Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Hawaii Legislature 2018 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Webpage published February 4, 2018 and then updated until end of session in May, whenever a new bill or resolution relevant to Hawaiian sovereignty was introduced and got a committee hearing.

Here is an internal search engine allowing you to find all pages on this website which discuss the topic you're interested in.

The Hawaii legislature is dominated by Democrats, most of whom are far to the left on the political spectrum. Legislation focusing on ethnic Hawaiians is often explicitly and shockingly favorable to racial supremacy, racial separatism in the tribal concept, and/or restoration of Hawaii as an independent nation. That's because ethnic Hawaiians as a group are the state pet: see "NATIVE HAWAIIANS AS THE STATE PET OR MASCOT: A Psychological Analysis of Why the People of Hawaii Tolerate and Irrationally Support Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism" at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hawnsasmascots.html

Hawaii has hundreds of racial entitlement programs. See webpage "For Hawaiians Only. Webpages identifying and describing government funded racial entitlement programs providing benefits exclusively to Native Hawaiians using taxpayer dollars from the U.S. and State of Hawaii." at
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html

These programs provide financial benefits or governmental authority (such as advisory councils or fishing rights) exclusively to people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. People without a drop of the magic blood cannot receive benefits or serve on these special commissions. Racial entitlement programs are stepping stones to political sovereignty. Indeed, one of the primary reasons for pushing the Akaka bill, or federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe, is to provide a legal defense against lawsuits to abolish racial entitlement programs on the grounds that they violate the 14th Amendment clause requiring that government must treat all people equally under the law regardless of race. Tribes are allowed to discriminate; but federal, state, and local governments are not.

Legislation in Hawaii for racial entitlement programs or race-based political power is usually passed unanimously, showing no difference between Democrats and Republicans, most of whom might be called RINOs (Republicans in name only). In previous years there might be an occasional "Nay" vote by the lone Republican Senator Sam Slom, who is politically conservative. As the only Republican in the Senate he was automatically a member of every committee but therefore was physically unable to attend most committee hearings. However, Senator Slom suffered major health issues in 2016 and was defeated for re-election. The Hawaii state Senate is now the only state legislative body in the U.S. where all members belong to a single political party. In the state House which has 51 Representatives only a handful are Republicans. The Republican leader in the House, Beth Fukumoto, announced in 2017 that she would switch to the Democrat party, and in 2018 sits in the House as a registered Democrat.

These bills and resolutions are troubling. The public should study them to get a grasp of how real are the dangers of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism in Hawaii. Citizens should phone or write to their legislators to express outrage when a legislator sponsors or votes in favor of bills and resolutions like these, which are both dangerous and ridiculous.

Each bill or resolution has its own webpage on the legislature's website. On that webpage there are links to full text of the bill or resolution, list of all the committee hearings including a record of how each legislator voted, a pdf file containing all the written testimony, and the official committee report for each committee. If a bill or resolution is introduced in either the House or Senate and also has a duplicate companion introduced in the other chamber, links are provided to the webpages for both of them. Full text is also provided of the testimony of Ken Conklin on behalf of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies. Conklin's testimony was provided to each committee as a formatted pdf file on letterhead, which can be seen in each committee's file of all testimony; but is also provided in simple text here on this webpage to save bandwidth. Bills are arranged approximately in the order in which a bill (or its cloned companion bill in the other chamber) had its first hearing.

This webpage was created on February 4, 2018 after 7 different bills (not counting cloned companions) had already had 9 hearings held or scheduled in either the House or Senate, or both, for which Ken Conklin had submitted testimony. More items were added to this webpage through the end of the legislative session in May, as new items got introduced and had committee hearings and Ken Conklin submitted testimony. However, ordinarily only Conklin's testimony on the first version of a bill or resolution was posted. Amended versions of bills or resolutions and new testimony can be tracked through the legislature's webpage for that item as listed for each item below.

SUMMARY COMPARING CONKLIN'S TESTIMONY WITH WHAT THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY DECIDED

The Hawaii state legislature adjourned for 2018 on May 3:

The website for the Legislature of the State of Hawaii is at
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov

Now that the regular session of 2018 has permanently adjourned, there are important lists summarizing what happened:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/advreports/main.aspx

It's useful to review the list of all bills that passed the legislature; and the list of all resolutions that passed either the House or Senate or both chambers; and to study the fate of bills and resolutions which were focused on issues related to Hawaiian sovereignty.

227 Bills that Passed the Legislature (Report complete after all bills are sent to the Governor)
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/advreports/advreport.aspx?year=2018&report=deadline&rpt_type=passLeg_bills&measuretype=HB,SB&title=Bills%20that%20Passed%20Legislature%20(Report%20complete%20after%20all%20bills%20are%20sent%20to%20the%20Governor)

170 Resolutions Adopted [either Senate Resolution, House Resolution, or Concurrent Resolution starting in one chamber and passed by both]
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/advreports/advreport.aspx?year=2018&report=resosadopted&title=Resolutions%20Adopted

THE WEBPAGE: Hawaii Legislature 2018 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome. These are the bills and resolutions identified by Ken Conklin for special attention -- for each one the full text of Ken Conklin's testimony is provided, along with links to the text of each bill or resolution (original version and all amended versions), the full text of all testimony provided to each committee which held a hearing, the yea and nay votes and official report of each committee, and the tracking of progress through the legislature.
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/LegislatureHawSov2018.html

By the end of session, Ken Conklin had selected 17 unique bills or resolutions as sufficiently important to provide testimony. He provided followup testimony for each followup hearing on the item or its amended versions as it got passed along from committee to committee and then also in the other chamber for each bill or resolution amended version or clone or companion.

Nearly every bill or resolution for which Conklin provided testimony in opposition was defeated or died somewhere along the way. Of course Conklin cannot claim exclusive or even primary credit for killing these bad bills or resolutions; but it is interesting that in most cases Conklin's was the only testimony in opposition while sometimes there were large numbers of individuals or powerful institutions favoring them. The moral to this story is that citizens should make the effort to express their views on legislation by providing written testimony; and sometimes that testimony might actually influence the outcome.

Here is a list of the only 5 items which the legislature passed, out of the 17 items which Conklin opposed.

HB2594 HD2 SD2 CD1
Kaho�olawe Island Reserve Commission; Appropriation ($)
RELATING TO THE KAHO�OLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION.
Appropriates funds for the Kaho�olawe Island Reserve Commission to restore, preserve, and determine the appropriate uses of Kaho�olawe island, and to fund one full-time equivalent permanent cultural resource project coordinator position for the Kaho�olawe Island Reserve Commission.

HR110
Hawaiian Language; Places and Geographic Features
URGING THE USAGE OF HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE WHEN REFERRING TO THE NAMES OF PLACES AND GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES IN HAWAI�I.

SR18 SD1
Hawaiian Language; Local Flora and Fauna
URGING THE USE OR INCORPORATION OF THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE INTO THE VOCABULARY USED TO IDENTIFY LOCAL FLORA AND FAUNA AND INTO SAFETY WARNINGS AND ENCOURAGING THE IMPROVED PRONUNCIATION OF WORDS IN THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE.

SCR74 SD1
Health Insurance; Native Hawaiian Culture-based Activities; Papa Ola Lokahi; Assessment
REQUESTING PAPA OLA LOKAHI TO ASSESS THE IMPACT ON SOCIAL, FINANCIAL, AND CULTURAL INTEGRITY OF PROVIDING HEALTH COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NATIVE HAWAIIAN CULTURE-BASED ACTIVITIES.

SR44 SD1
Native Hawaiian Health Care; Federal Funding
REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO AMEND THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT TO ENSURE THAT THE ACT RECEIVES PERMANENT AUTHORITY.

Conklin's opposition to the two items regarding Hawaiian names for flora, fauna, and place names was focused on demands for exclusive use of Hawaiian names to completely replace English names, or giving Hawaiian names primacy over English or Latin names. Conklin's opposition to the two items regarding healthcare was focused on the fraudulent skewing of statistics for Hawaiian victimhood by ignoring other ethnicities that have higher percentage in the actual ancestries of so-called "Native Hawaiians", falsely making it appear that Hawaiians are the worst victims. Conklin's opposition to the Kaho'olawe appropriation was based on the fact that OHA should pay for it because that island is required by law to be given to the Hawaiian tribe as soon as the tribe achieves official federal and state recognition.

Note that there were very important items which Conklin opposed, and which eventually failed in the legislature, including: increasing OHA's share of ceded land revenue; expanding the number of state government officials who are forced to endure OHA's propaganda training program; using the race of school children as the basis for choosing which schools shall get curriculum focusing on Hawaiian history and culture; appropriating big money to translate the Hawaii state Constitution and/or statutes and public documents into Hawaiian language; providing race-based exceptions to laws protecting marine species or providing stronger punishments exclusively for property crime that affects property especially treasured by a favored race; allowing ethnic Hawaiians to register to vote in federal or state elections even if they are not citizens of the U.S. or of the State of Hawaii (or if they choose not to so identify because they refuse to acknowledge that they are citizens of the U.S. [no treaty of annexation] or of the State of Hawaii [fake state]).

===============

TABLE OF CONTENTS: List of bills and resolutions in the order they appear below, for the 2018 Hawaii Legislature. Scroll down to find the one that interests you.

HB 1747 and SB 2136 RELATING TO INCREASING THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS' PRO RATA SHARE OF PUBLIC LAND TRUST FUNDS.
Establishes $35,000,000 as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' pro rata share of the public land trust. Transfers $119,000,000 less certain funds to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for underpayment of the public land trust funds for 7/1/12 to 6/30/18. Requires the Department of Land and Natural Resources to provide an annual accounting of receipts from lands described in section 5(f) of the Admissions Act. Establishes a committee to recommend the annual amount of the income and proceeds from the public land trust that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall receive annually. Appropriates funds.

HB 1745 and SB 2134 RELATING TO TRAINING.
Requires certain additional government decision-makers at both the state and county levels to complete the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' training courses on Native Hawaiian and Hawaiian rights established by Act 169, SLH 2015.
[** Please see also the materials related to another bill found lower down on this webpage: HB 1999 RELATING TO TRAINING.
Requires certain government decision-makers at the state and county levels to attend a training course on native Hawaiian and Hawaiian rights.]

