nai Aupuni did not immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment on the appeals court decision.
Native Hawaiians have long sought self-determination. But there are differing opinions about what that would look like, from federal recognition to restoring the overthrown Hawaiian kingdom to dual citizenship.
Former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka spent more than a decade trying to pass a bill that would give Native Hawaiians the same rights extended to many Native Americans and Alaska Natives, such as land and cultural rights.
When it became clear that wouldn't happen, the state passed a law in 2011 recognizing Hawaiians as the first people of Hawaii and laying the foundation for Native Hawaiians to establish their own government.
--------------------
http://www.dailyjournal.net/2016/08/29/hi-native-hawaiian-election/
The Daily Journal [Franklin Indiana], August 29, 2016
** Identical article also published at
http://www.dailyprogress.com/court-denies-appeal-in-case-about-native-hawaiian-election/article_ab4aacab-28f7-585f-9527-a9b3d9671ebd.html
The Daily Progress [Charlottesville, VA 22901], Tuesday August 30, 2016
and also made available at Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper and in numerous newspapers nationwide]
Identical article also published in Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Tuesday August 30 at
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/court-tosses-appeal-on-native-hawaiians-only-vote/
Note the self-serving statement at the end by AP describing how objective and non-biased AP wants to portray itself to be.
Court denies appeal in case about Native Hawaiian election
By CATHY BUSSEWITZ, Associated Press
HONOLULU -- A federal appeals court Monday dismissed an appeal about whether a vote seen as a step toward self-governance for Native Hawaiians should be open only to Native Hawaiians or to all of the state's registered voters, saying the issue does not merit consideration because the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction against such a vote.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said it was dismissing the appeal because the Nai Aupuni group of Native Hawaiians dissolved in April. The group did not want non-Native Hawaiians to elect 40 delegates to draft a self-governance document.
Kelii Akina, who was among those saying it wasn't right for non-Native Hawaiians to be excluded from the vote, said he and the other plaintiffs were reviewing the appeals court decision to determine whether it would take additional legal steps.
The appeals court cited the Supreme Court's December decision halting the vote and said it is possible that another Hawaii-based group may try to hold an election toward self-governance in the future.
But because no vote is scheduled, any opinion by the appeals court issued now would be "an impermissible advisory opinion that would, at most guide any future ratification efforts," said the decision by a panel of three judges.
The lawyer who used to represent Nai Aupuni did not immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment on the appeals court decision.
Native Hawaiians have long sought self-determination. But there are differing opinions about what that would look like, from federal recognition to restoring the overthrown Hawaiian kingdom to dual citizenship.
Former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka spent more than a decade trying to pass a bill that would give Native Hawaiians the same rights extended to many Native Americans and Alaska Natives, such as land and cultural rights.
When it became clear that wouldn't happen, the state passed a law in 2011 recognizing Hawaiians as the first people of Hawaii and laying the foundation for Native Hawaiians to establish their own government.
The AP is one of the largest and most trusted sources of independent newsgathering. AP is neither privately owned nor government-funded; instead, as a not-for-profit news cooperative owned by its American newspaper and broadcast members, it can maintain its single-minded focus on newsgathering and its commitment to the highest standards of objective, accurate journalism.
----------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/09/alert-robert-lindseys-secret.html
Free Hawaii blog, September 2, 2016
ALERT! - ROBERT LINDSEY'S SECRET RESIGNATION PLAN
Please forward this to all Hawaiians and our supporters.
We want to make you aware of a plan by Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee Robert Lindsey to resign his OHA seat - but only after he wins re-election on November 8th.
In an email released by PBS Hawai'i, PBS confirmed that trustee Lindsey had cancelled his previously scheduled upcoming appearance on the PBS television show "Insights" due to "health concerns."
This of course brings up the legitimate question of why he is running for re-election if his "health concerns" are that serious.
The answer lies in the replacement process upon an OHA trustee resignation.
In the event an OHA trustee seat becomes vacant due to resignation, it is the other trustees who select his or her replacement to fill that seat for the remainder of that term.
Robert Lindsey could even go so far as to "suggest" to the other trustees who his replacement could be.
In other words, he could dictate who the next Hawai'i island trustee should be, which would cancel out the votes of every single OHA voter.
However should the trustees be unable to reach a majority vote on their choice, then the appointment would fall to Hawai'i governor David Ige to make.
Sources have revealed that trustee Lindsey plans to resign his seat upon his re-election so the other OHA trustees, rather than the voters, can select his replacement.
This strategy reeks of more of OHA's typical "end-run" politics, exactly as they did with their failed attempts of the Akaka bill, Kau Inoa, Kana'iolowalu and Na'i Aupuni federal recognition schemes, that wasted $33 million dollars of Hawaiian beneficiary funds in the process.
Even more importantly, it's a blatant attempt to ignore your vote and manipulate the November 8th election.
It's time to put a stop to this kind of treachery and deceitfulness and bring truth and transparency to OHA's leadership by electing Mililani Trask instead of Robert Lindsey on November 8th.
Please vote Mililani Trask for Hawai'i Island OHA trustee and say "NO!" to corruption and dishonesty at OHA.
Mahalo.
----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/09/can-spending-six-figures-on-pr-solve-ohas-image-problem/
Honolulu Civil Beat, September 7, 2016
Can Spending Six Figures On PR Solve OHA's Image Problem?
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs hired public relations consultants after a survey found many people believe it to be corrupt and badly managed.
By Chad Blair
A quasi-governmental agency that has sometimes received negative press has hired a major public relations firm to improve how people think of it.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has retained the services of Honolulu-based Stryker Weiner & Yokota. The $293,969 contract is for a two-year period.
Kamana'opono Crabbe, OHA's CEO, said the agency recognized in 2015 the organization needed a strategic communications plan and sought help from Stryker Weiner.
The hiring of the firm comes in the wake of a survey commissioned by OHA about people's perceptions of the agency. The survey was conducted by the polling firm SMS Hawaii and the results presented to the agency in January.
The goal was to sample awareness of Hawaiian organizations, the work OHA does and the agency's priorities. The results would then be used to inform an updated communications plan, something that is currently under development.
The survey results showed that the agency may have its work cut out for it.
About one-third of those surveyed said the agency was "ineffective, poorly managed, or corrupt." Slightly fewer agreed that OHA does not "help or represent the Hawaiian people effectively."
OHA also had the lowest favorability rating as compared with five other prominent Hawaiian organizations, including the Queen Liliuokalani Children's Center, Kamehameha Schools and even the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, another state agency that has seen its share of bad headlines (in DHHL's case, due to the slow placement of qualified applicants on homestead lands).
The survey also asked Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians about the agency's six key strategic priorities. Of those, improving education for Hawaiians and protecting the aina (land) ranked top among respondents while support of a self-governance movement ranked last.
The three areas that fell in the middle were focusing on the health of Hawaiians, improving economic self-sufficiency and preserving Hawaii culture.
A 'Very Useful' Survey
Crabbe described the survey as "very useful." He said it provided OHA with "some good perspectives from the community."
For his part, OHA Chair Robert K. Lindsey Jr. said the survey was "a direct response to concerns beneficiaries have raised about our image."
He said the results offered important insight as the agency works to ensure that it inspires "the support and confidence of key audiences, whose perspectives are critical to our ability to enhance our public image."
OHA, created in 1978 by a state constitutional convention, is legally mandated to improve the well-being of Native Hawaiians. Its headquarters are in Honolulu and the agency has a core operating budget of around $36 million.
Stryker Weiner & Yokota's clients include a lengthy list of high-profile companies.
They include the James Campbell Company, Territorial Savings Bank, Ala Moana Center, Monsanto Hawaii, Castle & Cooke Hawaii, rail construction firm Kiewit, the Oahu Visitors Bureau, General Growth Properties, the Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort, the Hawaii State Teachers Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii and the World Conservation Congress, which is meeting in Honolulu this week.
It is not the first time the firm has done work for a government agency. Past clients include the Hawaii Tourism Authority.
The survey was conducted by telephone (landline and cell) and was based on a random sampling of both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. A total of 743 Hawaiians and 496 non-Hawaiians statewide were surveyed.
Little Support For Nation-Building
Most of those surveyed recognized OHA as being an advocate for Hawaiian issues, a provider of scholarships for Hawaiian students and grants to community-based groups, and a facilitator in self-governance.
And yet, 48 percent of Hawaiians and 60 percent of non-Hawaiians said they have never voted in an OHA election -- even though non-Hawaiians are permitted to vote in the elections and to run for trustee positions.
Kelii Akina, head of the conservative Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and a candidate for a seat on the OHA board, was not happy with the survey.
He said he believes Lindsey, who is up for re-election, has used the data to advocate for the kinds of "bread and butter" issues -- education, health, housing and jobs -- that Lindsey includes as part of his platform listed in an OHA primary election guide.
"As a candidate for trustee-at-large, I am outraged that an incumbent running for re-election has had access to crucial voter survey data paid for by public funds," he said. "It is clear from the OHA voter guide that that information was used to craft political positions to win votes."
The views of Akina, who is challenging Trustee Haunani Apoliona in the Nov. 8 general election, are also included in the election guide.
Akina opposes OHA's nation-building activities, such as the recent Nai Aupuni self-governance process. He argues that nation-building has cost tens of millions of dollars.
The views of another OHA critic, former Trustee Mililani Trask, are also in the OHA guide. She faces Lindsey.
The PR firm is also handling communications for OHA as it searches for a new communications manager. Garett Kamemoto left the agency last week to go to work for the Hawaii Community Development Authority.
'Some Image Issues'
Stryker Weiner executives declined to comment on the work its doing for OHA.
But, according to OHA board minutes from Jan. 28, Neal Yokota, the firm's president and CEO, concluded that "OHA is facing some image issues."
"Because of the issues OHA is dealing with, it does underscore the need for image, awareness, consistency, and having a unified voice," he said.
Yokota added that he did not find the survey results surprising
At the meeting, Trustee Rowena Akana, who has been on OHA's board since 1990, said the agency had conducted many such surveys over the years.
She called the latest survey "a waste of money and that no one will tell OHA's story but OHA."
----------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=6a03b20b41&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, regular Friday commentary, Friday September 9, 2016
by Dr. Keli'i Akina, President
At the moment, we are awaiting a decision in a vital court case where a non-native U.S. citizen is challenging a public vote restricted to an island's native inhabitants. I'm not talking about Akina v. Hawaii, but rather Davis v. Guam, which is currently being heard in federal district court. The decision could have a huge impact on the Native Hawaiian nation-building effort.
Arnold "Dave" Davis brought the suit against Guam after he was prohibited from registering to vote in a plebiscite regarding Guam's political status (i.e. voters would be indicating whether they would like to be a U.S. state, seek independence, or if they prefer free association). Current law restricts participation in the vote to "native inhabitants" of Guam, which only includes people who became citizens of the U.S. under the 1950 Organic Act of Guam and their descendants.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's dismissal of the case, and the district court hearing commenced on September 1st. From the start, presiding Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood made it clear that this was going to be a case about the Constitution and voting rights. She instructed the lawyers to prepare arguments on the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments as well as the Voting Rights Act. She also told them to be sure to include their thoughts on how Rice v. Cayetano applies to the case.
Davis' argument will be familiar to anyone who has followed similar issues in Hawaii. He says that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination in voting and that the Supreme Court has stated that the use of "ancestry" as a stand-in for race is also unconstitutional.
The defendant's arguments are also likely to give you a case of deja vu. They claim that this use of bloodline or ancestry is not the same as race/ethnicity. They further argue that the plebiscite is merely symbolic and has no force of law. At the same time, they have tried to suggest that Davis is trying to block the "right of self-determination" by demanding a non-exclusive vote.
We've seen similar claims defending OHA's efforts to hold Native Hawaiian-only votes. But if the government wants an opinion poll, there are simpler and cheaper ways of finding out which way the wind is blowing. The fig leaf of "it's not binding" can't be used to legitimize an election where voting rights are determined by bloodline.
Whatever Judge Tydingco-Gatewood decides, there is a good chance that we will see this issue end up before a higher court. While there are a few differences between the Davis case and the situation in Hawaii, it's sure to influence future rulings on the creation of a Native Hawaiian tribe. OHA has already indicated that the Akina lawsuit has made it difficult to proceed with their nation-building project. The Davis case might throw another wrench into their plans.