SB 2687 and Proposed SD1 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE.
Appropriates funds to the University of Hawai'i to translate the Hawai'i State Constitution into the Hawaiian language.
Proposed SD1 in addition Requires courts to provide Hawaiian language translation services upon request of any party to a proceeding. (Proposed SD1)
[** See also lower down on this webpage HB 2438 RELATING TO THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE; but which has a different purpose.]

HB 2685 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN EDUCATION
Appropriates funds for the Office of Hawaiian Education of the Department of Education to continue the Hawaiian Studies Program at the three elementary schools with the largest population of native Hawaiians.
After receiving my testimony, the House Committee on Education amended the bill to HB2685 HD1 and passed it out of committee with the following description:
Appropriates funds for the Office of Hawaiian Education of the Department of Education to continue the Hawaiian Studies Program in schools as determined by the Office of Hawaiian Education.
** The new HD1 version of the bill would provide funding for the Office of Hawaiian Education separate and apart from the rest of the Department of Education (so the larger DOE could not cannibalize these funds for other DOE programs), and then would allow the Office of Hawaiian Education to allocate its separate funding however it chooses (and thus could spend the money solely for schools with the highest percentages of ethnic Hawaiians, allocating the money this way behind the scenes in a way that would make it very difficult for anyone outside DOE to see how the allocation was done or for what reason).
** Therefore I wrote extensive new testimony for the HD1 version, attacking the bill itself and the Office of Hawaiian Education and its Director for pushing an agenda of racial separatism.

SB 3027 and HB 2594 RELATING TO THE KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION.
Appropriates funds for the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission to restore, preserve, and determine the appropriate uses of Kaho'olawe island, and to fund one full-time equivalent (1.00 FTE) permanent position for the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission.

HB 1999 RELATING TO TRAINING.
Requires certain government decision-makers at the state and county levels to attend a training course on native Hawaiian and Hawaiian rights.
[** Please see also the information about another bill and its companion, whose materials can be found higher up on this webpage:
HB 1745 and SB 2134 RELATING TO TRAINING.
Requires certain additional government decision-makers at both the state and county levels to complete the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' training courses on Native Hawaiian and Hawaiian rights established by Act 169, SLH 2015.]

HB 2438 RELATING TO THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE.
Makes knowledge of the Hawaiian language a desirable qualification for all state positions. Requires all public information officers of the State to have basic skills in the Hawaiian language. Requires the University of Hawaii to develop and implement a program to translate public documents, including the State Constitution, into the Hawaiian language. Makes an appropriation.
[** Please see also higher up on this webpage SB 2687 and Proposed SD1 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE; but which has a different purpose.]

SB 2079 RELATED TO SHARK AND RAY PROTECTION.
Establishes penalties and fines for any person who knowingly captures, kills, or takes any shark within state marine waters and makes it a misdemeanor. Provides exemptions for native Hawaiian gathering rights and cultural practices, special activity permits, research purposes, and public safety. Expands the existing prohibition on knowingly capturing or killing a manta ray to all rays.

SB 2133 and HB1744 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN CULTURAL RESERVES
Requires the counties to provide for the establishment of Hawaiian cultural reserves as a condition of approval and development of certain types of subdivisions and condominium property regimes on agricultural and rural lands that include the construction of dwellings

SB 2863 RELATING TO THE PENAL CODE.
Amends the crimes of criminal property damage in the first, second, and third degrees to include damage to property holding cultural or historical significance to Native Hawaiians according to the dollar value of the damaged property.

SB2204 RELATING TO THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HAWAII STATE CAPITOL.
Appropriates funds to the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts to fund celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the Hawaii state capitol.

HB2473 and SB2424 RELATING TO HOUSING FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS.
Authorizes the construction and use of micro housing units on Hawaiian home lands managed by DHHL, notwithstanding zoning laws, permit provisions, and building codes. Authorizes the use of the Hawaiian home loan fund and Hawaiian home general fund for assistance in purchasing or renting micro housing units for use on Hawaiian home lands managed by DHHL and leased to beneficiaries. Makes an appropriation to the Hawaii housing finance and development corporation for construction of micro housing units, subject to certain conditions, and to build general organizational capacity of native Hawaiian-controlled nonprofit housing developers.

SCR72
URGING THE OFFICE OF ELECTIONS TO AMEND THE CHOICE FOR SELF-DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE AFFIANT TO IDENTIFY AS A PERSON BORN WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE STATE OF HAWAI'I OR A DESCENDANT OF ANY CITIZEN OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM THAT THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED AS A NATION PRIOR TO 1893.

HCR 89/HR73 and SCR73/SR44
REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO AMEND THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT TO ENSURE THAT THE ACT RECEIVES PERMANENT FUNDING.

SR18
URGING THE USE OR INCORPORATION OF THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE INTO THE VOCABULARY USED TO IDENTIFY LOCAL FLORA AND FAUNA AND INTO SAFETY WARNINGS AND ENCOURAGING THE IMPROVED PRONUNCIATION OF WORDS IN THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE.

HCR 160/HR 110
URGING THE USAGE OF HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE WHEN REFERRING TO THE NAMES OF PLACES AND GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES IN HAWAI'I.

SCR 74/SR43
REQUESTING THE AUDITOR TO ASSESS THE SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF REQUIRING HEALTH INSURERS TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NATIVE HAWAIIAN CULTURE-BASED ACTIVITIES.

============

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS:

1. The legislature always has the power to amend or rescind any statute law. Act 273 (1980) requiring payment of 20% of ceded land revenue to OHA has created 38 years of bitter controversy and litigation, and should be rescinded. OHA should be funded the same way as other departments of the State government, through ordinary budget appropriations. Put an end to OHA's incessant lawsuits over the 20% rule.

2. If the legislature chooses to maintain the 20% rule, the base for calculating 20% should be net income after expenses, not gross revenue. Taxpayers pay for all capital investments and operating expenses whereby the ceded lands are enabled to produce revenue, so it is illegal and immoral for OHA to siphon off gross revenue while the other 80% of the land trust beneficiaries, lacking a drop of Hawaiian blood, pay all the costs and receive none of the revenue.

3. The Ceded Lands Trust costs the State many times more annually for operating expense than the 1.2 million acres bring in. A previous state Director of finance and a Land Information Systems Manager acknowledged in a formal court declaration that this disparity between trust expenses and trust receipts has occurred in every year since statehood. Thus there is no net income from the ceded lands to be distributed to OHA or any of the other ceded land trust beneficiaries named in Section 5(f) of the Statehood Admissions Act -- the ceded lands money distributed to OHA is actually tax dollars in disguise.

4. This bill would require an absurd quarterly payout of OHA's share of ceded land gross revenues from each department of government without regard to ceded land deficits (capital investment or operating expenses) incurred by that department in other quarters or deficits incurred by other departments of the State government. Any corporation that irretrievably paid its taxes quarterly for profitable business lines and was never able to offset profits with losses would quickly go bankrupt.

5. Section 5(f) of the statehood Admissions Act identifies 5 purposes for which ceded land revenues can be used. So what about the remaining 4 purposes in addition to "betterment of native Hawaiians"? If OHA gets a dedicated 20% of ceded land revenue to fulfill one of the 5 purposes, then the public school system should also be getting its own dedicated 20% portion; the development of low-income housing should be getting its 20% portion; the Department of Land and Natural Resources (especially the Parks Department) should be getting its 20% portion; etc.

6. For the first 20 years of statehood, 100% of ceded land revenue was given to the public schools, where 26% of the children are Native Hawaiians. Thus 26% of ceded land revenues went for the betterment of Native Hawaiians, without any need for race-specific earmarking. Remove racial entitlements, which are both unconstitutional and immoral.

SOME DETAILS ABOUT THOSE POINTS

1. There is a long history of contentious negotiation, legislation, and litigation over the amount of money owed to OHA under the rule specifying 20% of ceded land revenue. The first half of this bill reviews some of the elements of that history. The requirement to pay OHA 20% of ceded land revenue is statutory law enacted as Act 273, Session laws of 1980. Therefore, this law can be amended by the legislature at any time to reduce the percentage; or the law can be rescinded entirely.

Act 273, Session laws of 1980 should be rescinded. OHA should be funded in the same manner as any other branch of the State government; i.e., by an appropriation included in the annual or biennial State budget, including a line-item listing of the purposes for which the money is to be spent. Then there would be no further conflict or litigation over how to calculate the 20%. This bill proposes yet another in a long history of complicated formulas for calculating the number of dollars required by the 20% rule. Over the years these recalculations have come to resemble a Rube Goldberg device where a long series of tracks, levers, springs, bells, and whistles eventually propel a ball to its final destination. Let's get rid of that nonsense.

Repeal the 20% rule and fund OHA by ordinary budget appropriations in the same way as any other department of the State government.

Act 273 (1980) says "twenty per cent of all funds derived from the public land trust ... shall be expended by the office of Hawaiian affairs ... for the purposes of this chapter." Act 273 does not say the funds may be invested in an investment portfolio, it says the funds SHALL BE EXPENDED to provide services. Yet OHA seems to think it can grab tens of millions of dollars every year which it then invests or uses for political purposes such as lobbying for the Akaka bill or building a racial registry for "nationbuilding", but OHA fails to provide more than sporadic and inadequate funding for purposes which OHA should be supporting.

OHA currently has over $600 Million in assets. No other agency of the state government is allowed to squirrel away huge amounts of wealth as a permanent cash stash. At its current level of expenditures OHA has enough money in its slush fund to meet all its budget needs for more than a decade. Stop feeding this beast.

2. If the legislature unwisely chooses to keep the requirement of a specific percentage of ceded land revenue to be paid to OHA, then the legislature should write into law that the percentage must be calculated on the base of NET INCOME AFTER EXPENSES rather than gross revenue. It costs a lot of money to construct roads and buildings, supply water and electricity, and pay salaries of staff who operate or maintain the facilities that generate revenue from the ceded lands. Those capital expenditures and operating expenses should be deducted from gross revenue to determine the net income to be used when applying the percentage to calculate how much money to pay to OHA. In many if not most cases, government lands and infrastructure operate at a loss because their purpose is to provide services rather than to make a profit. That's why government imposes taxes in order to provide funding for its operations. Taxpayers pay for all capital investments and operating expenses whereby the ceded lands are enabled to produce revenue, so it is illegal and immoral for OHA to siphon off gross revenue while other land trust beneficiaries pay all the costs and receive none of the revenue.