E hana kakou (Let's work together!)
----------------
** Note by Ken Conklin: The following two articles published in a Guam newspaper a few days ago describe the seriousness of the federal lawsuit in Guam and the five questions on which the judge ordered attorneys to provide legal briefs.
http://www.postguam.com/news/local/hearing-in-davis-plebiscite-lawsuit-begins-today/article_6253b942-6f5b-11e6-bc72-ff06b7cfd63a.html
The Guam Daily Post, Thursday September 1 [Guam is on the other side of the dateline]
Hearing in Davis plebiscite lawsuit begins today
by Robert Q. Tupaz
** Photo caption
LAWSUIT: Arnold "Dave" Davis, left, is pictured in the courtroom of the District Court of Guam in Hagĺtńa on Aug. 27, 2014. A lawsuit filed by Arnold "Dave" Davis regarding the political status plebiscite in Guam's quest for self-determination is scheduled to begin today. Media pool file photo
A lawsuit filed by Arnold "Dave" Davis relative to the political status plebiscite regarding Guam's quest for self-determination is scheduled to begin today at 9 a.m. The hearing will be the first instance in which both sides will argue the merits of their case.
Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood issued an order yesterday directing that the parties in the case come prepared with their arguments. Her order comes after a delay of several years due to an appeal of an initial dismissal in which she ruled that the case was not ripe for judicial review. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Tydingco-Gatewood's ruling.
The Davis case begins today. In yesterday's order, Tydingco-Gatewood listed five points she wanted addressed in her courtroom today.
The judge directed attorneys in the case to argue the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and whether the statute in question is facially neutral; and if so, whether discriminatory impact and discriminatory purpose exist. She also wanted the legal teams to argue whether the classification is narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interest, and which judicial review applies - rational basis or strict scrutiny.
The judge also said she wants lawyers to answer a question on the 15th Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on race or color with regard to voting by U.S. citizens. Tydingco-Gatewood wanted arguments to focus on the applicability of the judgment in the case Rice v. Cayetano, a case in Hawaii over the restriction of persons of Native Hawaiian descent with regard to voting for persons on a board that oversaw benefits for the class of citizens.
The judge asked the question on the Voting Rights Act and directed lawyers to argue about how the Voting Rights Act applies to Guam and, if so, whether there was intentional discrimination or discriminatory results or effects.
For the fourth and fifth questions, Tydingco-Gatewood wanted to know if the plebiscite definition violated provisions in the Organic Act of Guam, and whether the classification of "Native Inhabitants of Guam" is authorized by Congress.
'Discrimination in voting'
For at least one lawyer on the Davis team, the issue was answered years ago. J. Christian Adams with the mainland based Election Law Center told the Post that the law is clear in voting rights issues.
"The law protects everyone from discrimination in voting. Today it might protect Mr. Davis from discrimination, tomorrow it might protect a Chamorro minority – as long as everyone respects the law," Adams said. "Voting rights cannot be tied to who your grandfather was under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, a provision that fully applies in Guam. The Supreme Court said the way to move forward is for everyone to have a say."
He added, "I am confident the ban on voting rights based on your parents and grandparents was settled over a century ago."
As part of his filings, Davis' team earlier this year queried the attorney general's office on what local officials identified as "native inhabitant" and to describe who is eligible to register to vote in the plebiscite, but is not able to register on the Chamorro Registry. They also asked in briefs that officials identify each Chamorro who is not eligible to register in the plebiscite vote as well as identify any international obligations of the United States relevant to Guam's compliance with the 14th and 15th Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Organic Act of Guam or the Voting Rights Act.
2015 response
In November 2015, Davis filed a response to the attorney general's initial motion for summary judgment in his lawsuit claiming the right to vote in a Guam plebiscite.
Davis responded that Guam's summary judgment motion should be denied because the 15th Amendment and the Organic Act prohibit all voting qualifications based on ancestry or race. The prohibition applies because even if the definition of "native inhabitants of Guam" were not race-based, it is – by its plain terms – ancestry-based, Davis claims.
Moreover, Davis contends that the racial origins of the phrase are so obvious, and the effort of the Guam Legislature to circumvent the Organic Act so transparent, that summary judgment should be denied to Guam, and granted to Davis, according to the response.
'Cannot change this basic fact'
The response stated that classifying citizens into different groups with different political rights and permitting only one of those groups to register for and participate in a government-run election denies other groups the right to vote.
"The Guam Legislature perhaps might have thought that Congress wanted it to vest one race an ancestral group with special political powers not enjoyed by others citizens, but no such congressional action occurred," Davis' attorneys wrote. "When Congress did speak, it squarely prohibited the classifications contained in the plebiscite. Guam cannot change this basic fact by invoking opaque and fanciful notions of what Congress might instead have done."
The attorney general also sought summary judgment on the grounds that the plebiscite does not violate Davis' constitutional rights, even though it limits the ability to register and vote to "native inhabitants of Guam," according to the response filed by Davis.
His attorneys also claim the government's motion does not address all of Davis' claims, including a claim that the plebiscite's restrictions on voting violate the Organic Act regardless of whether or not the restrictions are characterized as "racial." Davis said in his motion that the court should grant summary judgment invalidating the plebiscite.
"While Guam asserts that Congress has authorized the plebiscite, it has, in fact, unambiguously prohibited it. Guam's remaining arguments fail because the Ninth Circuit has rejected its argument that the plebiscite has inadequate import because it is supposedly nonbinding, and its discussion of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act simply misunderstands Davis' claim under that provision," the attorneys wrote in the response.
--------
http://www.postguam.com/news/local/face-off-in-davis-plebiscite-case/article_b146c278-700b-11e6-99d1-27ba7f7b16dc.html
The Guam Post, September 3, 2016
Face-off in Davis plebiscite case
by John O'Connor | Post News Staff
Attorneys on both sides of the years-long case regarding the ability of individuals to take part in Guam's proposed political status plebiscite squared off for the first time in District Court yesterday. Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood presided over the hearing and ultimately took the matter under advisement, leaving the case unresolved for now.
For about five hours, Special Assistant Attorney General Julian Aguon and attorney J. Christian Adams debated the legality of limiting the plebiscite to the native inhabitants of Guam and their descendants. Adams represented Arnold "Dave" Davis, who has been involved in the strenuous legal battle since 2011 over his inability to register and take part in the plebiscite.
A native inhabitant of Guam is defined "as a person who became a U.S. citizen by virtue of the 1950 Organic Act and a descendant of such person."
Discrimination?
Legal representatives argued aspects of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 15th Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on race or color with regard to voting by U.S. citizens. Lawyers also argued how the Voting Rights Act applied to Guam and whether the plebiscite definition violated provisions in the Organic Act of Guam.
Adams said the issue boiled down to race and whether utilizing ancestry to determine who could take part in the plebiscite was equivalent to basing who could take part in the vote on race.
Adams stated that ancestry was the same as race because of the requirement for blood relations, noting that the plebiscite did not extend to adopted children of native inhabitants.
Aguon disagreed, stating that ancestry may be a proxy for race but that did not mean it was always a proxy for race. He stated that the definition of native inhabitants in local law was race neutral because it did not specify Chamorros but encompassed anyone living in Guam who became a U.S. citizen through the Organic Act, which included non-Chamorros. To which Adams stated that the vast majority of individuals living on island at the time were Chamorro.
Adams said that if it is determined through this case that ancestry was being used as a proxy for race, as has happened in other voting rights cases, then it is possible that the plebiscite was violating several civil rights statutes and the Organic Act.
Aguon stated that the 15th Amendment referred to elections or other instances with determinate effects. The plebiscite, on the other hand, would have no legal effects and that it was "purely symbolic."
'A remedy to restore a right'
When Tydingco-Gatewood asked Aguon if he believed individuals who were non-native inhabitants had substantially less interest or were less affected by the self-determination vote, Aguon said Davis or other non-natives may have interest in a non-legal setting but decolonization was not a right, "it's a remedy to restore a right," and is intended to cure a harm to a specific group of people.
Moreover, Aguon argued that not all aspects of the Voting Rights Act, which entitles all citizens to a right to vote, applied to the territories because the word is not explicitly used in all aspects of the statute.
Adams stated that those living in Guam should pay close attention to the hearing because the government is essentially arguing that the totality of one of the most fundamental civil rights acts did not apply to Guam.
----------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/33164612/federal-government-set-to-announce-native-hawaiians-can-form-sovereign-government
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), September 22, 2016
Breaking news at 9 PM, updated at 11:15 PM
Federal government set to announce Native Hawaiians can form sovereign government
By Ben Gutierrez, Reporter
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
The federal government is set to announce that Native Hawaiians are eligible for form a sovereign government that would have the same rights as Native American tribes.
The U.S. Department of the Interior is scheduled to make the formal announcement in Washington at 4 a.m. Friday, Hawaii time.
The proposed rule would make Native Hawaiians eligible for federal recognition. The department alerted stakeholders about the new rule, but also asked them not to comment until after the announcement.
Opponents, however, wasted no time in blasting the rule.
"It's not self-determination, and it undermines our right to self-determination, and it undermines the Hawaiian community voices that have loudly said 'no,'" said Healani Sonoda-Pale, one of the founding members of the group Protest Na'i Aupuni.
Based on previous draft rules, Native Hawaiians would be able to form a sovereign government with rights similar to those given to Native American tributes. At least 50,000 Native Hawaiians would have to support such a government before it could negotiate with the federal and state governments for land and other benefits.
"That's a joke, because basically the only form of government is a federally recognized tribe that is managed by the Department of the Interior," said Sonoda-Pale, adding that she doesn't trust the department.
During a series of public hearings more than two years ago, federal government officials faced a buzzsaw of opposition as they stressed the need to work together.
But Sonoda-Pale said that's something for Native Hawaiians alone to decide.
"We still kinda need to come together and decide on our own where we want to go instead of having the state and the federal government coming in and telling us where we should go," she said.
-----------------------
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/press_release_gov_2_gov_pathway_part_50.pdf
U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Secretary, News release September 23, 2016
Contact: Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov
Interior Department Finalizes Pathway to Reestablish a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of the Interior announced today a final rule to create a pathway for reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. The final rule sets out an administrative procedure and criteria that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior would use if the Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government that then seeks a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States.
"This final rule provides the Native Hawaiian community with the opportunity to exercise self-determination by reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States," said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. "Throughout this two-year rulemaking process, thousands of voices from the Native Hawaiian community and the public testified passionately about the proposal. Today is a major step forward in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the United States that began over 20 years ago. We are proud to announce this final rule that respects and supports self-governance for Native Hawaiians, one of our nation's largest indigenous communities."
The final rule builds on more than 150 Federal statutes that Congress enacted over the last century to recognize and implement the special political and trust relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community. It also considered and addressed extensive public comments during the rulemaking process, which included public meetings in Hawaii and the mainland United States.
http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTYwOTIzLjY0MTU2MzMxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE2MDkyMy42NDE1NjMzMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3MTE4NjUzJmVtYWlsaWQ9S2VuX0NvbmtsaW5AeWFob28uY29tJnVzZXJpZD1LZW5fQ29ua2xpbkB5YWhvby5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&100&&&http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOI-2014-0002-0005
Native Hawaiians have not had a formal unified government since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. In 1993, Congress enacted the Apology Resolution which offered an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for its role in the overthrow and committed the Federal government to a process of reconciliation. As part of that reconciliation process, in 2000 the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice jointly issued a report identifying as its lead recommendation the need to foster self-determination for Native Hawaiians under Federal law.
http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTYwOTIzLjY0MTU2MzMxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE2MDkyMy42NDE1NjMzMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3MTE4NjUzJmVtYWlsaWQ9S2VuX0NvbmtsaW5AeWFob28uY29tJnVzZXJpZD1LZW5fQ29ua2xpbkB5YWhvby5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&101&&&https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/ohr/library/upload/Mauka-to-Makai-Report-2.pdf
"We heard from the Native Hawaiian community about the importance of this rule to preserving its culture and traditions," said Kristen Sarri, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget. "This historic rule provides an opportunity for a Native Hawaiian government to exercise its inherent powers of self-government, self-determination, and economic self-sufficiency. It recognizes the special political and trust relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community and will help to more effectively implement the laws that Congress passed."
The decision to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government is one for the Native Hawaiian community -- not the Federal government -- to make as an exercise of self-determination. If a formal government-to-government relationship is reestablished, it could provide the community with greater flexibility to preserve its distinct culture and traditions. It could also enhance their ability to affect its special status under Federal law by exercising powers of self-government over many issues directly impacting community members.
The final rule,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/all_agency_combined_9.22.16_final_clean.pdf
along with Frequently Asked Questions and other supporting documents,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/external_faqs_on_part_50_final_rule_9.21.16_final.pdf
is available for review at
www.doi.gov/hawaiian
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/09/23/hawaii-news/u-s-says-sovereignty-decision-is-hawaiians/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 23, 2016, PAGE 1 HEADLINE
U.S. says sovereignty decision is Hawaiians'
By Dan Nakaso
The U.S. Department of the Interior plans to make it clear this morning that any government-to-government relationship with a future Native Hawaiian government is solely up to Native Hawaiians to determine.
Today Interior officials are expected to announce a rule, or "pathway," for a future Native Hawaiian government to establish a so-called government-to-government relationship with the United States following a series of angry public hearings on the issue two years ago.
According to a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) planned to accompany today's announcement on the Department of Interior website, "The process is optional and triggered only when a Native Hawaiian government submits a written request to the Secretary. The written request requires, among other elements, a showing that the community's governing document has broad-based community support in order to ensure that the will of the community as a whole is respected.
"The decision to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government and the further decision to re-establish a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States are for the Native Hawaiian community to determine as an exercise of its self-determination," according to the FAQ. "Therefore, the rule does not attempt to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government or dictate the form or structure of that government."
The approach is a clear response to the opposition that federal officials faced across the islands in 2014 as thousands of Native Hawaiians and their supporters turned out for a series of 15 public hearings asking a single question about what kind of a relationship the U.S. government should have with a future Native Hawaiian government.
Most of the speakers refused to address the question and instead blasted the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom and urged the United States to leave the islands, among a long list of demands and concerns.
Speaker after speaker also said that any involvement by U.S. officials to create a new relationship with a future Native Hawaiian government violated Hawaiians' right to self-determination.
But federal officials at the time also told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that written comments from many Hawaiians, non-Hawaiians and Hawaiian groups showed widespread support for a government-to-government relationship.
"Bumpy" unimpressed
The Interior Department now uses the phrase "re-establish a formal government-to-government relationship" in a nod to the overthrow, which the federal government apologized for in 1993.
In response to the comments made at the statewide public hearings, the department said it made several changes to the final rule, including clarifying its purpose; eliminating a U.S. citizenship requirement -- as long as the Native Hawaiian community provides a list of eligible voters; and increasing the public comment period.
The overture to a future Native Hawaiian government follows repeated, failed attempts to pass the so-called Akaka Bill, which would have established a path to federal recognition for a Native Hawaiian government.
Sovereignty activists such as Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele, head of a group calling itself the Nation of Hawaii, will not recognize the Interior Department's role in dealing with a Native Hawaiian government.
Kanahele maintains that the State Department and Secretary of State John Kerry should already be recognizing the Nation State of Hawaii.
"The Nation of Hawaii is already operating as the government," Kanahele told the Star-Advertiser on Thursday. "If there's going to be any kind of recognition, the State Department should be (involved). I don't recognize the Department of Interior as having that authority."
Pressed on whether a Native Hawaiian government should have a government-to-government relationship with the United States, Kanahele said, "Of course Native Hawaiians want a government-to-government relationship not just with the U.S., but with every other government. We want that back."
Robin Danner, former founding president and CEO of the Council of Native Hawaiian Advancement and a commissioner on the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, worked with U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka for 15 years on the Akaka Bill. On Thursday she was "excited as all get-out" after getting word from Washington, D.C., about the Interior Department's upcoming announcement.
"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that has been 100 years coming," Danner said. "I'm excited for my grandbabies. I'm excited for my people. I'm excited for all of Hawaii, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. My cheeks hurt I'm so happy for our people."
Senators applaud
But Native Hawaiians can choose to participate -- or not -- in whatever comes next toward forming a Native Hawaiian government that could seek a government-to-government relationship with the United States, Danner said.
"Federal recognition is a right and an opportunity that we don't have to take, but have a right to take," she said. "It doesn't replace any history. It doesn't replace any efforts for the restoration of the kingdom for those who want to do that."
Asked how fragile the Interior Department's position is given the upcoming presidential election, Danner said, "It's as fragile as any policy in our democracy. It's as fragile as the Civil Rights Act. No progress has ever been made by wringing our hands over what might be undone."
U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz celebrated what the Interior Department calls "Part 50 — the final rule for procedures for re-establishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community."
"This is an historic step towards doing what is right and just for Native Hawaiians," Schatz said in a statement. "For far too long, Native Hawaiians have been the only federally recognized native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Generations of Hawaiians and allies have worked to restore this relationship, and this rule is one of the most significant developments in making this a real possibility.
"Although the rule establishes formal procedures for a Native Hawaiian government to re-establish its governmental relationship with the United States, it leaves the Hawaiian community with the authority and responsibility to reorganize its governing entity."
U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono in a statement commended "the Obama administration for creating this opportunity that will enable the Native Hawaiian community to establish a government-to-government relationship on par with Alaska Natives and Native Americans -- who are afforded significant resources and rights based on their federal standing as a native people. It was a privilege to have worked closely with Native Hawaiian community leaders, including Sen. Daniel Akaka and Gov. John Waihee, in making this day possible. In the months and years ahead, I will continue to support the Native Hawaiian community as it determines how best to move forward."
OHA responds
Robert Lindsey, chairman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said in a statement that OHA "applauds the Obama administration for bringing Native Hawaiians closer to having equality with other indigenous groups in the United States. Native Hawaiians have been the only major indigenous group in the 50 states without a process for establishing a government-to-government relationship with the federal government. This rule finally remedies this injustice. OHA will spend the next few days closely examining the rule to better understand how the Native Hawaiian people can -- if they choose -- pursue a government-to-government relationship."
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said in a statement, "Throughout this two-year rule-making process, thousands of voices from the Native Hawaiian community and the public testified passionately about the proposal. Today is a major step forward in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the United States that began over 20 years ago. We are proud to announce this final rule that respects and supports self-governance for Native Hawaiians, one of our nation's largest indigenous communities."
——-
On the net:
The final rule, Frequently Asked Questions and other documents are available on the Department of the Interior website at
doi.gov/hawaiian
-------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/09/feds-lay-out-pathway-to-native-hawaiian-self-governance/
Honolulu Civil Beat, September 23, 2016
Feds Lay Out 'Pathway' To Native Hawaiian Self-Governance
The Interior Department calls for re-establishing a formal relationship between the U.S. and a Hawaiian "governing entity."
by Chad Blair
In what's being described by some as a historic step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced Friday that it has finalized "a pathway" that would formally recognize such an entity.
The DOI's "final rule," as it is called, aims to re-establish a government-to-government relationship with "the Native Hawaiian community," according to a press release.
The move sets out an administrative procedure and criteria that the secretary of the interior would use if Hawaiians form a "unified government that then seeks a formal relationship with the U.S."
No Hawaiian governing entity currently exists, but Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the rule provides Hawaiians an "opportunity to exercise self-determination."
"Today is a major step forward in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the United States that began over 20 years ago," Jewell said in a statement. "We are proud to announce this final rule that respects and supports self-governance for Native Hawaiians, one of our nation's largest indigenous communities."
The development was welcomed by supporters of federal recognition of Hawaiians, but rejected by others who say Hawaiians should instead seek restoration of full independence.
Hawaii was a kingdom until 1893, when it was overthrown by local, white business interests with the support of the United States. Annexation followed in 1898 and statehood in 1959.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the quasi-state agency that advocates for native beneficiaries, was among those applauding the DOI's announcement.
"Native Hawaiians have been the only major indigenous group in the 50 states without a process for establishing a government-to-government relationship with the federal government," said OHA Board of Trustees Chair Robert Lindsey Jr., who considers the action recognition of indigenous rights. "This rule finally remedies this injustice."
Lindsey said OHA will closely examine the rule to "better understand how the Native Hawaiian people can – if they choose – pursue a government-to-government relationship."
Said U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat: "This is an historic step towards doing what is right and just for Native Hawaiians. For far too long, Native Hawaiians have been the only federally recognized native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Generations of Hawaiians and allies have worked to restore this relationship, and this rule is one of the most significant developments in making this a real possibility."
But Walter Ritte, a veteran Hawaiian activist from Molokai, said he was disappointed -- though not surprised -- by the DOI's decision. He attended many of the DOI hearings held in the islands to consider the rule, meetings he said clearly showed Hawaiians opposed the federal proposal.
'No One Listened'
The first DOI hearing in 2014 was a raucous affair in which DOI officials heard an earful from many angry Hawaiians. (Some supporters were also in attendance.)
"No one listened to the comments, which overwhelmingly opposed federal recognition," said Ritte. "There are many, many reasons. People are fed up with losing their natural resources, the air, the water, the land. They are all being sold to the highest bidder."
Ritte is among those who say Hawaiians should have nothing to do with the United States. They are working to raise awareness of Hawaiian history and international law.
A press conference was set for noon Friday at Iolani Palace to oppose, as a media advisory explained, "a DOI invented process to create a Native Hawaiian Tribe."
But other Hawaiians are open to a form of self-governance that includes a relationship with the U.S.
'On A Crash Course'
The recently completed Nai Aupuni process, funded indirectly by OHA, produced a constitution earlier this year. While Nai Aupuni was dissolved, some participants have embarked on a plan to have a vote to ratify the constitution.
Kelii Akina, head of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and a candidate this year for OHA trustee, challenged Nai Aupuni in court with the help of the conservative Judicial Watch. Akina argues that the Nai Aupuni process was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.
Akina also opposes the DOI rule-making process.
"Native Hawaiians are on record as overwhelmingly opposed to efforts by the Department of Interior to recognize or establish a Hawaiian tribe or government," Akina said in a statement late Thursday. "Every survey by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, from 1978 to the present, shows that native Hawaiians want OHA to stop wasting money on federal recognition and, instead, to spend those millions on meeting the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and healthcare."
Akina concluded: "OHA and the DOI are on a crash course in their rejection of the will of the Hawaiian people."
--------------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=44af952008&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, news release, September 23, 2016
Grassroot Institute Criticizes DOI Rule for Subverting Will of Native Hawaiians
Watchdog group cites overwhelming Native Hawaiian opposition to federal recognition
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- (Sept. 23, 2016) -- Today, the Grassroot Institute criticized the Department of the Interior for subverting the will of Native Hawaiians on the issue of federal recognition. With the announcement of the DOI's rule to facilitate the reestablishment of a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, the President has reignited a controversy that had begun to wane in the wake of Na'i Aupuni's dissolution.
"Native Hawaiians are on record as overwhelmingly opposed to efforts by the Department of Interior to recognize or establish a Hawaiian tribe or government," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute. "Every survey by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, from 1978 to the present, shows that Native Hawaiians want OHA to stop wasting money on federal recognition and, instead, to spend those millions on meeting the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and healthcare. OHA and the DOI are on a crash course in their rejection of the will of the Hawaiian people."
The DOI proposed the rule in 2015, and the Grassroot Institute was among the many who submitted comments in opposition to the creation of a federal Native Hawaiian tribe. Grassroot's comments cited problems with the rule's Constitutionality, its attempt to usurp Congressional authority, and its divisive nature as only a few of the many reasons the rule should have been set aside.
Most of all, Grassroot cited the continual Native Hawaiian opposition to federal recognition, pointing out that by pushing for the creation of a Native Hawaiian polity, the rule would precipitate a legal challenge and fracture any sense of cultural unity among Native Hawaiian groups.
Dr. Akina continued: "With today's announcement, the bureaucrats in Washington have proved that they aren't listening to the Native Hawaiian people. We are still fresh from the disaster that was the Native Hawaiian Roll and the Na'i Aupuni constitutional convention. This rule only encourages OHA and the state to waste more time and resources on a problematic and unconstitutional nation-building effort."
------------------------
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/department-interior-finalizes-rule-recognize-native-hawaiian-government-n653631
NBC News, September 23, 2016
Dept. of Interior Finalizes Rule to Recognize Native Hawaiian Government
by FRANCES KAI-HWA WANG
The U.S. Department of the Interior announced today an administrative procedure that will allow a unified Native Hawaiian government -- if one is established in the future -- to enter into a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States.