3. In 2008 Georgina K. Kawamura, Director of Finance of the State of Hawaii, and Arthur J. Buto, State Land Information Systems Manager, stated in a formal court declaration that the Ceded Lands Trust costs the State many times more annually than the 1.2 million acres bring in. They also acknowledged that this disparity between trust expenses and trust receipts has occurred in every year since statehood. Thus there is no net income from the ceded lands to be distributed to OHA or any of the other ceded land trust beneficiaries named in Section 5(f) of the Statehood Admissions Act -- the ceded lands money already distributed to OHA is actually tax dollars in disguise. As attorney H. William Burgess said in 2002, "This can be fairly characterized as a confession of guilt to systematic and massive misappropriation of trust funds over the last three decades." From July 1, 1990 to June 30, 2002 OHA and DHHL together cost the State treasury more than a Billion dollars, and in 2002 the estimated cost for the following 10 years from July 1, 2004 through June 2014 was projected to be an additional two Billion dollars, for a total of three Billion dollars. See documentation of these figures, including spreadsheets filed in Arakaki v. Lingle, at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/ohadhhlburdenstatetreasury.html
Enough already! No wonder the State is having budget problems!

4. This bill would require that " ... the departments [named] ... shall determine and transfer to the office of Hawaiian affairs that portion of their receipts from the use, sale, lease, or other disposition of lands within the public land trust collected during each fiscal quarter ... is transferred to the office of Hawaiian affairs, within thirty days of the close of each fiscal quarter ..." This piecemeal attack on each individual department and agency would impose a heavy burden of staff time and accounting. More importantly, it would cause the disappearance of net losses from the overall accounting regarding departments and agencies whose capital expenditures and operating expenses for the ceded lands under their control exceed the revenue generated by those ceded lands. Let's say that more clearly. If a department has a profit for a calendar quarter, it must immediately pay 20% to OHA; but if it has a loss in another calendar quarter, that loss cannot be used to offset the profit in any previous or subsequent quarter; and also, if a department has a loss, that loss cannot be used by any other department or agency to offset its profit. Profits have 20% skimmed off immediately and sent to OHA, whereas losses get swept under the rug. The correct way to do the accounting should be annually not quarterly, and should be done overall for the totality of ceded land revenue from all departments rather than individually for each department separately. A corporation does not send the government irretrievable taxes quarterly for each profitable line of its business while "eating" and ignoring that business line's losses in other quarters and ignoring the losses of other business lines. Any corporation that did its accounting in such a manner would soon go bankrupt (just like the State of Hawaii is on track to do!). As noted in item (3), annual accounting for all departments jointly would then discover that net income is zero or negative, and 20% of zero would be zero dollars for OHA. Indeed, if net ceded land income is negative then OHA should be required pay 20% of that to the State general fund as its rightful share of the loss. Shouldn't OHA help to paddle our collective canoe?

5. Here is the relevant language from section 5(f) of the statehood Admissions Act identifying the 5 purposes for the use of ceded land revenues: "... for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions, for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible for the making of public improvements, and for the provision of lands for public use." So what about the remaining 4 purposes in addition to betterment of native Hawaiians? If OHA gets a dedicated 20% of ceded land revenue to fulfill one of the 5 purposes, then the public school system plus UH should also be getting its own dedicated 20% portion; the development of low-income housing should be getting its 20% portion; the Department of Land and Natural Resources (especially the Parks Department) and the Highway Department should be getting its 20% portion; etc. Furthermore, each of those departments should be getting its money quarterly as the bill requires for OHA, and in the same dollar amount. Really?

A valuable webpage providing information about 856 government funded racial entitlement programs for the exclusive benefit of "Native Hawaiians" was disrupted but has now been partially restored. Several other webpages on the same topic are also available. All these programs, valued into the Billions of dollars, are paid for by tax dollars from the governments of the United States and the State of Hawaii. It is likely that these programs are unconstitutional. Some have been challenged in state and federal courts. Thus far the lawsuits to dismantle them have been dismissed on technical procedural issues including "standing" and the "political question" doctrine. However, those dismissals never reached the merits of these cases. Thus all these programs remain available as targets for future civil rights lawsuits based on the 14th Amendment equal protection clause and other arguments. Keep in mind that this compilation pertains only to government programs funded by taxpayers, and does not include enormous privately funded programs such as Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) which alone is worth $10-15 Billion, Lili'uokalani Childrens Trust, and many others. More recently, the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Native Hawaiian Relations, has published a 217- page list of federal programs and grants for ethnic Hawaiians.

See details on the webpage "For Hawaiians Only" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html

7. As a condition for receiving budget appropriations or ceded land revenues, OHA should be required to fulfill whatever obligation the State may have to fund the operation of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands -- especially the huge amount of alleged arrears which a court decision ordered the legislature to pay. Let the Office of HAWAIIAN affairs support the Department of HAWAIIAN homelands -- that's the real reason why Section 5(f) of the 1959 Admissions Act specified that one purpose for which ceded land revenues can be spent is "for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians AS DEFINED IN THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT, 1920."

8. The dollar amount for future annual payments as specified in this bill is unsupportable by facts. The dollar amount for makeup of alleged arrears is both unsupportable by facts and would violate previous agreements negotiated in good faith. This bill would establish $35,000,000 as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs� annual share of the income and proceeds of the public land trust beginning in fiscal year 2018- 2019. Furthermore this bill would transfer to the office of Hawaiian affairs a sum of $119,000,000 to pay the office of Hawaiian affairs amounts received from the use of the public land trust that were allegedly underpaid between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2018.

But those dollar amounts are unsupportable by facts. There is no inventory of the ceded lands, which is why the state Supreme Court several years ago dismissed OHA's lawsuit as non-justiciable -- there was no way for the court to calculate dollar amounts of ceded land revenues produced from lands for which there was no inventory list.

OHA previously reached a settlement with the State, enacted into law by the legislature, regarding annual payments in lieu of indeterminable ceded land revenues. State land in Kaka'ako valued by mutual agreement at $200,000,000 was transferred to OHA. Comes now OHA crying that the agreed-upon dollar amount was too low. Boo-hoo! How much is enough? Political pressure to pass this bill, along with propaganda film broadcast repeatedly on TV, are evidence that no amount would ever be enough to satisfy the monster that is devouring Hawaii. Enough already! Stop feeding this beast.

====================

HB 1745 and SB 2134 RELATING TO TRAINING.
Requires certain additional government decision-makers at both the state and county levels to complete the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' training courses on Native Hawaiian and Hawaiian rights established by Act 169, SLH 2015.
[Please see also the materials related to another bill found lower down on this webpage: HB 1999 RELATING TO TRAINING.
Requires certain government decision-makers at the state and county levels to attend a training course on native Hawaiian and Hawaiian rights.]

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

Last year OHA cajoled the legislature into passing a law that forced heads of specified state and county departments to take a training course whose content and instructors are dictated by OHA. This year OHA wants to expand its empire by requiring more government employees of additional departments to endure the OHA training. Next year OHA will seek to expand even further.

Make no mistake about what's going on here. OHA has certain views on controversial political issues and wants to make sure that decision-makers and employees of other government agencies get brainwashed to believe in OHA's propaganda, with no presentation of opposing views. Would any member of a state or county department dare to ask a question in class that challenges the correctness of what the OHA-designated teacher is saying, or disagrees with the opinions being presented? By analogy, imagine the situation of a middle-school student from a Christian fundamentalist family being forced to attend a sex-education course which graphically describes anal sex as normal behavior, and whose parents are denied the right to opt-out. This bill places one state agency, OHA, in a position of authority over other state agencies by requiring employees to pass a course whose purpose is to brainwash them with the political views of OHA. Dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of state and county department heads would now be placed under the direct authority and supervision of OHA, knowing that if they refuse to kow-tow to their OHA instructor they will be given a failing grade in this mandatory course and will then be ineligible to continue in their job. Does any state agency other than OHA exercise comparable authority over other agencies?

OHA has certain views about the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 that overthrew the monarchy, and points to the Blount Report of 1893 and the U.S. apology resolution of 1993 to bolster OHA's views. But those views are controversial, and are disproved by the Morgan Report issued by the U.S. Senate in 1894 and by the majority report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission issued by a joint Senate/House commission in 1996. Can we expect OHA to provide both sides of this controversy, or will OHA brainwash state employees by teaching only the views OHA endorses? This bill would require government employees to learn about, and give deference to, the ancient Hawaiian religion as the justification for various state laws and practices regarding water rights for taro, protection of ancient burials, etc. It would constitute an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and it would also force employees who have no Hawaiian blood to bow to a religion which portrays people who do have Hawaiian blood as possessing an inherent God-given right to rule these islands.

This bill requires government employees to learn about "traditional and customary rights" of Native Hawaiians to ensure that in carrying out their duties, the employees will give respect and deference to Native Hawaiian beliefs and cultural values. For example, we might expect employees to be trained regarding sacred places, the reasons why taro patches are given special guarantees of access to water, the reasons why ancient burials must not be disturbed, etc. Those topics, and many others, are based in the ancient Hawaiian religion, which has a creation legend which today's sovereignty activists (incorrectly) describe as portraying Native Hawaiians (and only Native Hawaiians) as genealogically the children of the gods and the brothers to these islands, and the younger brothers of the taro plant, in a way nobody ever can be who lacks a drop of native blood.

The Hawaiian religion is the only one to be given special deference under the terms of this bill; thus this bill would be a government establishment of religion. Under terms of this legislation, government money will be used to indoctrinate government employees with a religious belief. Furthermore, the way that belief is likely to be taught can best be described as religious fascism because it provides a theological justification for giving governmental authority over land-use decisions to a particular racial group.

In 1819, the year before the American missionaries came to Hawaii, the sovereign King Liholiho Kamehameha II, with his birth mother Keopuolani and his regent stepmother Queen Ka'ahumanu, and with Kahuna Nui (High Priest) Hewahewa, exercised self- determination on behalf of all native Hawaiians to abolish the ancient religion, and ordered the destruction of the heiaus and burning of idols. Those ethnic Hawaiians who try to resurrect the ancient religion for political purposes disrespect the decision of their ali'is and ancestors. By seeking to elevate that ancient religion above all other religions, they disrespect the right to freedom of religion possessed by all Americans.

This committee should not disrespect the mainstream majority of today's ethnic Hawaiians, and the multiracial, multicultural people of Hawaii, by passing this bill. Please vote "No."