This would give Native Hawaiians a status similar to more than 560 Native American tribes that currently hold nation-to-nation status, which could allow federal considerations on issues ranging from land management to social services.
"This final rule provides the Native Hawaiian community with the opportunity to exercise self-determination by reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States," U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said in a statement. "Throughout this two-year rulemaking process, thousands of voices from the Native Hawaiian community and the public testified passionately about the proposal. Today is a major step forward in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the United States that began over 20 years ago."
In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Apology Resolution, publicly acknowledging and apologizing for the United States' involvement in the illegal overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani and the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893, admitting that the United States violated Native Hawaiians' right to self-determination and international law. In 2000, the Departments of the Interior and Justice jointly issued a recommendation for self-determination for Native Hawaiians. From 2000 to 2010, Senator Daniel Akaka tried unsuccessfully to push what has become known as "The Akaka Bill" for federal recognition through Congress.
"This is an historic step towards doing what is right and just for Native Hawaiians," Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) who is also on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said in a statement, "For far too long, Native Hawaiians have been the only federally recognized native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States."
"For decades, many in the Native Hawaiian community have fought for the same rights and treatment as indigenous groups across the United States, like Native American tribes and Alaska Natives," Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) said in a statement. "The Department of Interior announcement today simply places the decision-making authority solely within the hands of Native Hawaiians to determine what, if any, government-to-government relationship they choose to have with the U.S. federal government. I had the great honor of working as a legislative aide to Senator Akaka, who dedicated so much of his life to creating this opportunity for our Native Hawaiian community. I look forward to continuing to engage and work alongside our Native Hawaiian brothers and sisters as they determine their path forward."
** Photo caption
Laulani Teale, left, and Liko Martin, right, sing while Palani Vaughan, center rear, holds up a copy of Queen Liliuokalani's protest of the overthrow of Hawaii at the Hawaii state Capitol in Honolulu on Monday, June 23, 2014. Some Native Hawaiians are expressing anger at the federal government in the first of a series of meetings that could lead to federal recognition of the group as a tribe. Cathy Bussewitz / AP
The procedures considered more than 150 federal statutes enacted over the past century between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community, as well as testimonies from twenty public meetings held in Hawaii and on the mainland United States, according to the Department of the Interior.
RELATED: Native Hawaiians to Federal Government: Give Us Back Our Kingdom
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/native-hawaiians-federal-government-give-us-back-our-kingdom-n151801
In 2014, many Native Hawaiians spoke out against the U.S. federal government determining the procedure, calling for a return of Hawaiian sovereignty and self-determination instead.
"It's a trap," Kale Gumapac testified at a public meeting held in Hilo, Hawaii, in July 2014, "'A'ole [No]. No to everything that you guys are wanting and everything you are wanting to do. Because we can do it ourselves. We have our own government. We have the Queen, Liliuokalani, and the constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist. You need to learn that constitution so that you can know when to ask permission to come into the Kingdom of Hawaii."
A request for comment from NBC News on Friday has not been returned.
------------------------
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-seeks-new-relationship-with-tribes-amid-pipeline-fight/article/2602745?custom_click=rss
The Washington Examiner (Washington D.C.), September 23, 2016
Obama seeks new relationship with tribes amid pipeline fight
By JOHN SICILIANO
The Obama administration announced two major actions on Friday to broaden dialogue between federal agencies and Indian tribes when it comes to protecting their lands and siting energy projects.
First, the Interior Department scheduled a major round of meetings to sit down with tribes around the country to discuss how energy projects affect their communities, along with other federal decisions affecting their lands and treaties.
The outreach comes as the administration struggles to deal with ongoing opposition in North Dakota over the Dakota Access oil pipeline being built near Indian lands, which the tribe in question says threatens its supply of drinking water. The administration halted the project after a federal judge ruled it could go forward. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later took up the case and halted the project while it reviews the details of the case.
"We understand that Tribal Nations' voices must be heard, in a timely and meaningful way, with regard to federal decisions that could affect their treaties, homeland, environment, cultural properties and sacred sites," read a letter addressed to the tribes sent by officials from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of Justice and Interior.
The administration announced six meetings on those topics to be held beginning Oct. 25 in Seattle.
The Interior Department, in a separate action, also took the major step Friday of re-establishing a government for native people in President Obama's home state of Hawaii.
"Today is a major step forward in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the United States that began over 20 years ago," said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. "We are proud to announce this final rule that respects and supports self-governance for Native Hawaiians, one of our nation's largest indigenous communities."
Both actions immediately drew the ire of congressional Republicans as disengenuous and unconstitutional.
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the Obama administration "has never cared about consulting local communities or native tribes," responding to the meetings announcement.
-----------------------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/23/with-obamas-help-native-hawaiians-may-establish-their-first-unified-government-since-the-1890s/
The Washington Post, September 23, 2016
With Obama's help, native Hawaiians may establish their first unified government since the 1890s
By Juliet Eilperin
The Interior Department announced Friday it had finalized a rule to allow for the reestablishment of a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, a status Hawaiians lost more than 120 years ago with the overthrow of their kingdom.
While it would take years for the relationship to resume -- Native Hawaiians would have to form a unified government through a ratification referendum -- the new rule could ultimately deliver a form of self-governance to one of the nation's largest indigenous communities. That power dissolved when a group of sugar barons and businessmen overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893, a move that led to the U.S. annexation of Hawaii in 1898 and, eventually, its admission as America's 50th state in 1959.
The decision, which comes three days before President Obama convenes his final White House Tribal Nations Conference, is also a symbolically powerful gesture toward his home state. Just last month, Obama created the largest protected area on the planet in Hawaii by expanding the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
[In Hawaii, Obama enters the grand gesture phase of his presidency
http://wapo.st/2bF0iv6 ]
"This final rule provides the Native Hawaiian community with the opportunity to exercise self-determination by reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States," Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement. "Today is a major step forward in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the United States that began over 20 years ago."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the move was in keeping with a pledge Obama had made at the outset of his presidency.
"Well, the president took office vowing to strengthen the relationship between the United States government and tribal governments around the country, including the Native Hawaiian population," Earnest said, adding, "The president obviously does have his own personal connection to the Native Hawaiian population and the rich, cultural heritage of the Native Hawaiian people."
In 1993, Congress enacted the Apology Resolution, which expressed regret on behalf of the United States to Native Hawaiians for the country's role in the overthrow of their monarchy. The measure also committed the federal government to a process of reconciliation.
There are 527,077 Native Hawaiians living in the United States, according to the 2010 Census, making it the second-largest indigenous group in the nation. According to Americans' self-identification of their ancestry in the 2010 Census, there are 819,015 Cherokee and 322,129 Navajo.
University of Utah College of Law Professor Alexander Skibine said in an interview that given the fact that the number of people enrolled in the Cherokee tribe is much smaller, Native Hawaiians could "be recognized as the largest tribe" in the United States. As recently as 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected Native Hawaiians' bid for formal federal tribal recognition through Interior's established process.
The rule, Skibine said, "allows Native Hawaiians to come up with their own government and their own identity. It's going to be a long process."
Robert Lindsey, chairman of the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, noted in a statement, "Native Hawaiians have been the only major indigenous group in the 50 states without a process for establishing a government-to-government relationship with the federal government."
"This rule finally remedies this injustice," Lindsey said, adding that his office "will spend the next few days closely examining the rule to better understand how the Native Hawaiian people can -- if they choose -- pursue a government-to-government relationship."
University of Colorado Law School Charles Wilkinson, who worked with Native Hawaiians on the issue in the 1980s, said their situation is highly unusual because "in almost all of the cases where tribes have been restored or recognized they have a tribal council, and that tribal council speaks for the tribal members the way governments do."
While Interior did extensive outreach on the issue during the two years it was crafting it, including holding 15 public meetings in the state during the summer of 2014, five sessions on the U.S. mainland and four three-hour teleconferences, the issue of whether Native Hawaiians should even be negotiating with the federal government remains controversial. Some scholars and native rights activists argue that since the occupation and annexation of Hawaii was illegal, Native Hawaiians should seek independence rather than reconciliation with federal authorities.
Jonathan Osorio, a professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii, called the rule "not a sufficient remedy for what took place 100 years ago."
"What was taken from the kingdom and the citizens of that kingdom, it was not just the lands and the property of Native Hawaiians. It was an independent government," Osorio said in an interview. "My deepest worry about all of this is this is the thing that really ultimately divides our Lahui, our nation, is this offer by the United States to return a bicycle when it took an entire estate."
Despite the disagreements about the best path forward, Wilkinson predicted that a formal government-to-government relationship will give native Hawaiians greater power both in Washington and in their home state. "They will find being able to speak with one voice has enormous advantages," he said.
Although the rule does not provide Native Hawaiians with financial compensation for past wrongs or allow them to set up gaming establishments like many American Indian tribes, if they decide to form a government they will have an easier time filing suit in federal court. An official government could provide Native Hawaiians with control over some social programs and greater leverage with federal officials.
Rhea Suh, who served as Interior's assistant secretary for policy, management and budget and now heads the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rule is one of the clearest examples of how Obama has elevated indigenous rights during his time in office.
"One of the untold stories of this administration is the president's leadership and commitment to native peoples," she said.
----------------------
YouTube video of 4-minute portion of White House press spokesman Josh Earnest daily news conference, September 23, 2016 focused on the Department of Interior final rule to create a Hawaiian tribe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeIZlMTkjsE
----------------------
http://www.oha.org/news/oha-applauds-federal-rule/
Office of Hawaiian Affairs news release, September 23, 2016
OHA applauds federal rule
OHA APPLAUDS FEDERAL RULE TO RECOGNIZE NATIVE HAWAIIANS' INDIGENOUS STATUS, CREATE OPTION OF GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP
Statement Attributable to Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chairperson Robert K. Lindsey
HONOLULU, Hawaiʻi (Sept. 23, 2016) -- "The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) applauds the Obama Administration for bringing Native Hawaiians closer to having equality with other indigenous groups in the United States. Native Hawaiians have been the only major indigenous group in the 50 states without a process for establishing a government-to-government relationship with the federal government. This rule finally remedies this injustice. OHA will spend the next few days closely examining the rule to better understand how the Native Hawaiian people can – if they choose – pursue a government-to-government relationship."
"As fiduciaries for the Native Hawaiian trust, the OHA Board of Trustees has supported federal acknowledgement of Native Hawaiian indigenous status in order to further strengthen and protect Native Hawaiian rights and resources. Having a federal rule available to Native Hawaiians is also an important step towards achieving Native Hawaiian self-determination and self-governance. During the 1978 Hawaiʻi State Constitutional Convention, these two goals served as bases for the creation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Constitutional convention delegates in 1978 envisioned Native Hawaiians achieving 'self-determination, methods for self-sufficiency through assets and a land base, and the unification of all [N]ative Hawaiian people.'"
----------------------
http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/635-rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-doi-rule-announcement
Press Releases
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on DOI Rule Announcement
September 23, 2016
Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the statement below following announcement of the Department of Interior's (DOI) Final Rule for Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community. The rule incorporates and takes into account more than 54,000 public comments submitted to the Department of Interior from the Native Hawaiian community and other key stakeholders:
"For decades, many in the Native Hawaiian community have fought for the same rights and treatment as indigenous groups across the United States, like Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. The Department of Interior announcement today simply places the decision-making authority solely within the hands of Native Hawaiians to determine what, if any, government-to-government relationship they choose to have with the U.S. federal government. I had the great honor of working as a legislative aide to Senator Akaka, who dedicated so much of his life to creating this opportunity for our Native Hawaiian community. I look forward to continuing to engage and work alongside our Native Hawaiian brothers and sisters as they determine their path forward."
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/09/24/hawaii-news/protesters-say-new-rule-ignores-illegal-overthrow/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 24, 2016
Protesters say new rule ignores illegal overthrow
By Rosemarie Bernardo
Dozens of people converged at Iolani Palace on Friday to protest the U.S. Department of Interior's establishment of an administrative process for any future Native Hawaiian government to establish a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States.
"Today, President Obama and the Democratic Party's Hawaii delegation in D.C. announced that they now have a process. But all they are really doing is covering up the crime of the illegal U.S. overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom's government in 1893 -- something they admitted to in 1993 with the Apology Resolution and Public Law 103-150," said Healani Sonoda-Pale, founding member of the group, Protest Na'i Aupuni.
Congress in 1993 enacted an apology resolution to Native Hawaiians, signed by President Bill Clinton, expressing regret for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Efforts to establish a Native Hawaiian government and debate over what form it should take have evolved over decades.
Native Hawaiian sovereignty leaders were among more than 50 people gathered at a news conference in front of Iolani Palace to condemn the Interior Department's final rule formally announced Friday.
Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte said the U.S. is trying to drive a sovereign nation under the America system. "We want to be in a system that is based on who we are.
"We are an independent sovereign nation," he said. "We are not going to lie back and accept being further under the America system. We are not going to allow that."
Not everyone agreed with the protesters.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs applauded the Obama administration, saying the new rule brings Native Hawaiians closer to having equality with other indigenous groups.
"Native Hawaiians have been the only major indigenous group in the 50 states without a process for establishing a government-to-government relationship with the federal government," OHA said in a statement. "This rule finally remedies this injustice. OHA will spend the next few days closely examining the rule to better understand how the Native Hawaiian people can – if they choose – pursue a government-to-government relationship."
The rule established by the Interior Department states it "does not attempt to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government or draft its constitution, nor does it dictate the form or structure of that government. Rather, the rule establishes an administrative procedure and criteria that the Secretary would use if the Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government that then seeks a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States."
The Interior Department said the decision to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government is one for the Native Hawaiian community -- not the federal government.
"Today is a major step forward in the reconciliation process between Native Hawaiians and the United States that began over 20 years ago. We are proud to announce this final rule that respects and supports self-governance for Native Hawaiians, one of our nation's largest indigenous communities," U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said in a statement.
"For decades, many in the Native Hawaiian community have fought for the same rights and treatment as indigenous groups across the United States, like Native American tribes and Alaska Natives," U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said in a statement. "The Department of Interior announcement today simply places the decision-making authority solely within the hands of Native Hawaiians to determine what, if any, government-to-government relationship they choose to have with the U.S. federal government."
A Native Hawaiian convention, Na'i Aupuni, was convened in February, resulting in adoption of a constitution that calls for a government representing only descendants of indigenous people who lived on the islands before Western contact. A ratification vote on the constitution is slated to be held in 2017.
The group Protest Na'i Aupuni asserts the convention and resulting constitution were part of an effort to meet the requirements of the Department of Interior.
"We need to be really clear with the United States. They not only do not have the right to tell us what kind of government we should have," Jonathan Osorio, professor of Hawaiian studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said. "The United States has no right whatsoever to the Hawaiian Islands. The Hawaiians Islands are the property of the Hawaiian kingdom and the Hawaiian kingdom government and there is no getting around that substantial fact."
To review the final rule, visit doi.gov/hawaiian.
-------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/we-want-our-country-back/article_65b5e3cb-e173-5304-9ffc-f1e1b9bdfc52.html
The Garden Island [Kaua'i], September 24, 2016
'We want our country back'
About 20 gather in Kapaa to protest rule to create government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians, United States
Alden Alayvilla — The Garden Island
KAPAA -- Kaiulani Mahuka said the Hawaiian people won't settle for anything less than full sovereignty.
"We're the sovereign Hawaiian nation. Federal recognition will never be anything to the Hawaiian people," Mahuka said. "We want our country back. Overwhelmingly, the Hawaiian people have said no. We don't want to be federally recognized. Why should we?"
The host of the local radio program "Songs of Sovereignty" was among about 20 people at Kapaa Beach park protesting the U.S. Department of the Interior's announcement Friday that finalized a rule for creating a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians and the United States.
The rule would leave the Hawaiian community with the authority to reorganize its governing entity.
Supporters of the Interior Department's rule included elected leaders.
"This is an historic step towards doing what is right and just for Native Hawaiians," said Sen. Brian Schatz in a statement Friday.
But Mahuka said the DOI rule is, in fact, invalid since the U.S. did not officially annex Hawaii.
"It's completely illegal. It's a war crime. The biggest problem they have is there's no treaty of annexation," said Mahuka, one of the organizers of the protest. "That's what they should of had to properly annex Hawaii to the United States, but no such treaty exists."
Instead of a treaty of annexation, the U.S. annexed Hawaii by a joint resolution, known as the Newlands Resolution, on July 7, 1898.
"We're not part of America. The Kingdom of Hawaii has been been recognized by the league of nations as its own country," said Puanani Rogers, founder of Hookipa Network and co-organizer of the protest. "The United States has no jurisdiction over us because their resolution only went to the voters of their own lands."
Joseph Kekauliki Kamai, who was among the protesters, said he has been protesting since 1975.
"We're internationally recognized and now the U.S. is trying to recognize federally, trying to turn us into a tribe. We're not a tribe. We're a country," he said.
Former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka spent about a dozen years trying to get a bill passed that would give Native Hawaiians the same rights already extended to many Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Efforts to get the bill to a vote have consistently been blocked, and Akaka retired three years ago.
Native Hawaiians have not had a formal, unified government since the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893.
Critics say it won't right the wrongs of the overthrow and that it's meant to turn Native Hawaiians into Indian tribes. Some Native Hawaiians say it can't be assumed that all indigenous people share the same history, experiences and needs.
Many Native Hawaiians have long been clamoring for self-determination, but there are varying opinions of what that would look like, including federal recognition, restoring the overthrown Hawaiian kingdom or dual citizenship.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said the Native Hawaiian community has fought for the same rights and treatment as indigenous groups across the United States, like Native American tribes and Alaska Natives.
"I had the great honor of working as a legislative aide to Senator Akaka, who dedicated so much of his life to creating this opportunity for our Native Hawaiian community," Gabbard said Friday. "I look forward to continuing to engage and work alongside our Native Hawaiian brothers and sisters as they determine their path forward."
Native Hawaiians are the largest indigenous group in the U.S. that has not been offered the chance for a relationship with the federal government, said Kris Sarri, the Interior Department's principal deputy assistant secretary for policy management and budget.
"Issues around the Native Hawaiian community itself organizing, making a decision to form a government … that is something really for the community to make decisions about," she said. "All we wanted to do was make sure if they wanted to pursue those options, there was an option for a government-to-government relationship."
The final federal rule mirrors a proposal announced a year ago and sets an administrative procedure that Interior would follow if an established Native Hawaiian government wants those ties.
It requires there be a governing document that undergoes a ratification vote by Native Hawaiians. An attempt last year to hold an election to select delegates for a constitutional convention fell apart after a lawsuit challenged the legality of holding a race-based election.
It's not clear how the ratification requirement would be met. That's for Native Hawaiians to figure out, Sarri said.
-----------------------
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Hawaii-Independence/conversations/messages/43246
Hawaii Independence yahoo group, message # 43246, September 24, 2016
Posted by: The Koani Foundation
Also
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/09/obama-spits-in-face-of-every-hawaiian.html
OBAMA SPITS IN THE FACE OF EVERY HAWAIIAN
2 years ago, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamana'opono Crabbe a letter dated May 5, 2014 to Secretary of State John Kerry -- in it, he questioned the legitimacy of US jurisdiction in Hawai`i and requested proof of how the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally annexed to the United States.
Rather than answer the question and prove once and for all that the US legally annexed Hawai`i, President Obama hastily ordered that the DOI hold public hearings in Hawai`i to discuss federal recognition. Literally, within 2 months of Mr. Crabbe's letter, hearings on 5 islands went on for 2 weeks. Thousands of Hawaiians came out, but only hundreds were able to testify. 95% of the Hawaiians who spoke out were opposed to any notion of federal recognition or state and federal interference in our right to self determination.
Since then, Obama and his DOI have been inventing processes and manipulating data to create the illusion that the Hawaiian people want to be a tribe. And OHA, a state agency that has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to force federal recognition down our throats, has spent even more money with their fake Kana`iolowalu list, their fake Na`i Aupuni elections, and their fake Na`i Aupuni ʻAha 2016 Constitution.
Today, President Obama and the democratic party's Hawai`i delegation in DC announced that they now have a process. But all they are really doing is covering up the crime of the illegal, US overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom's government in 1893—something they admitted to in 1993 federal legislation referred to as the Apology Resolution and Public Law 103-150.
Today, President Obama furthered the crime of the fake annexation and the crime of fake statehood.
Today, President Obama circumvented the legal processes that the US Congress is there for, so that he could personally sign an Executive Order and give fake recognition to federally chosen Hawaiians who do not represent the Hawaiian people.
Why? So that he, and whoever his successor is, can create a counterfeit settlement for the Crown and Government land of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the so-called ceded lands.
Today, President Obama spat in the face of every Hawaiian from Queen Liliuokalani down to us Hawaiians standing here right now.
The only Hawaiians this new federal lie will benefit are the ones who will make money off of it. There is nothing, and there never was anything in it for the Hawaiians who suffer from the poverty invented by the US occupation. Our people remain the most impoverished, with the highest rates of homelessness, incarceration, diabetes, cancer, suicide and on and on.
President Obama doesn't give a damn about us and our homeland, which has been turned into the largest military command on earth, our `aina which has been turned into the largest concentration of open field GMO test sites on earth, our `aina which is constantly being desecrated and destroyed by US policies and corporations.
When we Hawaiians look at what is being done to us from the US government and corporations, all we see is total erasure and removal of us, total exploitation and theft of who we are and what belongs to us.
We are being devoured by resort lifestyles and the military takeover of our housing, so we can't even afford to pay rent in our homeland. We are supposed to allow the ongoing desecration of what is the most sacred to us, places like Mauna Kea for the TMT project and places like Wai`aleale so that corporations can bottle our water and sell it. Rather than let us use our water to grow our food we are being forced to accept that 90% of everything we eat is shipped in from 2500 miles away.
This is unacceptable. We, as a people, cannot allow the United States and its greedy corporations and its bought off sellout Hawaiians to get away with this. If we allow this to go on our children and their children will pay the price.
-----------------------
** Typical Associated Press article in many newspapers around the U.S.
http://lancasteronline.com/news/national/native-hawaiians-given-way-to-create-ties-with-us-government/article_010f386a-d934-5eb1-8875-fdd9a7d5c2ac.html
Native Hawaiians given way to create ties with US government
By JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) -- Native American communities with their own governments have long had a way to establish a relationship with the United States, but until now one of the largest indigenous groups in the country hasn't had the same opportunity.
The U.S. Department of the Interior announced Friday that it finalized a rule for creating a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians -- if they chose to form their own government and if they want such ties.
Former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka spent about a dozen years trying to get a bill passed that would give Native Hawaiians the same rights already extended to many Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Efforts to get the bill to a vote have consistently been blocked, and Akaka retired three years ago.
Native Hawaiians have not had a formal, unified government since the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. Supporters of the Interior Department's rule see it as a big step toward federal recognition.
Critics say it won't right the wrongs of the overthrow and that it's meant to turn Native Hawaiians into Indian tribes. Some Native Hawaiians say it can't be assumed that all indigenous people share the same history, experiences and needs.
Many Native Hawaiians have long been clamoring for self-determination, but there are varying opinions of what that would look like, including federal recognition, restoring the overthrown Hawaiian kingdom or dual citizenship.
They are the largest indigenous group in the U.S. that has not been offered the chance for a relationship with the federal government, said Kris Sarri, the Interior Department's principal deputy assistant secretary for policy management and budget.
"Issues around the Native Hawaiian community itself organizing, making a decision to form a government ... that is something really for the community to make decisions about," she said. "All we wanted to do was make sure if they wanted to pursue those options, there was an option for a government-to-government relationship."
The final federal rule mirrors a proposal announced a year ago and sets an administrative procedure that Interior would follow if an established Native Hawaiian government wants those ties.
It requires there be a governing document that undergoes a ratification vote by Native Hawaiians. An attempt last year to hold an election to select delegates for a constitutional convention fell apart after a lawsuit challenged the legality of holding a race-based election.
It's not clear how the ratification requirement would be met. That's for Native Hawaiians to figure out, Sarri said.
----------------------
https://www.facebook.com/leon.siu.3
Leon Siu (independence activist) Facebook page, approximately 11 PM September 24
So, here's the deal. Occupier-in-chief Obama approved a "rule change" to allow the US Department of the Interior to grant federal recognition to a yet-to-be-concocted "Native Hawaiian-American Indian tribe"...