=================

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

In 2017 the original version of a similar bill SB560 proposed to appropriate $25,000.00 for that fiscal year, and an additional $25,000 for the following fiscal year, for the University of Hawaii to translate the Hawaii state constitution into the Hawaiian language.

Apparently that $50,000 was either not enough money, or else the project might have been contemplated to be put out to bid in hopes of getting a lower price -- because the number of dollars to be appropriated was left blank in the final SD1,HD1 version which then mercifully died. Also it seems that there was hope that the bidding frenzy among competing translator contractors could be sorted out out soon after the bill's effective date of January 7, 2059. Would it really take that long? It would not be surprising, considering how slowly our government bureaucrats work. This year we're starting out with an initial SB 2687 and a Proposed SD1 which both have an effective date of July 1, 2018. That's progress.

Come on, folks, it should not be necessary to appropriate any money to get the State Constitution translated into Hawaiian language.

How many millions of dollars have already been spent to establish programs at the University of Hawaii whose purpose is to produce students who are fluent in Hawaiian language at all levels of expertise from bachelors to doctoral degrees?

Surely the professors of Hawaiian language could find students in their classes who would be capable and willing to do the translation manuahi (for free). Students might work as individuals in competition with each other to see whose translation is best. Or the translation job might be done as a class project with students working together cooperatively on a portion of the constitution each week until the entire document has been translated.

Similar projects have been done where students translate articles in the Hawaiian language newspapers from the 1800s into English; so why not have students translate the English language state constitution into Hawaiian?

Not every good thing requires an appropriation of taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, if money were actually necessary to do this project, then the first place to look for the money should be the very wealthy OHA ($600 Million) or Kamehameha Schools ($10 Billion to $15 Billion).

As an aside, the Constitution mandates there must be a ballot question this year asking whether there should be a Constitutional Convention. So it would be nice for this committee to ask the Legislative Reference Bureau and the legislature's webmaster to locate and place on the legislature's website a "clean copy" of the latest version of our state Constitution, which does not force readers to follow the paths of footnotes and citations to court decisions which have forced changes to the 1978 version -- for example, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano abolished the original 1978 racial restriction on who can vote for OHA trustees, and the followup 9th Circuit Court decision in Arakaki v. State abolished the original 1978 racial restriction on who can run as a candidate and/or be appointed to the OHA board. This bill should make it clear exactly which version of the Constitution is to be translated into Hawaiian. It would also be useful to post on the legislature's website the two-volume proceedings of the State Constitutional Convention of 1978, which includes official committee reports and also transcripts of floor debates that are helpful in deciphering legislative intent (In August 2017 State Senator Les Ihara posted it on the internet).

Now I focus attention on the newly proposed version SD1 which would create a completely new law about court interpreter services: "Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a court shall provide interpreter services if any party to a proceeding requests that the proceeding be conducted in the Hawaiian language."

There are both practical and legal difficulties with that proposal.

First, be clear: Does this bill propose to require courts to provide not only interpreter services for oral testimony but also translator services for written documents offered as evidence or testimony or exhibits? Are the interpreter and translator services to be paid for at taxpayer expense, even without an affidavit or evidence of indigence?

If you do these things for ethnic Hawaiians, and/or for speakers of Hawaiian language, then you MUST also do these things for people of all ethnicities and all languages. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the Equal Protection clause which requires all people to be treated equally under the law and has been interpreted to require equal treatment regardless of race, religion, or national origin.

What the SD1 proposes is to allow a party to a court proceeding, who is fluent in English, to nevertheless choose a different language merely as a matter of personal preference, protest, or political belligerence.

Hawaii has thousands of people who are first or second generation from Philippines, Japan, China, Korea, etc. who are fluent in English but who might prefer to use their native language in court. You must now allow them to do so if SD1 becomes law. Indeed, their right to use their native language is superior to the right of an ethnic Hawaiian to use Hawaiian, because virtually 100% of the people who speak Hawaiian are native speakers of English (i.e., they grew up speaking English) regardless of the fact that they might be genetical natives of Hawaii.

Article XV Section 4 of the Hawaii Constitution includes a disclaimer or restriction, which I have emphasized in this quotation of it: "English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, EXCEPT THAT HAWAIIAN SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS ONLY AS PROVIDED BY LAW."

I have researched the legislative history of Article XV Section 4 from the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention of 1978, and have found no evidence that there was any legislative intent to place Hawaiian on an equal footing with English in legal proceedings. Indeed, the author of Article XV Section 4, Adelaide (Frenchy) De Soto, explicitly said that her reason for introducing it was her unhappiness that Hawaiian was grouped with foreign languages in college catalogues. Please see my webpage on this topic at
https://tinyurl.com/ybn4l6pd

One more point needs to be raised here even though it is "politically incorrect" and perhaps painful to do so.

Probably everyone who chooses to use Hawaiian language in court proceedings will do so for political reasons as an act of resistance, defiance and hostility toward the United States and its "puppet regime" the State of Hawaii. They will not use Hawaiian for routine, mundane matters such as divorce, refunds of apartment rental deposits, etc.

The people who speak Hawaiian in our courtrooms are engaged in street-theatre. They are literally in contempt of court, because they claim our courts have no jurisdiction over them due to the "illegal military invasion and occupation" of Hawaii as admitted in the U.S. "confession" of 1993 (i.e., the apology resolution). So even after you are so kind to let them testify in Hawaiian, and you are so generous to pay for their interpreters, they will then refuse to obey your decision or court order.

These Hawaiian sovereignty protesters are intentionally using Hawaiian language as a political weapon or stunt to delay and disrupt court proceedings, and to assert the continuing existence of a Hawaiian nation. By allowing Hawaiian language testimony you are allowing our courtrooms to be used as stages for political rallies by people who refuse to recognize the jurisdiction or legitimacy of the State of Hawaii. This was abundantly clear in the case of the criminal trial of Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo (Maui protester against telescopes on Mauna Kea and Haleakala) and the civil trial regarding possession and occupancy of the Coco Palms resort (Kaua'i). To avoid the insincere use of Hawaiian as a political stunt for street theatre, perhaps this legislation should require anyone demanding to use any language other than English to sign an affidavit, under penalties of perjury, that he/she acknowledges the jurisdiction of the court and will abide by its decision (subject to appeal on grounds other than jurisdiction).

Whether you realize it or not, this bill is an enabler and accessory to racial divisiveness, anti-Americanism, anarchy and revolution. Please see my large, detailed webpage "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" at
http://tinyurl.com/668vqyz
and my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

================

Ken Conklin's testimony to the original bill, in opposition:

It is shocking to see a bill actually introduced in the legislature that is so blatantly racist and unconstitutional. The sponsors and introducers of the bill deserve special opprobrium, along with any committee chair who exercises a chair's discretion to hold a hearing on it rather than simply trashing it as happens with other absurd or immoral bills (or even with reasonable bills that a chair is personally opposed to). I note that the bill is NOT introduced "by request" of some misguided constituent, but appears to actually express the views of those who have signed it. Shame!

Why am I so aggressively adamant in condemning this bill?

It requires taxpayer dollars to be spent on curriculum for a few favored schools but not for other schools, based solely on the racial composition of the students enrolled in the schools!

What? Really? Let's see what the most important sentence of this very short bill says. "There is appropriated out of the general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ or so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2018-2019 for the continued funding of the Hawaiian studies program at the three elementary schools with the largest population of native Hawaiian students."

Section 1 of the bill would put the legislature on record as affirming how important this program is -- not only for ethnic Hawaiian students but for ALL the children of Hawaii. "The legislature further finds that all K-12 public education students should develop, maintain, and grow in an understanding and appreciation of Hawaiian culture, language, values, practices, and concepts consistent with the State�s recognition of the current and historical context of these islands."

It is clearcut racial discrimination to provide valuable curriculum to students of a favored racial group while denying it to all others whose race the legislature deems less favorable or less worthy.

How many decades have passed since Mississippi had fancy drinking fountains under signs that said "Whites" and shabby fountains under signs that said "Coloreds"?

If there are budget cutbacks restricting the funding for such programs, then you must find a race-neutral criterion for allocating the money. Examples: the three elementary schools with the largest student enrollment [because you will reach more students at lower per-pupil overhead cost]; the three elementary schools with the highest percentage of children signed up for free lunch [because you regard the curriculum as some sort of welfare program]; the three elementary schools with the highest median scores on the 5th grade standardized test of student achievement [because those kids will derive the greatest academic/intellectual benefit and are more likely to become our future leaders].

The bill directs money to the Office of Hawaiian Education. That gives me a good reason to point out to the legislature that this particular Office is guilty of perpetuating a racially inflammatory falsehood in the curriculum it teaches, as shown on its official webpage. The falsehood is repeated three times in a short webpage on the history of Hawaiian education, credited to the Director Dawn Kau'ilani Sang. I contacted Director Sang in early 2016, persisted in working my way through the bureaucracy in the face of unresponsive stonewalling, until finally Superintendent Matayoshi replied that no correction would be made, but without providing any evidence to contradict the detailed and extensive proof of falsehood I had sent. To this day the offending webpage remains unchanged.

The offending Office of Hawaiian Education webpage on the history of Hawaiian education is at
https://tinyurl.com/y8cb323g

My complaint describing what falsehood is asserted three times, my proof that it is false, and a chronology of the steps I took to get it corrected (including emails I sent), are on a detailed webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/z77ogbq

The Office of Hawaiian Education is being used for political purposes, and the Hawaiian Studies curriculum is being used to spew racially divisive propaganda to children too young to realize what is happening to them. Please do not enable that Office any further, and consider redirecting its budget to more constructive purposes that will help unite us instead of dividing us. I refer you to my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

Ken Conklin's testimony to the new HD1 amended version of HB2685

Two main points.

1. Coverup of unconstitutional racial allocation of resources

This HD1 version of HB2685 is merely a thinly disguised coverup of the original concept in HB2685 that would allow the Office of Hawaiian Education to allocate resources in an unconstitutional manner based on the race of the children rather than based on allowable race-neutral criteria.

The original bill made the racial allocation of resources explicitly clear when it said "There is appropriated out of the general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ or so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2018-2019 for the continued funding of the Hawaiian studies program at the three elementary schools with the largest population of native Hawaiian students."

The new HD1 version says "There is appropriated out of the general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ or so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2018-2019 for the continued funding of the Hawaiian studies program; provided that allocation of funds shall be determined by the office of Hawaiian education of the department of education."