It's mostly hype. It is a last-ditch attempt by Fed-wreck backers … an act of desperation. They had tried everything else. So now they're resorting to manipulating Obama to bypass Congress' authority to give the DOI the power to "recognize" Hawaiians as a tribe. But even if the president gets away with this sneaky maneuver, federal recognition through the DOI is not a done deal.
Fed-wreck does not have the support of native Hawaiians, definitely not Hawaiian nationals nor any other stakeholder. I would dismiss it altogether, except that, knowing the way the powers-that-be operate, danger still lurks. I wouldn't put it past the US and its collaborators to manufacture a fake nation and manufacture fake consent.
We have been consistently maintaining that the Hawaiian Kingdom is a sovereign nation in continuity and the United States' claim to the Hawaiian Islands is completely false. But the US and its highly-funded hype machine has the media bamboozled into advancing the US narrative, including federal recognition.
All the more urgent that we make some formal moves to assert our national sovereignty and expose the United States' gross violation of international laws. The fact that the US is in Hawaii illegally must be exposed for the world…as well as those in Hawaii….to see.
------------------------
** On Sept. 23 Zuri Aki posted on his blog
by Noa Napoleon -- Mahalo for posting this Z! So are the feds now over-riding the State of Hawaii ? How does this impact the legal challenges that prevented Nai Aupuni from ratifying? Also, how and with whom did DOI determine the 50 thousand Native Hawaiians figure because if the process is without strings how does DOI make this determination if not on behalf of a very small group of Hawaiians who are already heavily invested in a certain kind of outcome? If the process could restart with assurance that the playing field is leveled I'm for it! If everything is put on us this should inspire Hawaiians to build a broader coalition and not be mistrusting. If DOI could make some rules about who and how it transmits info or official communications with this would help a lot I think. We starting from scratch that means nobody has anything invested unless it is vetted.
by Zuri CW Kaapana Aki -- Mahalo for your mana'o. As far as I know, the Feds are not overiding the State. However, should Native Hawaiians have fed-rec, it may place us in a status that is beyond the State's control.
Again, as far as I know, the ratification process was stalled only by Na'i Aupuni's withdrawal of funding and not a result of legal action.
With regard to the minimum threshold (30,000) participation - that was a number the DOI suggested, taking into account the total population of Native Hawaiians. It's the minimum number of participants required in the ratification process for the DOI to accept that Native Hawaiian government as representative of the population. It seems like a low number, but really, it's reflective of the 30% voter turn out in Hawaii when considering the roughly 100k Kana'iolowalu numbers (post Kau Inoa list).
It would be great if the playing field could be leveled and I think it can happen with the establishment of a Native Hawaiian government. People sitting in those government seats will be dealing directly with the DOI and if using the 'Aha's constitution, it's a democratic process - so, no clear advantages to those already engaged in the DOI negotiation process.
by Noa Napoleon -- Zuri CW Kaapana Aki "should Native Hawaiians have fed-rec, it may place us in a status beyond state control". This fact ends the sort of legal challenges that Grass Roots Inst. can file over Native Hawaiian elections no? This seems potentially problematic because where and with whom are non-supportive Hawaiians going to get redress, clarification etc., if not with the state of Hawaii who would be party with a tribe or newly formed Native Government. I wonder what kealii Akina, and the Grass Roots Inst. are now contemplating given the way they have characterized the process. In other words it appears that the feds are using this rule as an antidote to the legal challenges that describe the Aha and its goals as divisive and unconstitutional. Part of the DOI plan appears to support the contentions Grass Roots is making about including all Hawaii citizens in the voting process.
by Zuri CW Kaapana Aki -- Noa Napoleon - It sure would. As you know, the Grassroots Institute challenge wasn't the first of its kind (Rice v. Cayetano and Doe v. Kamehameha happened before) and it would surely happen again. These challenges argue against racial preference for Native Hawaiians.
Fed-rec would offer Native Hawaiians greater protection against these kinds of challenges. Morton v. Mancari is a perfect example of that. In Morton a challenge was initiated against the hiring practices in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), where the BIA gave preferential hiring to American Indians (over non-Indians).
The Court ultimately held that the practice could be sustained because it wasn't racial preference, but rather, since Native American Indians have a special political relationship with the U.S. Government, it is a political (not racial) preference - and that is not unconstitutional. The Court also held that American Indians are best suited to determine the affairs of American Indians.
During the Akina case (Grassroots Institute challenge), we saw the Ninth Circuit make a very similar argument to the Morton court. We saw Judge Michael Seabright argue that Native Hawaiians have a special political relationship with the U.S. and are in the best position to determine their own affairs.
RE: DOI PLAN
The DOI's final rule explicitly prohibits the participation of non-Native Hawaiians in the process. Details can be found in (g) Section 50.13 on page 135 of the Final Rule:
"Federal law requires a demonstration of Native ancestry to be eligible for membership."
This, in itself, directly contradicts the assertion of the Grassroots Institute, whose position - as you noted - is the participation of non-Native Hawaiians.
RE: REDRESS FOR NON-MEMBERS
If a Native Hawaiian government is formed and meets the necessary criteria to effectively pursue fed-rec according to the Final Rule - and the DOI accepts - and fed-rec is granted, then Native Hawaiians, who are not members of that recognized government may still find redress with that government and most certainly with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
When we drafted the Native Hawaiian Constitution (at the 'Aha), it was with the understanding that the government established would serve all Native Hawaiians - and not just those participating in governance. The Native Hawaiian government should hear the concerns (and offer redress where capable) of Native Hawaiians no matter their membership status.
On the other hand, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) will still exist as a State of Hawai'i agency. OHA was created constitutionally and the only way to end its existence is through legislative action (I believe 2/3 senate approval/con-con).
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/staradvertiser-poll/think-new-federal-process-recognize-future-native-hawaiian-government-one-emerges/
The Big Q
What do you think about the new federal process that would recognize a future Native Hawaiian government, if one emerges?
A. Positive; advances self-determination
B. Negative; oppose sovereignty movement
C. Negative; U.S. meddling in sovereignty
D. Don't understand issue
** The Big A [poll final results gathered the following morning]
B. Negative; oppose sovereignty movement (439 Votes) 51%
----------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/native-soil/501419/
Native Soil
by Brittany Lyte
Thousands of indigenous Hawaiians have a claim to publicly trusted lands. But to keep any property, they first have to pass a blood test.
Natasha Boteilho lives in Oahu's arid Waianae Valley on a jot of land held in trust for native Hawaiians. Here on Hawaii's most densely populated island -- where the highest per-capita homeless population in the United States continues to swell and the average price of a single-family home is three-quarters of a million dollars -- that's no small thing. The turquoise waters that lap against golden beaches lie next to jammed highways. Even the wildlife is exploding: A cacophonous feral-chicken epidemic provides the background noise to islanders' daily lives.
Boteilho's property was originally awarded to her grandfather by virtue of a federal law enacted in 1920 to stabilize a Hawaiian race left withering and landless after a century of colonization. Boteilho's mother took over the land lease next, and then, in 2011, the homestead was passed on to her. A stay-at-home mother of three girls, the 39-year-old Boteilho resides with her husband and children in the three-bedroom house her grandfather built at the base of an eroded shield volcano.
But this is where Boteilho's familial succession will end. None of Boteilho's daughters -- ages 2, 5, and 10 -- are eligible to inherit the land their great-grandfather settled in 1951. Simply put: They don't have enough Hawaiian blood. "If I passed away tomorrow, my children would not be able to get my house," Boteilho said. "That scares me."
When Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, the native Hawaiian race was quickly vanishing. The legislation was a reaction to the large numbers of Hawaiians who had been forced off their lands when white businessmen moved to the islands during the early 1800s. The foreigners built sprawling pineapple and sugarcane plantations and imported a new working class to tend to them. The Hawaiians, meanwhile, receded to crowded urban zones where extrinsic diseases, for which they had no immunity, hacked away at their numbers. In 1778, when white men first set foot on the Hawaiian Islands, there were an estimated 683,000 full-blooded Hawaiians living there, according to the Pew Research Center. By 1919, that population was just 22,600. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act attempted to combat the decline by creating a 200,000-acre land trust to serve as neighborhoods, farms, and ranches for those who could prove at least 50 percent Hawaiian ancestry.
"The Hawaiian race is passing," testified Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole before the U.S. House of Representatives in 1920. "And if conditions continue to exist as they do today, this splendid race of people, my people, will pass from the face of the Earth." A born royal and a delegate to Congress, Kuhio was the visionary sponsor of the law that established Hawaiian homesteading. Despite his fight for a lower blood quantum, the law specifies that Hawaiians are eligible to apply for 99-year land leases at $1 per year on the condition that they prove they are at least half-blooded Hawaiians. The law further stipulates that a homestead lease can be passed on to a leaseholder's child or grandchild -- so long as that heir can prove at least 25 percent Hawaiian ancestry.
But that was nearly 100 years ago. Today, incentivizing a race of people to preserve bloodlines by offering them free property seems, well, anachronistic. It is also likely in part why, on Friday, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a pathway for the Native Hawaiian community to create its own unified government, one that could initiate a discrete relationship with the U.S. federal government. "The United States has a long-standing policy of supporting self-governance for native peoples," said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. "Yet, the benefits of the government-to-government relationship have long been denied to native Hawaiians, one of our nation's largest indigenous communities." The native Hawaiian population is in fact on the upswing, nearing 300,000. But that figure includes mixed-race residents, which makes it all the more unclear as to how -- or when -- any sovereign Hawaiian leadership that does arise would affect the land-trusts issue.
In the meantime, as the homestead communities age, the land leases are passing into the hands of the third and fourth generations, and some families are finding that a slow dilution of the Hawaiian blood pool means they must face the impending forfeiture of the land they have called home for decades. Fewer and fewer homesteading descendants have the minimum 25 percent Hawaiian-blood requirement to keep the land within their family lineages. Those folks have just two options: They can sell any improvements made to the property, such as a house, to the state agency that manages the trust lands, or they can sell them to any half-blooded Hawaiian. In either case, thousands of would-be homesteaders in the post-millennial generation will have to move.
"My grandson will have to go look for where to live," said Robin Danner, a homestead leaseholder and the chairwoman of the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly. "That is not what Kuhio intended." The assembly, whose membership includes more than 30 homestead neighborhood associations, is campaigning for a policy change that would reduce the blood-quantum requirement for succession to one-32nd, the same percentage that Kuhio originally championed. Easing the qualifications, proponents say, would ensure that future generations of Hawaiians aren't cut off from one of their people's most valuable benefits: land. Not to mention, an all-but-free place to live in one of the nation's most expensive housing markets.
"When you take the land back, you haven't just done a disservice to that one person who now has to move and find another place to live; you've done a disservice to the entire lineage," Danner said. "You have wiped out an entire line. For thousands of indigenous people, this is their place on the planet and now they're getting unhooked."
Manulele Clarke, who couldn't afford to build a house when she received a three-acre homestead 30 years ago, raised her daughter on the land in a worn-out camper trailer. Today, the property has two structures: a proper home for Clarke and one for Clarke's daughter and granddaughter. Clarke is proud of her progress, but she worries that her granddaughter, whose ancestral heritage is too low to qualify for inheritance, won't benefit from it. "She's 7 now, and before you know it, she will be 17," Clarke says. "If anything should happen to my daughter and me, she would not be able to live in the house where she was raised." Instead, Clarke fears her granddaughter could be left to sleep on beaches. It's a predicament all too common in Hawaii, where a scarcity of well-paying jobs and developable lands has bred an affordable-living crisis. "My granddaughter is the future," Clarke said, "and if something doesn't change, the future will be homeless."
Of course, not all Hawaiians are in favor of reducing the metrics for successive homesteading -- even among indigenous Hawaiians. There are 10,000 homestead leaseholders across the state, but there are 29,000 frustrated Hawaiians on a waiting list. Worse: There are thousands of acres of trust lands sitting vacant. The state won't issue leases in these areas because there are no roads, no water infrastructure, and no electricity hookups -- for which the government says, there is no money. What's more, in addition to waiting indefinitely for idle land, all of the waitlisted have an at least 50 percent blood quantum. They, unsurprisingly, argue that they should retain priority over the descendants of leaseholders whose bloodlines have thinned to the point of disqualification. In February, Hawaiian lawmakers did consider a bill to reduce the blood requirement for homesteaders. But the bill failed. (Such a policy change would have also required congressional approval -- and no one has any real idea of what mainland politicians would make of the whole situation.)
Still, Danner is encouraged that the issue is being debated at all -- especially by legislators. She is optimistic that reform will come before her 8-year-old grandson, and the grandchildren of so many other leaseholders, are forced to find new homes. "When the federal government gave out homesteads to populate places like Nebraska, can you imagine if they said that, when you die, you have to give it back?" Danner said. "That's just untenable. It was untenable for the immigrants who built the Midwest, and its untenable for us nonimmigrants who maintained and cared for Hawaii for a millennia."
** Ken's note: The obvious solution is to give homestead land in fee simple rather than leasehold, so the landowner will be the family instead of DHHL. But the main issue in this puff piece promoting Robin Danner, is her wish that the blood quantum requirement for DHHL should be reduced to 1/32. What nobody is saying, and few would realize, is that if that were done, then the number of "DHHL-eligible" ethnic Hawaiians would rise to include nearly all ethnic Hawaiians, which would allow very easy satisfaction of the DOI Final Rule requirement of 9,000 DHHL-eligible voters to ratify the tribe. As things stand now, OHA will have a hard time persuading that many 50%ers to ratify the tribal Constitution because they are very leery of having "their" DHHL lands taken over by a tribal government controlled by the low-quantum Hawaiians.
-----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/09/26/editorial/native-hawaiian-sovereignty-takes-a-big-step-forward/
Native Hawaiian sovereignty takes a big step forward
A historic opportunity: The tag is hung too easily on too many enterprises, public and private. But there's now a sovereignty process the federal government has newly approved for Native Hawaiians, and in that case, the phrase truly fits.
Since 2000, elected representatives in Washington, D.C., have pressed for a way to give the indigenous population of this state the same "nation within a nation" status accorded to other native groups in the U.S. The legislative route was followed -- and blockaded -- in multiple tries on Capitol Hill.
Now the U.S. Department of the Interior has inked the final administrative rule, or "pathway," that would allow some future Native Hawaiian government to gain federal recognition. For those who want to see Native Hawaiians practice self-determination more fully than they've done in a century, this is a positive step.
The role of the federal government in this process has been a fault line, and the fractures opening across the Hawaiian community have been deep. Advocates for the status quo -- simply remaining an ethnic group with American citizenship -- occupy one quadrant.
But most of the debate has pitted advocates of federal recognition against those who believe restoration of the Hawaiian nation, overthrown in 1893, is the only route to justice. The public hearings over the new rule drew fiery protest two years ago from pro-independence sovereignty groups.
The holdouts for independence argue that federal recognition forecloses other prospects. There's no reason that should be the case.
Developing a unified Hawaiian entity that can represent the people's interests is a worthy goal — and an empowering one, at that. Opponents are overlooking the benefit of a clarified relationship between Hawaiians and the U.S. federal government.
It's a trust relationship that has continued for a century beyond annexation, through Hawaiian homesteading and some 150 other programs and laws.
But it's been mediated by state agencies such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The state of Hawaii should be working uniquely in the interest of all residents, leaving Native Hawaiian federal entitlements to be a matter between Native Hawaiians and the federal government.
Finally, the federal government has the indisputable right to set out some standards for any government that it would recognize. That's essentially what the rule establishes.
It's silent about the nature of the government that approaches Washington for recognition. There are reasonable thresholds for participation in the establishment of a native government, to ensure that the government has a legitimate basis to speak for the population.
But it's less prescriptive about the process of constituting the government than the legislative proposals -- those best known as the Akaka Bill, named for their sponsor, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka.
What happens now is left, correctly, up to the Native Hawaiians. They can opt in by forming a government to be recognized.
The first step would be to ratify organic documents for that government. At least one version of such a constitution, drafted in an 'aha (constitutional convention) earlier this year, could be the focus of a ratification drive.
Legal challenges to that 'aha arose. They alleged, among other things, that the convention's links to OHA, a state agency, violated the U.S. Constitution.
And that underscores the importance of keeping any ratification vote a completely private undertaking. The funds should come in the form of donations from individuals or nongovernmental groups to keep the process above board.
Many in the Hawaiian community are justifiably in a celebratory mood: The long and rocky history of the Hawaiian people can begin a new chapter.
Now it's up to the people to seize the opportunity. That is the essence of self-determination.
--------
** Ken Conklin's online comment
This new federal regulation says ethnic Hawaiians as a group (defined by the one-drop rule) can create their own race-based government and, if it meets a few minimal requirements, the U.S. will treat it as an Indian tribe.
Note that 80% of the people of Hawaii are locked out of the process and cannot stop it from happening. The State of Hawaii cannot avoid being broken apart if enough racists can get together and send a letter to the U.S. to get the U.S. to help them.
This newspaper and its predecessors for 20 years have been pushing this outrageous concept. It's an invitation to turn Hawaii into Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Bosnia, Sudan, etc.
Why not let people with at least one drop of Hawaiian blood break apart the lands and people of Hawaii to create a race-based government exclusively for them?
Here's the same question on a larger scale.
Why not let Americans with at least one drop of African blood break apart the lands and people of the U.S. to create a race-based Nation of New Africa exclusively for them?
Just imagine the horrendous jurisdictional disputes and racial hostility that would happen when 40 million blacks scattered throughout America make their own government and live under different laws from everyone else.
Blacks are only about 12 percent of America's people. Ethnic Hawaiians are more than 20 percent of Hawaii's people. So the horrendous results of creating a Nation of New Africa on the mainland would be almost twice as awful for Hawaii if an ethnic Hawaiian government were created here.
----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/09/the-law-and-the-truth-behind-the-u-s-hawaii-relationship/
The Law And The Truth Behind The U.S.-Hawaii Relationship
By Walter Ritte
Editor's note: The author submitted the following piece in response to the announcement Friday by the U.S. Department of the Interior of the finalization of a rule that articulates how the United States would enter into a government-to-government relationship with a unified Native Hawaiian government.
Today, the truth regarding the United States and its role in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom can no longer be denied. Thanks to Hawaiian scholars of the 21st century, the truth has been thoroughly scrutinized and confirmed by international institutions of justice.
The United States has been in violation of both U.S. and international law since the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, through the entirety of the 20th century and to this day. Violations of this nature are subject to international law, for which there is no statute of limitations.
From the beginning of the Kingdom of Hawaii, under Kamehameha I through the rule of Hawaii's last monarch, Lili'uokalani, citizenship in the kingdom was never confined to one race.
Rather than enter into a government-to-government relationship with a unified Native Hawaiian government, the United States should admit to its illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
In total disregard of the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom was the only non-European state accepted into the international family of nations under Kamehameha III, with multiple treaties of neutrality and commerce throughout the world including with the United States, the U.S. military nonetheless in 1893 held Queen Liliuokalani captive in isolation for six months, forcefully took control of her seat of government at Iolani Palace and then swiftly proceeded to activate all means necessary to consolidate total control of the Hawaiian Islands.
As the United States attained control of all segments of the kingdom, an attempted treaty of cession failed, so it simply passed a joint resolution of Congress, ceding the Hawaii Islands to itself.
Two international courts of justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Swiss Federal Criminal Court in 2001 and 2016 respectively and indisputably confirmed the continuity of the Kingdom and the necessity of the acting government to represent the interests of the kingdom.
In addition, the SFCC confirmed that Switzerland's 1864 treaty with the Hawaiin Kingdom remains in effect, recognized the acting government pursuant to the doctrine of necessity in keeping with the PCA and accepted the filing of complaints of alleged war crimes against specified Swiss citizens and U.S. citizens, subject to preliminary investigations.
The decisions of both the PCA and the SFCC could have been summarily dismissed had the United States simply provided evidence of an executed treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom. Failure to do so absolutely confirmed that the United States has illegally occupied the Hawaiian Kingdom since the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893.
We are at an intersection of history, guided by the laws and judicial institutions of the world that have placed our people face to face with a criminal entity, the United States of America, which refuses to follow its own laws and the laws of the international family of nations. It is an indisputable fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom is illegally occupied by the most powerful nation in the world.
As citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, we face a fundamental awakening of our inherent obligation to restore, care for and protect our sacred lands, our civilization, and our government.
About the Author
------
** Ken Conklin online comment [automatic length limit of 500 characters], deleted (censored) apparently by robot apparently after someone marked it as "uncivil", which I then re-posted a couple hours later. Intolerant activist readers at Civil Beat are able to do censorship by crowdsourcing objections of "uncivility."
A few of Ritte's falsehoods: "... the U.S. military ... in 1893 held Queen Liliuokalani captive in isolation for six months, forcefully took control of ... Iolani Palace and then swiftly proceeded to ... total control of the Hawaiian Islands."
Truth: 162 U.S. peacekeepers did not take over any buildings, did not patrol the streets, never entered Palace grounds, and never held Lili'uokalani captive. Most returned to their ship as the revolutionary Provisional Government maintained order. 10 weeks later the last troops were gone.
For the next 5 years there were zero U.S. troops in Hawaii. In 1894 the continuing independent nation of Hawaii established its new permanent government. The Republic was officially recognized as the rightful, lawful government by letters of full-fledged diplomatic recognition personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages, available at
---------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs2SfiK6gxI&feature=youtu.be
Video of 30-minute conversation between Grassroot Institute President Keli'i Akina and online newspaper publisher Andrew Walden regarding the Department of Interior Final Rule for creating a Hawaiian tribe. One topic of discussion is the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives H.R.3764, which was the focus of considerable attention in "Indian Country Today" in October 2015 when it was introduced. The bill was authored by Rob Bishop (R, UT), chairman of the House Resources Committee to counteract Obama administration rulemaking on how Indian tribes get federal recognition. The main point of the bill is to take tribal recognition away from BIA, DOI, or other administrative or regulatory decision-making and to require that recognition can ONLY be given by an act of Congress. Perhaps out of concern for the likelihood that DOI would soon issue its Final Rule for creation of a Hawaiian tribe, the committee chairman pushed it through his committee on September 8, 2016 by vote of 23-13 and sent it to the House floor, where it could be debated and voted at any time (but not likely until after a new Congress gets going in 2017, unless it could be folded into the upcoming omnibus spending bill which Obama would not want to veto at risk of shutting down the government).
Full information about H.R.3764 is at
Bill Text can be seen at
----------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/09/obama-attacks-hawaiians-with-doi-rule.html
OBAMA ATTACKS HAWAIIANS WITH DOI RULE CHANGE
Ke Aupuni Update
by Leon Siu
The United States launched another attack against the national sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the human rights of the people of the Hawaiian Islands. This is part of a long history of abusive actions taken by the U.S. to perpetuate its illegal, prolonged occupation of Hawaii. It is also meant to quash the Hawaiian independence movement.
It's disgusting that "President" Obama (born in the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom), is approving a modern-day American cavalry charge to attack, corral and subdue Hawaiians…so American interests can complete the stealing of our lands. In essence Obama it's okay with him for the DOI to apply 'version-2016' of the genocidal actions used to attack, corral and subdue the first peoples of Turtle Island in the 1800s. Now they want to give us Hawaiians the same treatment! And tell us it's for our own good so we'll go quietly to the slaughter.
It is a blatant attack on our sovereignty and our dignity. Some of our people's responses to this attack can be found HERE
So, here's the deal. Occupier-in-chief Obama approved a "rule change" to allow the US Department of the Interior to grant federal recognition (we call it fed-wreck) to a yet-to-be-concocted "Native Hawaiian-American Indian tribe"...
It's mostly hype. It is a last-ditch attempt by Fed-wreck backers ... an act of desperation. They had tried everything else. So now they're resorting to manipulating Obama to bypass Congress' authority to give the DOI the power to "recognize" Hawaiians as a tribe. But even if the president gets away with this sneaky maneuver, federal recognition through the DOI is not a done deal.
Fed-wreck does not have the support of native Hawaiians, definitely not Hawaiian nationals nor any other stakeholder. I would dismiss it altogether, except that, knowing the way the powers-that-be operate, danger still lurks. I wouldn't put it past the US and its collaborators to manufacture a fake nation and manufacture fake consent.