So, instead of flagrantly and blatantly funding the program "at the three elementary schools with the largest population of native Hawaiian students" the new HD1 version will authorize the money to be spent in exactly the same race-based way, but hides that objective by saying that "allocation of funds shall be determined by the office of Hawaiian education." So of course the head of that office would now be able to do exactly what the original bill said, except that she could do it behind closed doors in a manner that nobody outside the Department of Education would be aware of. Indeed, even her only boss, the Superintendent of Schools, might never find out because the Superintendent is too busy with her huge bureaucracy to micromanage such a minor detail in a fiefdom deep inside her empire. Poor Ms. Sang! If only she had worded this bill originally in the way this HD1 version is now worded, it's likely that nobody would have noticed what was her true intention. But now we know. And knowing that, it would be immoral for this legislature to facilitate her and to knowingly become accessories to illegal activity.

2. It is unwise to give autonomy on either budget or curriculum to the "Office of Hawaiian Education" in the Department of Education.

The original bill, and now also the HD1 version, says that "The purpose of this Act is to appropriate funds for the office of Hawaiian education" and "allocation of funds shall be determined by the office of Hawaiian education".

Why? Why should that one sub-department have more autonomy and more power than any other part of the Department of Education, including the fact that the sub-department head is accountable to nobody but the Superintendent, along with its very own budget appropriated directly from the legislature to be spent however the head of this sub-department chooses.

Neither school Principals nor area superintendents have administrative nor budget autonomy like this. Neither mathematics, nor science, nor technology, nor the extremely important STEM subjects all together, have this sort of autonomy. The only individual in the entire DOE who has this level of autonomy, other than the Superintendent of Schools, is Dawn Kai'ulani Sang, Director of the Office of Hawaiian Education.

Yes, the history of Hawaii is important for our children to know. Yes, Hawaiian culture and language are things that make Hawaii a special place, so it is right that the Board of Education should make sure there is appropriate curriculum taught to all our children regardless of race, by knowledgeable teachers regardless of race. Our children deserve education that covers all sides of controversial topics, not propaganda that brainwashes kids with a viewpoint that it would be good to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines, or even to secede from America to make Hawaii once again an independent nation.

But there is a long and disturbing history of some ethnic Hawaiian leaders pushing for racial separatism and using the public schools as vehicles to help with that effort.

When the New Century Charter Schools were first authorized, half of them identified themselves as Hawaiian-focus meaning that their curriculum would have Hawaiian culture at its center, with the usual core subjects like math and science being used only at lower levels of knowledge and primarily in service to "Hawaiian" projects such as measuring and restoring taro patches and heiaus, Hokule'a navigating by the stars, measuring the salinity or pH of a fishpond and graphing it over time, etc. In addition there were Hawaiian language immersion classes in regular schools where the children spent all day every day together, learning all subject matter through Hawaiian language. In both the culture-focus charter schools and the language immersion schools, over 90% of the children were (and still are today) ethnic Hawaiian; children with no Hawaiian blood were reluctantly allowed to attend because federal law will not allow racial segregation; but the "non- Hawaiian" children and their parents were required to be enthusiastic supporters of "Hawaiian values" and a Hawaiian- activist view of Hawaii's history.

Ku Kahakalau, the founder and Principal of Kanu O Ka 'Aina public charter school in Waimea, Hawaii Island, was also head of a consortium of all dozen (at that time) Hawaiian-focus charter schools. A webpage still available captured contents from her webpage in 2002. The following statements are NOT taken out of context -- they typify what Kahakalau was (and still is) advocating: "We believe that Hawaiian knowledge structure differs significantly from the Western system of education. We believe that as an indigenous people, Hawaiians have the right to design and control our own education." and "The long-term goal of Kanu is to create a native designed and controlled system of Hawaiian education that will empower native communities throughout the archipelago to achieve political, cultural and economic self-determination." and "Kanu wants to empower Hawai'i's native people, who are direct descendents of earthmother Papa and skyfather Wakea, to once again assume our rightful stewardship over our archipelago." and "Kanu wants to actively prepare native students to participate in - and perhaps even lead - Hawai'i's indigenous sovereignty movement." and "Kanu wants to encourage Hawaiian students to become politically conscious, and individually and collectively tackle the problem of Hawaiian oppression by the United States and our subjugation to American law and a Western way of life. In that vein, Kanu has the potential of significantly contributing to the Hawaiian sovereignty effort. Utilizing problem-posing as an instructional technique, Kanu hopes to make our students realize that the occupation of Hawai'i by the United States of America is not fatal and unalterable, but merely limiting � and therefore challenging." and "Kanu students will become an intricate part of the process of native liberation from American domination that nearly caused the demise of our native people and our way of life." For further details see
https://tinyurl.com/rthe2

In case anyone thinks I'm joking about the effort to develop a racially separate taxpayer-funded school system in Hawaii, following the model of Kahakalau's "Kanu O Ka 'Aina", please read full text and analysis of a bill actually introduced in the legislature in January 2002, and pursued for a couple years afterward, for exactly that purpose. The bill sought to establish an ethnic Hawaiian dominated chartering agency to certify schools and teachers, such that in every school the majority of the student population is native Hawaiian, the majority of the local school board of the school is native Hawaiian; the curriculum is based on culturally-driven approaches to education; Hawaiian charter schools shall be exempt from the state procurement code; etc. See
https://tinyurl.com/yay75b2j

I am confident that Dawn Kai'ulani Sang, Director of the DOE's uniquely powerful Office of Hawaiian Education, is (ab)using her power to pursue Ku Kahakalau's agenda by working to establish a racial separatist school system inside the Department of Education using taxpayer dollars in combination with administrative and curriculum autonomy. Information is provided below about her Hawaiian Studies program, her background, and her stonewalling regarding a demand for removal of a racially inflammatory falsehood repeated three times on her DOE webpage.

The Hawaiian Studies program has been diverted from its proper mission to help students "develop, maintain, and grow in an understanding and appreciation of Hawaiian culture, language, values, practices, and concepts" in a factual, objective way. The Director of the Hawaiian Studies program is a Hawaiian sovereignty activist from Waimanalo whose father, Tony Sang, was President of the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, and who also attacked the jurisdiction of the United States as owner of Bellows Air Force Base in Waimanalo on grounds that the overthrow of the Hawaii monarchy was illegal and that ethnic Hawaiians have collective ownership of all the ceded lands. This attitude has infused the Hawaiian Studies curriculum. A few years ago Director Dawn Kau'ilani Sang was elevated to a higher level of authority in the Department of Education than any head of any other area of curriculum, so that her only boss was the Superintendent of Schools (who has now departed from DOE). In 2016 and 2017, and again this year, the Hawaiian Studies division of DOE ("Office of Hawaiian Education") wants to increase its empire within DOE by sequestering for itself an even larger portion of DOE's limited budget at the expense of the core subjects.

In 2011 an in-depth analysis was done of the two textbooks approved by DOE for the History of Modern Hawaii course required for graduation, including the DOE curriculum guide and standards for the course. See
http://tinyurl.com/4ys86vg

As a result of the history-twisting and victimhood mentality spawned by this course, thousands of teenagers and young adults now feel rising levels of anti-Americanism and anti-Caucasian racial resentment. The Hawaiian Studies curriculum has been indoctrinating children with such propaganda for a long time, and should have its budget reduced rather than increased.

The Hawaiian Studies division and the DOE refuse to correct historical falsehoods or to be held accountable for teaching them. One small example is their continued propagation of the falsehood that Hawaiian language was made illegal following the overthrow of the monarchy, despite being provided lengthy, detailed proof of falsity.

Dawn Kau'ilani Sang, Director of Hawaiian Studies, is responsible for a two-page webpage entitled "History of Hawaiian Education" which prominently proclaims the lie in three places, and which is cited as authority by news media when they repeat the lie and refuse to correct their publication of it. Thousands of children in the Hawaii Public Schools are undoubtedly being taught this racially inflammatory lie in the Hawaiian Studies curriculum that is compulsory in all grades K-12. A lengthy email was sent to Ms. Sang in mid-February 2016, with cc to her immediate supervisor Superintendent of Schools Kathryn Matayoshi, filled with proof that the statements are false. The email explained the importance of correcting the falsehoods.

But Ms. Sang stonewalled, replying only "The Department appreciates your attention to the information provided on our website. We will review the website and make changes as deemed necessary." Later she never indicated that any progress was being made, despite a request for a progress report that was sent by email to her with cc to Superintendent Matayoshi. Meanwhile, in mid-March 2016, Director Sang engineered a resolution in the state legislature authorizing an expansion of her growing Hawaiian Studies empire; and the first "whereas" clause was the assertion that Hawaiian language was banned in the schools after the overthrow of the monarchy. Text of the resolution is provided along with testimony in opposition. An email was then sent directly to Superintendent Matayoshi providing all the proof of falsity previously sent to Director Sang.

On April 20, 2016 a letter was received by Ken Conklin through U.S. mail, signed by Superintendent Matayoshi on official letterhead, refusing to correct the falsehoods. The letter gave no indication that any study had been done of the facts; it merely said the webpage will not be corrected because "the information provided on our website is accurate and generally accepted in public policy and scholarship." (In other words, the lie has been repeated so often by so many in the Hawaiian grievance industry that we are going to continue teaching it to the kids and allowing news media to cite our website as authority for it). On April 23, 2016 a Goebbels Award was issued jointly to Director Sang, Superintendent Matayoshi, and the Department of Education; and an email was sent to every member of the Board of Education providing a link to this webpage documenting the proof of falsehood and the steps that have been taken to hold Sang, Matayoshi, and DOE accountable; and asking the Board members to order Sang and Matayoshi to make appropriate corrections to the webpage and to the school curriculum.

For extensive proof that the assertion of a language ban is false, and for documentation of every step in the effort to hold accountable both the Office of Hawaiian Education and the DOE, see webpage "Holding the State of Hawaii Department of Education accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned" at
http://tinyurl.com/z77ogbq

Please do not reward the arrogance of the Hawaiian Studies "Office of Hawaiian Education", and its refusal to be accountable for propagating harmful falsehoods. Do not appropriate money directly to the Office of Hawaiian Education, do not give that Office autonomy from the DOE regarding budget or curriculum, nor any authority to allocate funds without the Superintendent's approval. Throw this bill into the junkpile.