We have been consistently maintaining that the Hawaiian Kingdom is a sovereign nation in continuity and the United States' claim to the Hawaiian Islands is completely false. But the US and its highly-funded hype machine has the media bamboozled into advancing the US narrative, including federal recognition.
All the more urgent that we make some formal moves to assert our national sovereignty and expose the United States' gross violation of international laws. The fact that the US is in Hawaii illegally must be exposed for the world ... as well as those in Hawaii ... to see.
Using football as a metaphor ... the recent Obama action is a "Hail Mary!" pass. The football is just flung out to the end zone hoping someone is there to catch it for a touchdown. It's an act of desperation that usually fails ... Usually ... But, there is a chance that it could succeed! Especially if the one who tossed the ball is also making up the rules, or even more the case, is not following the rules.
Thus, we cannot let down our guard. We have to be vigilant and bat down the ball and make sure no one catches it. That's an effective defense and over the years we've gotten pretty good at batting things down.
But, we all know the best defense is a strong offense. So what can we do to go on the offense?
What if we intercept that "Hail Mary pass"... and run it all the way into their end zone! Touchdown! (more like Checkmate!) That's taking the challenge to them! Let's take their last desperate play and turn it into a victory for us.
Here's what we do -
We say, "We are glad you're ready to recognize and restore a government-to-government relationship."
"Meet our sovereign, independent Hawaiian Kingdom. How about you, the U.S., recognize this real "government-to-government" relationship? ... one that you already recognized through several treaties dating all the way from 1825!"
------------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/09/28/hawaii-news/hawaiians-are-individuals-in-thought-like-any-people/
Hawaiians are individuals in thought, like any people
By Lee Cataluna, regular columnist
If there was one step we could take, one shift in perception, that would move every discussion about Native Hawaiian issues forward, it would be this:
Not every Native Hawaiian thinks or feels the same way.
It sounds stupid to say it -- I mean, of course! Why would any one group of people, especially a group as diverse and heterogeneous as people of Native Hawaiian ancestry living in the new millennium, be in total agreement on everything all the time?
Yet that ridiculous expectation colors so much of what is said about Native Hawaiians, including discussions of Native Hawaiian issues by Native Hawaiians.
One hallmark of White Privilege is the allowance for and the celebration of independent thought. People of color, though, are expected to think and act as a group. Hawaiians are lumped together in one category, particularly in political circles, media coverage and academic papers.
When some Native Hawaiians hold a press conference one day and a dissenting group holds a protest on the same issue the next, the reaction is largely, "Oh, those Hawaiians can just never get it together! They're always fighting among themselves!"
This from Americans who are so proud of their rugged individuality, spirited debates and inclusion of opposing views.
Case in point:
Last week, when Disney pulled the Halloween costume of Maui from stores and online shops, I had an idea for a story and reached out to various strong, intelligent, tattooed Polynesian men to ask what they thought about the controversial costume.
Guess what? Every man I asked had a different answer, ranging from "Who cares?" to "What the hell were they thinking?" to "If a little boy wants to look like me, go for it."
Who's right? They all are.
But that's just a costume.
Then there's the TMT telescope on Mauna Kea. Some Native Hawaiians say the ancients would have never allowed such desecration of a sacred place. Other Native Hawaiians say the ancients loved science, were avid explorers and would have embraced such a tool of knowledge.
And last week came word that the U.S. government had established a pathway for Native Hawaiian sovereignty through the Department of the Interior, which was met both with celebration and scorn by Native Hawaiians.
Who is right when the issue is much larger than a kid's costume?
The idea that there is one correct way to do things is something imposed on the culture.
There may never be agreement, but that does not mean progress in Native Hawaiian issues and concerns cannot be made. On the contrary. Disagreement is a fail-safe, a check to make sure that all voices are being heard and the best proposals are moved forward.
Dissension isn't a sign of weakness in a group. Only infantries and totalitarian states do well with total consensus. If Native Hawaiians don't fall lockstep on an issue -- any issue -- it is because smart people think for themselves and strong people can stand on their own principles, even if that means standing alone.
------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/09/making-things-right-for-all-native-hawaiians/
Making Things Right For All Native Hawaiians
Queen Liliuokalani's charge to the Hawaiian Kingdom is reflected in the Interior Department's new government-to-government rule.
By Zuri Aki
"Aloha to all of you. I did not think that you, the lahui, were still remembering me, since 10 years have passed since I became a mother for you, the lahui, and now the United States sits in power over me and over you, my dear nation.
"What has befallen you is very painful to me, but it could not be prevented. My mind has been opened because of what the United States has now given to the lahui Hawaii. Here is what I advise: that the people should look to the nation's leaders, Mr. Kaulia and Mr. Kalauokalani. A great responsibility has fallen upon them to look out for the welfare of the lahui in accordance with the laws that the United States has handed down, to ensure that the people will receive rights and benefits for our and future generations, and I will also derive that one benefit.
"We have no other direction left, except this unrestricted right, given by the United States to you the people. Grasp it, and hold on to it; it is up to you to make things right for all of us in the future."
The above passage is the English translation of a statement made by Queen Liliuokalani in Ke Aloha Aina on June 9, 1900 less than two months after Congress enacted the Hawaiian Organic Act, which made the Hawaiian Islands a territory of the United States and its people, United States citizens.
On Jan. 17, 1893, insurrectionists -- mostly White Hawaiian Kingdom subjects -- overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom government with the assistance of a racist U.S. government official, a sympathetic President Benjamin Harrison and a well-placed battalion of U.S. Marines. That's the quick-and-easy version – it gets a whole lot more complicated.
Queen Liliuokalani was imprisoned and for the remainder of the 19th century, Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, the overwhelming majority being Native Hawaiians, were disfranchised from governance and robbed of their political power.
Immediately after the 1893 overthrow the insurrectionist regime petitioned the U.S. Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands. That proposal was tossed out by President Grover Cleveland, who tried to restore Hawaiian independence. Four years later, that same insurrectionist regime – now calling itself the Republic of Hawaii – returned with another annexation proposal.
Hawaiians protested. They came out in the lehulehu a manomano (the great many and numerous). Organizers went door to door, amassing well over 30,000 signatures split between two petitions: one of them protesting the U.S. annexation of the Hawaiian Islands and the other calling for the restoration of Queen Liliuokalani. And they took it to Washington, D.C.
The annexation proposal failed to meet the required two-thirds majority Senate approval for ratification, but annexation supporters went with a simple majority scheme and laid claim to the Hawaiian Islands through a joint resolution.
Imagine, for just a moment, the loss – the gut-shot feeling of stratosphere-high-hope crashing down upon shattered dreams. Those dreams you've shared with your loved ones, generations of dreams built one upon the next, passed from grandparent to grandchild and beyond. Lifetimes, moments, hope, dreams. Gone.
Dream Killer, Hope Slayer
Native Hawaiians re-emerged in the wake of great catastrophe – foreign-introduced diseases that disappeared over 90 percent of the population. We pulled back from the brink of extinction and charged forward against one adversity after the other. A great many lives were lost in the struggle, but a great many more lived because of it.
The 1898 Joint Resolution wasn't just an illegal annexation violative of recognized international law at the time. It was a dream-killer, a hope-slayer, a world-breaker. It was a monster that tore down everything we had built and all that we had achieved -- in the face of insurmountable adversity -- and that monster threatened our continued existence. Imagine how you'd feel.
I look at the words written by Queen Liliuokalani, and I try to imagine what it meant for her to say that "we have no other direction left," and I try to imagine the great weight upon her heavy heart and naau, when she told her people to "grasp" and "hold" the power given to them by the United States "to make things right for all of us in the future."
I try to imagine the sheer force of determination our kupuna (ancestors) had when they rallied together. They propped up and gave props to their own American political parties and elected their own Native Hawaiian congressmen, throwing shade to all that had been thrown at them. They grasped and held the power given to them to survive, to make things right for all of us in the future.
The U.S. Department of the Interior laid a pathway for Native Hawaiians to acquire greater political power over our internal affairs by way of establishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the U.S. government (a.k.a. federal recognition). "Grasp it and hold on to it."
There are divisions within the Native Hawaiian community over this issue. Many fed-rec opponents believe that past U.S. wrongdoings entitle them to a form of restitution – specifically the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Quite a handful of these theories are manufactured by demagogues and self-proclaimed international legal experts who prey on the sense of injustice that many Native Hawaiians maintain.
These wayward theories have a tendency to allege that the Hawaiian Islands are under a belligerent U.S. occupation and that a simple trip to some international forum, be it the International Court of Justice, Permanent Court of Arbitration, or International Criminal Court, will result in a forceful withdrawal of U.S. interests. Yeah, that's not how it works.
For those that still believe such a thing, I impart to you these words from well-known international law jurist, James Crawford:
"The essential point is that in cases of a material violation of a peremptory norm, the lapse of time in and of itself does not extinguish title; what is required is a settlement of the underlying problem -- either an explicit statement or a general acceptance by the international community as a whole that the situation has been resolved. The internal situation within the territory concerned and the positive integration of its people into the State will be highly relevant in any assessment."
The international community, as a whole, appears to believe that the illegal annexation situation has been resolved. I believe our kupuna understood that 116 years ago, which prompted Queen Liliuokalani to express that we have "no other direction left," but to "grasp" and "hold" the power given to us by the United States "to make things right for all of us in the future." I, for one, intend to do just that.
Thank you, President Obama, for keeping our struggle in mind and to all those out there, who have supported (and continue to do so) Native Hawaiian rights and our exercise of self-determination. E ka Lahui Hawaii, e ola mau.
About the Author
------
** Online comment by Tim Osman
Your passion is admirable, but your blatant racism is impossible to ignore. You drafted and approved a document that is a modern equivalent of the 3/5 compromise, but even worse. You and many members of Na'i Aupuni envision a future island wherein all non-Hawaiians should be "resident non-citizens" with no voting rights, land rights, or ability to ever hold public office. That is a shamefully racist and ignorant position to take. I will assume it is because you buy into the UH Manoa propaganda that only white people can be racist? Or perhaps you, like so many other aspiring politicians, have let your self proclaimed authority blind you to the evil you are perpetuating. Either way, I do not understand why Civil Beat repeatedly gives you and others, like Lilikala, a pass on your efforts to create a super-Jim Crowe era in Hawaii of separate and unequal for anyone lacking the arbitrary blood quantum. Auwe.
================
Send comments or questions to:
You may now
RETURN TO VIEW THE ENTIRE HISTORY FOR 2015 AND 2016
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2016
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
Free Hawaii blog, September 24, 2016
Protest Na'i Aupuni Responds To DOI Ruling
Lancaster online [Lancaster, Pennsylvania], September 23, 2016
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hawaiilegalstatus/
that DOI had issued the final rule for a Hawaiian tribe. Here are a couple of comments and responses. Remember, Aki was the delegate to the Na'i Aupuni convention, who wrote the proposed Constitution.
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Daily Online Poll, September 25, 2016
A. Positive; advances self-determination (222 Votes) 26%
D. Don't understand issue (103 Votes) 12%
C. Negative; U.S. meddling in sovereignty (93 Votes) 11%
The Atlantic, September 25, 2016
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 26, 2016, EDITORIAL
Honolulu Civil Beat, September 26, 2016, guest commentary
How can Native Hawaiians establish a relationship with a country they contend has illegally occupied these islands since 1893?
Walter Ritte is a longtime Hawaiian activist who lives on the island of Molokai.
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/RepublicLettersRecog.html
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3764?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.+3764%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1
https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr3764/BILLS-114hr3764ih.xml
or, in pdf format with line numbers on each page for easy reference, see
https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr3764/BILLS-114hr3764ih.pdf
Free Hawaii blog, September 27, 2016
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/18300/Fake-Tribe-Denounced-ldquoThis-change-is-intended-to-circumvent-legal-congressional-processes-and-Hawaiian-community-inputrdquo.aspx?utm_source=September+25%2C+2016+News+from+Hawaii+Free+Press&utm_campaign=September+25%2C+2016+Email&utm_medium=email
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 28, 2016
Honolulu Civil Beat, September 28, 2016
Zuri Aki COLUMNIST has a B.A. in Hawaiian Studies from the University of Hawaii Manoa and a J.D. from William S. Richardson School of Law having focused on International Law and Environmental Law.
================
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