================

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

This bill proposes to transfer 600,000 taxpayer dollars to the Department of Land and Natural Resources to provide funding for specified programs of the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission for fiscal year 2018-2019, plus an additional $53,864 for one FTE staff position.

Please do not place this burden on the taxpayers of the State of Hawaii.

Let OHA pay all costs associated with the rehabilitation of Kaho'olawe -- an island which this legislature and OHA both believe will be handed over in the near future to the Hawaiian tribe which OHA has been working so hard to create for at least 18 years.

As the language of this bill points out, "Pursuant to section 6K-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the management and control of the Kaho�olawe island reserve will be transferred to a sovereign Native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the state and federal governments. This event is anticipated to occur within the timeframe of the 2026 strategic plan."

In Act 195 (2011) this legislature set in motion a process now underway to create a Hawaiian tribe. The U.S. Department of Interior recently proclaimed a regulation whereby that tribe can get federal recognition -- the final rule 43CFR50 proclaimed by the U.S. Department of Interior by publication in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016. Both Act 195 and the Department of Interior regulation insist that the Hawaiian tribe must be exclusively for Native Hawaiians, and that anyone lacking a drop of the magic blood must be ruthlessly excluded.

According to OHA trustee Lei Ahu Isa, OHA has used approximately $33 Million of state government money over the years to lobby for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe either through the Akaka bill or through advertising and racial registration programs both in Hawaii and on the mainland. OHA provided the entire funding for an election of delegates and a monthlong meeting in 2006 which produced a proposed constitution for the tribe. OHA has repeatedly pledged that when a Hawaiian tribe has achieved federal recognition, OHA will transfer all its assets to the tribe.

If the tribe is successful in creating itself and getting federal recognition, section 6K-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes guarantees that the island of Kaho'olawe will immediately be ripped away from the State of Hawaii and handed over to the Hawaiian tribe, to which people with no native blood are forbidden to belong.

This legislature simply must not confiscate tax dollars from 80% of Hawaii's people for a project which they will be racially excluded from.

It would be foolish and immoral for the State of Hawaii to spend taxpayer dollars collected from 100% of Hawaii's people of all races to pay for upgrades to an island which is expected to be removed from the State of Hawaii and handed over to a sovereign "nation" [tribe] restricted by law to one racial group whose people are perhaps 20% of Hawaii's people, most of whom will probably not even join the tribe. Once the tribe has been created there will be negotiations between the State of Hawaii vs. the tribe to decide how much additional land and money the State will give to the tribe. The State should not give away resources before the negotiations even begin.

OHA's most recent annual report (2016) shows that OHA has total assets of more than $600 million. And it continues getting more payments of state government money (ceded land revenues plus legislative appropriations) every year, including a bill in this year's legislature demanding $35 million per year from ceded land revenues.

Enough already! OHA can easily afford funding for Kaho'olawe. Let OHA pay whatever money it wishes to pay to KIRC to rehabilitate Kaho'olawe -- an island which this legislature and OHA both believe will be handed over in the near future to the Hawaiian tribe which OHA is working so hard to create.

================

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

This bill places one state agency, OHA, in a position of authority over other state agencies by requiring employees to pass a course whose purpose is to brainwash them with the political views of OHA. Dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of state and county department heads would now be placed under the direct authority and supervision of OHA, knowing that if they refuse to kow-tow to their OHA instructor they will be given a failing grade in this mandatory course and will then be ineligible to continue in their job. Does any state agency other than OHA exercise comparable authority over other agencies?

OHA has certain views regarding who owns the ceded lands and whether the state has a right to sell parcels of ceded lands. The Hawaii Supreme Court made a 5-0 decision upholding OHA's views. But on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that OHA's views are wrong. Can we expect OHA to teach correct information about who owns the ceded lands and whether the state can sell them? OHA has certain views about the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 that overthrew the monarchy, and points to the Blount Report of 1893 and the U.S. apology resolution of 1993 to bolster OHA's views. But those views are controversial, and are disproved by the Morgan Report issued by the U.S. Senate in 1894 and by the majority report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission issued by a joint Senate/House commission in 1996. Can we expect OHA to provide both sides of this controversy, or will OHA brainwash state employees by teaching only the views OHA endorses?

This bill would require government employees to learn about, and give deference to, the ancient Hawaiian religion as the justification for various state laws and practices regarding water rights for taro, protection of ancient burials, etc. It would constitute an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and it would also force employees who have no Hawaiian blood to bow to a religion which portrays people who do have Hawaiian blood as possessing an inherent God-given right to rule these islands.

Those topics, and many others, are based in the ancient Hawaiian religion, which has a creation legend which today's sovereignty activists (incorrectly) describe as portraying Native Hawaiians (and only Native Hawaiians) as genealogically the children of the gods and the brothers to these islands, and the younger brothers of the taro plant, in a way nobody ever can be who lacks a drop of native blood.

This committee should not disrespect the mainstream majority of today's ethnic Hawaiians, and the multiracial, multicultural people of Hawaii, by passing this bill. Please vote "No."

====================

Ken Conklin's testimony supporting some provisions and opposing others

Hawaiian language is a great treasure for the people of Hawaii and for the world. Therefore it is appropriate to adopt Hawaiian language as a desirable qualification in the hiring and promotion of state government officers and employees, regardless of race.

It is also appropriate to distinguish between two categories of employees. "Back of the house" employees are not engaged in public relations or tourism activities; therefore it is desirable but not essential for them to speak Hawaiian. However, employees who speak to local residents and tourists on behalf of the people of Hawaii and the Aloha Spirit need to be able to speak Hawaiian words and sentences with correct pronunciation and grammar. They should also have some knowledge about place names and the legends associated with them.

No budget appropriations are needed to support language instruction for government employees. Surely each department already receives annual funding for employee training. Government or private employees in Hawaii have many opportunities earn the favor of their supervisors by learning Hawaiian informally through community groups. Not all good things require the appropriation of tax dollars.

OHA already has bills under consideration seeking to expand its empire by forcing government employees in a long and ever-widening list of agencies to attend mandatory training programs at OHA's expense. Let OHA include language instruction in those programs. Let OHA spend some of its $600 Million to help government employees improve their level of fluency in Hawaiian language. What is objectionable in this bill is the appropriation of tax dollars for "a program to translate public documents, including the State Constitution, into the Hawaiian language."

In 2017 the original version of SB560 proposed to appropriate $25,000.00 for that fiscal year, and an additional $25,000 for the following fiscal year, for the University of Hawaii to translate the Hawaii state constitution into the Hawaiian language. The bill proposed here greatly broadens the scope of the translation project to include not only the state Constitution but also an unspecified collection of other state documents at a correspondingly inflated cost. If such a project is started with only the state Constitution for $50,000, just imagine how many millions of dollars will eventually be demanded to translate the Hawaii Revised Statutes, and eventually thousands of case-law documents such as decisions by the state Supreme Court, the Intermediate Court of Appeals, the lower courts, and the rules proclaimed by the regulatory agencies.

Come on, folks, it should not be necessary to appropriate any money to get the State Constitution translated into Hawaiian language.

This bill should make it clear that the version of the Constitution to be translated into Hawaiian should be the clean copy posted on the legislature's website which has been updated to incorporate all amendments adopted by ballot votes and all changes forced by court decisions.

It would also be useful to post on the legislature's website the two-volume proceedings of the State Constitutional Convention of 1978, which includes official committee reports and also transcripts of floor debates that are helpful in deciphering legislative intent (In August 2017 State Senator Les Ihara posted it on the internet).

==================

Ken Conklin's testimony in support, provided the bill is amended to ensure racial equality

This bill provides good reasons why sharks and rays should be protected. The bill provides severe penalties for anyone who captures, kills, or takes a shark or ray within state waters.

Section 2(e) identifies exceptions whereby holders of special permits, or employees of the DLNR, may engage in activities which would otherwise be prohibited to the general public.

However, subsection 2(e)(2) has a problem which this committee should cure by means of an amendment. Either delete subsection 2(e)(2) entirely, or else broaden the exception to include all people regardless of race who are exercising practices which were traditionally and customarily engaged in by the native Hawaiians who lived in that ahupua'a prior to 1778.

Let me illustrate with an example. We know that in ancient times native Hawaiians, who were the entirety of the population in Hawaii, had the right to gather food and building materials from anywhere in the land controlled by their ali'i or konohiki, and also had the right to cross any land for the purpose of going to the ocean. Such rights were preserved after the Mahele, when royal patent deeds were awarded to create private ownership of land � but the gathering rights and shoreline access rights were preserved for the tenants (residents) of each ahupua'a. Those rights were race-neutral; i.e., every person (kanaka) who was a tenant (hoa'aina) had those rights regardless of race. Although such rights for hunting and fishing and gathering were probably not exercised very often by wealthy foreigners, there was no prohibition against them. The words "kanaka" and "hoa'aina" were race-neutral words not limited to people with native blood. Today the laws of Hawaii recognize that all residents (hoa'aina), regardless of race, have the right to cross public lands as well as undeveloped or even partially developed private land to go to the beach. This right survives from ancient times right up to the present, for all residents regardless of race.

There are many residents of Hawaii whose heritage is from various Pacific island nations such as Samoa, Tonga, Marshall Islands who engage in Polynesian or Micronesian cultural practices, and should be allowed to continue doing so, even if they have no Hawaiian native ancestry. Likewise there are thousands of residents of Hawaii of Asian or Caucasian ancestry, with no Hawaiian native blood, who participate actively in hula halaus, for example, where their kumu hula might expect them to make their own sharkskin drums or sharktooth martial weapons

So if this committee wishes to make an exception such as Section 2(e)(2), then the exception should NOT be for people on account of their race, but rather should be for the traditional and customary activities formerly engaged in by native Hawaiians before 1778 but which are now engaged in by residents of all races. If you are unwilling to allow the exceptions for cultural activities regardless of race, then I believe the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause, requires you to entirely delete subsection 2(e)(2).

There is no good reason to make the exemption racial. The exemption should be based on preservation of historic skills or ongoing cultural uses, regardless of race.

Either subsection (2) should be deleted from this bill, or else it should be reworded to broaden it so that all persons regardless of race can capture, kill, or take a shark or ray for purposes of engaging in traditional and customary cultural practices for personal or instructional use but not commercial use. Examples of acceptable circumstances for automatic exemption would include harvesting sharkskin for making a drum, or harvesting shark teeth to make an ornament for personal adornment or a replica of an ancient weapon for use in museum displays or school lessons.

=================

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

My first reaction when reading through this bill was *LOL (laugh out loud) at its absurdity. But then I noticed that the bill is scheduled for hearing before three committees all at once, so there is real danger that it could be railroaded through.

The opening portion of the bill is a historical narrative about how modern private development of residential/industrial lands is depriving ethnic Hawaiians of access to lands to which they feel a cultural connection, thereby threatening the extinction of Hawaiian culture. It seems that the metaphor being evoked is the need to set aside native habitat for the preservation of endangered species, like the pueo or nene or wekiu. But ethnic Hawaiians are not an endangered species -- their population has grown from fewer than 40,000 in the first U.S. Census of 1900 to more than 400,000 in Census 2000 -- a tenfold increase in the first century of U.S. sovereignty. The population grew to 529,000 in Census 2010, and probably more than 600,000 today. Family income continues to rise, lifespan continues to lengthen, and the Hawaiian culture is thriving as we see in the voyages of Hokule'a, the proliferation of hula halaus, and the revival of Hawaiian language. And unlike animals who might be bound to small land areas to ensure their survival on the specific plants and bugs they eat, ethnic Hawaiians are humans capable of choosing where to reside and capable of adapting to change.

Hawaii has a growing population with a shortage of housing and escalating prices for land and houses. If developers of housing subdivisions are forced to set aside land for parks or Hawaiian cultural preserves, that will decrease the number of housing units to be built and therefore will increase their prices, worsening the housing shortage and driving more local people out of the unaffordable marketplace.

This bill in effect confiscates land from private owners by forcing them to set aside a significant portion of their land for purposes they did not intend, and/or this bill forces owners to pay what amounts to a bribe to an ethnic group in lieu of land. I have traveled in third-world countries where mordita, or baksheesh, is a way of life. It's not pleasant, and it leads to all manner of hostility and violence. Get ready for lots of lawsuits over "inverse condemnation" when a landowner sues the government for imposing new regulations which reduce the value of his land or which have the effect of taking part of all of his land without compensation.

About half of this bill's pages are devoted to laying out how it will be applied to condominiums. I am an owner of a condominium apartment where I have lived for 21 years, following another 5 years in a different condo nearby. My condo was developed from raw land by Bishop Estate, dedicated to serving ethnic Hawaiians. At no time did it ever occur to Bishop Estate that they should set aside a portion of this development for a Hawaiian cultural preserve. As I look out my window at the tennis court 12 stories below, I wonder why Bishop Estate did not build a hula mound instead! Give me a break!

Which reminds me. Bishop Estate (now renamed Kamehameha Schools) is the largest private landowner in Hawaii, with hundreds of parcels scattered hither and yon. If cultural preservation is so important, Bishop Estate should be expected to do lots more of it instead of chasing the almighty dollar. They are doing a good job of supporting restoration of the He'eia (Ko'olau Poko) fishpond, but until about 10 years ago they were an absentee landlord apparently uninterested in malama 'aina. OHA owns thousands of acres which it is mismanaging or neglecting, such as Waokele o Puna on Hawaii Island, the old Wai'alua courthouse in Hale'iwa, Waimea Valley, Kukaniloko (birthing stones) by Whitmore Village near Wahiawa, Makaweli poi mill, and many others.

There are plenty of places where Hawaiian cultural preserves can be built on land already owned by the State of Hawaii, OHA, DLNR, DHHL, Kamehameha Schools, etc. without grabbing land from every private owner or developer.

===============

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

This bill, if enacted, would put the legislature on record as saying that the collective cultural heritage of Hawaii should be allocated among ethnic groups separately, and that the portion allocated to ethnic Hawaiians is of greater value; and therefore penalties imposed by law for destroying or vandalizing elements attributed to ethnic Hawaiians should be made greater than penalties imposed for destroying or vandalizing elements attributed to other groups. In ancient Hawaii society was highly stratified into numerous levels of ali'i based on genealogy, with ordinary maka'ainana occupying an unbridgable gap below them (not to mention the outcast kauwa). Ali'i of the highest rank had the kapumoe, requiring people of lower ranks to lie face down when the ali'i passed by; and anyone who stepped on his shadow or touched an item of his clothing would be put to death. This bill now before the legislature would establish Native Hawaiians as today's ali'i, such that destruction or vandalism of property they hold sacred will result in punishment more severe than destruction or vandalism of property ascribed to lower-ranking racial groups (Asians or haoles).

Isn't it the essence of racism to say that one race is superior to, or has higher value than, other races?

Isn't it racist to select any particular multicultural artifact of Hawaii's heritage and arbitrarily assign it to only one of the ethnic groups who jointly made it a core part of what makes Hawaii a special place?

Ethnic Hawaiians lay claim to the voyaging canoe Hokule'a as a distinctively Hawaiian cultural artifact. But it is made of plastic and other materials from outside Hawaii; its first navigator was Mau Piailug, a Micronesian; the man who conceived the project and was the founding president of the Polynesian Voyaging Society was Ben Finney, a Caucasian anthropologist from California; tens of millions of taxpayer dollars from the United States government came over a period of many years to build and repair the canoe and to pay for transportation and organizational expenses. Hokule'a is "Hawaiian" only if we allow that word to be used as the name of a place, not the name of a race.

Let's consider an item which this bill, in Section 1, identifies as Native Hawaiian. Iolani Palace was built with tax dollars generated primarily from sugar plantations owned by Caucasians who came from America and Europe, using laborers from Asia and Europe; money that was allocated by the multiracial government of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and built with materials from throughout the world including the three historic doors that were vandalized -- and the vandals were themselves ethnic Hawaiians! Iolani Palace has been owned by the government of Hawaii as part of the core culture of all the people of Hawaii for more than 135 years from the time it was built until now. It was the capitol of the Republic of Hawaii and the Territory of Hawaii for 75 years (1893 to 1968), where the legislature met and the President or Governor had his office. The Palace is treated as a Native Hawaiian cultural artifact only because the group which operates it has turned it into a museum devoted to the 11 years when it was under the rule of Kalakaua and Lili'uokalani; and oil portraits of the monarchs line the main floor hallway (but not Sanford Dole, the only President of the independent nation of Hawaii that continued for five and a half more years after the revolution). Iolani Palace is "Hawaiian" only if we allow that word to be used as the name of a place, not the name of a race.

If this committee wants to increase the penalties for theft, destruction, or vandalism of property, that's a good idea. Please do so. But leave race out of it -- neither the race of the perpetrator nor the race of the owner should be a factor, unless a racial hate-crime is involved. But please be advised that most of the racial hate crimes in Hawaii are committed by ethnic Hawaiians against haoles in general, or members of the military. Who says so? The famous Southern Poverty Law Center exposes racial hate crimes and hate groups, focusing mainly on hate directed against blacks and homosexuals and committed by Caucasian Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazi skinheads. But in Fall 2009 two important articles about Hawaii appeared in the Fall 2009 issue of the SPLC quarterly magazine "Intelligence Report." See this webpage which provides full text of two articles in that magazine along with analysis of them: "Anti-Caucasian Racial Hate Crimes in Hawaii -- Southern Poverty Law Center brings the issue to national awareness in a flawed but valuable Intelligence Report article."
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/RacialHateCrimesHawSPLC.html
See also "Racism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement (with special focus on anti-white racism)" at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/racismhawsov.html

Has this testimony been nasty and racially divisive? No more so than the piece of legislation it opposes!

=================

Ken Conklin's testimony in support, with proposed addition

Dear legislators, it's wonderful to plan for celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Hawaii state Capitol in 2019.

But of course there would be no state Capitol unless there is a State of Hawaii.

And as it happens, 2019 will also be the 60th anniversary of Hawaii statehood. Therefore please amend this bill to broaden it to instruct the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts to include planning for a combined celebration of both the 50th anniversary of the Capitol and the 60th anniversary of Hawaii Statehood in a single ceremony.

Of course the Statehood Day holiday does not come until August. But it will be perfectly OK for the Legislature to celebrate it during the period when the Legislature is in session, as was done in 2009 for the 50th anniversary of Statehood.

Taxpayers will be pleased that you are combining the two celebrations into a single event to be held at a time when you are already present at the Capitol. Save money and appeal to a wider audience.

** Ken's note for website: On Wednesday March 28 a hearing was held before the last committee expected to deal with this bill before final passage. The bill had been amended by a previous committee to include an important new provision "the the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts shall use a portion of the funds for the establishment of a kiosk or shop on the grounds of the Hawaii state capitol to disseminate information and other materials and items, for free and for sale, regarding the Hawaii state capitol and its history to visitors to the state capitol, including tourists." So Ken Conklin submitted new testimony which supported the new provision in the bill:

Dear members of the House Committee on Finance: I support the intent of this bill, and will suggest an amendment to improve it.

But first let me praise the House committee on veterans, military, & international affairs, & culture and the arts for the excellent amendment they made, that "the the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts shall use a portion of the funds for the establishment of a kiosk or shop on the grounds of the Hawaii state capitol to disseminate information and other materials and items, for free and for sale, regarding the Hawaii state capitol and its history to visitors to the state capitol, including tourists."

I recall that in 1992, as a newly arrived permanent resident of Hawaii, I took a tour of the Capitol led by Joe Tassil operating out of a small office in the basement immediately next to the parking lot entrance. As a philosopher, and married to an art historian, I was deeply moved by the beauty of the Capitol and especially by the symbolism of its architectural design and its artistic elements, including the materials and meanings in the Sun and Moon chandeliers in the two chambers, the 8 columns, Aquarius mosaic in the rotunda, the volcano exterior design of the chambers when viewed from the rotunda, the water surrounding the building, the open roof and absence of doors to enter the building, etc. I strongly urged Mr. Tassil to produce a brochure containing the information, and have been disappointed over the years that such a booklet has never been written. This is a perfect occasion to produce it.

Please make a further improvement to this bill by amending it to include celebration of the 60th anniversary of Statehood.

Dear legislators, it's wonderful to plan for celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Hawaii state Capitol in 2019.

But of course there would be no state Capitol unless there were a State of Hawaii.

And as it happens, 2019 will also be the 60th anniversary of Hawaii statehood. Of course the Statehood Day holiday does not come until August. But it will be perfectly OK for the Legislature to celebrate it during the period when the Legislature is in session, as was done in 2009 for the 50th anniversary of Statehood.

Taxpayers will be pleased that you are combining the two celebrations into a single event to be held at a time when you are already present at the Capitol. Save money and appeal to a wider audience.

=================

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

Here are six points which need to be made.

1. Some clever politicians are trying to send millions of extra dollars to enrich DHHL by giving the public and the legislature the false impression that the purpose is to provide truly tiny houses to help poor and downtrodden people. Shame!

It is a form of bait-and-switch to use a currently popular term as the name for a proposal which is actually very different. This bill proposes to allow up to 800 sq ft. of floor space for a house or apartment to be branded as a "micro housing unit." That would be two or three times the size of the genuine "tiny homes" and "microunit apartments" that are the current fad in Honolulu for solving the twin problems of homelessness and housing shortage. My own 2-bedroom condo apartment is 723 sq ft and is definitely not "micro." Units of the same size in my building have families of 4 or 5 people living in them comfortably. Renters in my building pay around $2,000 per month for apartments identical to mine, and the assessed valuation is currently $351,700. Micro schmikro!

2. Don't reach into the pockets of Hawaii taxpayers to grab our money to make up for the malfeasance of DHHL leadership. The first sentence in this bill says "The legislature finds that the department of Hawaiian home lands produced no new housing units during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, and closed out the year with $30,000,000 in unspent federal housing funds." For that much money they could have bought 85 of my 2-bedroom apartments at current assessed valuation, to provide housing for 300-400 people. Or if we use the estimated construction cost of $125,000 mentioned in this bill, that $30 Million could have yielded 240 housing capable of sheltering 900-1200 people. DHHL leadership is clearly lazy or incompetent, and responsible for protracting the misery of hundreds of people whose well-being it is responsible for.

3. It appears that this bill would actually be discriminating against native Hawaiians. Census data indicate that "Native Hawaiians" have significantly larger family size and household size than the general population of Hawaii. Yet this bill proposes to cram those larger families into smaller "micro housing units" anticipated to be in violation of zoning laws and building codes. That's pretty nasty, isn't it?

4. Section 2 of this bill proposes to override "any county zoning laws, permit provisions, or building code provisions to the contrary to allow micro housing units" on DHHL lands. But those zoning laws and building codes exist for good reasons (or don't they?). Some DHHL residential homelands lie immediately adjacent to normal residential neighborhoods; for example, the one in Waimanalo (which I canvassed for Census 2000). Does the legislature really want to be responsible for the development of overcrowded slum housing ("micro housing units" in violation of zoning laws and building codes) right across the street from middle class suburban homes?

5. I remind the legislature that a class-action lawsuit by 3,000 native Hawaiians on the waiting list for DHHL leases has resulted in a court decision resulting in negotiations for a settlement that could force taxpayers to fork over Billions of dollars not only to individual plaintiffs but also to DHHL. Now comes before you this bill to begin a brand new DHHL project and to pay for it with two startup grants of one million and five million dollars, expected to result in permanent programs for huge megabucks in the future. It would be foolish to give DHHL new money on top of whatever will come out of those negotiations. If DHHL wants to develop a project for micro housing units, let DHHL fund that program, or include it in its demands for a negotiated settlement of the class action lawsuit.

6. OHA already has over $600,000,000. And, according to its bill in both Senate and House, OHA wants to grab an additional $119,000,000 in ceded lands "back rent" plus $35,000,000 per year, in lieu of ceded lands revenue, going forward. Wow!

The legislature has the authority to raid OHA's treasury the same as the legislature raids any of the special funds for hurricane relief or highways. Make OHA pay for DHHL projects. In this case the "raid" would merely be forcing OHA to spend money it was supposed to be spending all along, and to spend it for the exact purpose for which OHA was created. Section 5(f) of the statehood Admissions Act says one of the 5 purposes for the use of ceded land revenues: is "... for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920." HHCA defines "native Hawaiians" as people who have at least 50% native blood quantum -- exactly the same requirement for someone to be granted a lease on DHHL land.

OHA currently has over $600 Million in assets. No other agency of the state government is allowed to squirrel away huge amounts of wealth as a permanent cash stash. Make OHA spend its vast wealth for the needs of DHHL -- i.e., for the betterment of native Hawaiians as defined in HHCA. If DHHL decides to use some of the money for "micro housing units" it can do so. DHHL can build slums for low-income native Hawaiians, to the consternation of middle-class suburban homeowners (including native Hawaiians) living right across the street.

=================

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition

The obvious purpose of this resolution is to urge the Office of Elections to allow people to register to vote in federal and state elections even if they are not citizens of the United States or are not residents of the State of Hawaii.

In previous years going back at least as far as 2013 there were resolutions written by Hawaiian sovereignty activists containing closely similar concepts, asserting that the State of Hawaii should recognize as "Hawaiian nationals" people who are born in Hawaii or who are descended from subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to the revolution of 1893 which overthrew the monarchy. Specifically I refer you to the following failed resolutions, on which I submitted testimony:

HR16, HR23, HR40, HR 32, and HCR 50 of 2013 "Recognizing Hawaiian nationals as a population residing lawfully in the Hawaiian islands";

HR178 and HCR226 of 2014 "Including Hawaiian nationals as a population residing in the Hawaiian islands";

HR45 of 2015 "Recognizing Hawaiian nationals as a population residing lawfully in the Hawaiian islands"

The present resolution superficially seems more narrow that its predecessors because it is focused only on voter registration. But it proposes "to amend the choice for self-declaration" on the voter registration form by offering an alternative way to register without needing to swear that they are U.S. citizen or current resident of Hawaii. This resolution proposes that people should be able to register to vote merely by signing an affidavit that they "self-identify as a person born within the geographic boundaries of what is currently the State of Hawai'i; and/or a descendant of any citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom that the United States once recognized as a nation prior to 1893."

Such a proposal would allow Hawaiian sovereignty activists to register as voters without suffering the inconvenience of perjuring themselves, even though they believe that Hawaii was never lawfully merged into the U.S. through the Treaty of Annexation, and even though they believe that Hawaii is a "fake state." They would no longer need to swear that they are U.S. citizens (which they do not believe they are) and no longer need to swear that they are Hawaii residents (there are Hawaiian sovereignty activists residing in many other nations, and some might even be citizens of those nations). Thus any ethnic Hawaiian (who has at least one drop of the magic blood) who was born anywhere in the world, and who lives anywhere in the world, and who perhaps has never been in Hawaii, could register to vote in Hawaii elections; along with anyone lacking a drop of the magic blood but who has an ancestor who was born in Hawaii before 1893 or who became a naturalized subject of the Kingdom before 1893.

Any member of the legislature who votes in favor of this resolution is violating the oath they took to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii." Indeed, anyone who signed as introducer or cosponsor of this resolution has already violated that oath, and should not be allowed to escape opprobrium merely by saying they are merely complying with the wish of a constituent or offering this piece of treason merely as a topic worthy of debate.

There are three good things about this resolution that are noteworthy:

Good #1: The best aspect of this resolution is that it acknowledges the multiracial character of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which included not only ethnic Hawaiians but also Caucasians, ethnic Chinese, and ethnic Japanese as subjects of the Kingdom with full voting and property rights. People of those races became subjects of the Kingdom either through naturalization or also by being born in Hawaii (including thousands of Asian babies born on the plantations in Hawaii before the Kingdom ended in 1893). Therefore proposals to create a racially exclusionary Hawaiian tribe are contrary to our history, such as the Akaka bill (2000-2012, RIP) and the Department of Interior midnight regulation 43CFR50 proclaimed in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016 which took effect on November 14.

Good #2: Another good aspect of this resolution is that it effectively refutes both the U.S. apology resolution PL103-150 and also Hawaii Act 195 Session Laws of 2011, to the extent that both of those items are addressed exclusively to ethnic Hawaiians. I eagerly await anyone who votes for this resolution to also repudiate those other two items for that specific reason.

Good #3: This resolution provides an excellent basis for re-defining the terms "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian" and applying those new definitions to rectify and make "pono" all the Hawaii laws and entitlement programs that are illegally based on race. A "Hawaiian" shall henceforth be defined as any person whose permanent residence is in the State of Hawaii. A "Native Hawaiian" or "native Hawaiian" (regardless of capital N or small n) is anyone born in Hawaii or descended from anyone born in Hawaii at any time, or descended from anyone naturalized as a subject of the Kingdom prior to 1893.

Following are two reasons for opposing this resolution:
1. Hawaii is legitimately and lawfully under the sovereignty of the United States; therefore we must comply with federal and state laws requiring citizenship and residency to be eligible for voting.
2. On March 13, 2013 David M. Louie, Hawaii Attorney General, and Charleen M. Aina, Deputy Attorney General, provided written testimony in opposition to a predecessor of today's resolution, and the arguments in that testimony remain valid.

------

Opposition reason #1: Hawaii is legitimately and lawfully under the sovereignty of the United States; therefore we must comply with federal and state laws requiring citizenship and residency to be eligible for voting. Unfortunately this resolution is deeply flawed because of its failure to acknowledge that the monarchial government was put to an end by the Hawaiian revolution of 1893.

The successor government of the Republic of Hawaii was internationally recognized de jure (as the lawful government) during the last half of 1894 by formal letters of recognition personally signed by emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of 20 nations on 4 continents writing in 11 languages, all of whom had previously had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii. The significance of those letters is described at
http://tinyurl.com/jtecmvo
Photos of those letters were taken in the Hawaii state archives and can be seen at
https://tinyurl.com/gmdtgmy

Some so-called experts on "international law" will say that the sovereignty of a nation does not change merely because the heads of government of other nations recognize a change. And indeed, Hawaii continued as an independent sovereign nation for five and a half years after the revolution of 1893. But what government is recognized as having the authority to speak on behalf of all the people of a sovereign nation (i.e., the Republic of Hawaii) is decided through the process of diplomatic recognition between the heads of those nations.

There was no change in sovereignty of the nation of Hawaii caused by the revolution of 1893; but there was a change in the government of that nation, and all the other nations who had previously recognized the monarchy now recognized the Republic as the lawful government. Subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii now became citizens of the Republic of Hawaii without any need to ask for their permission. That's what happens after revolutions throughout the world. Nobody asked the people of Russia whether they wanted to become citizens under the new Bolshevik government after the Tsar was overthrown in 1917. Of course there were people in Hawaii who objected to the revolution and remained loyal to Liliuokalani, just as there were royalists in Russia after 1917. But they lost, and their permission was not needed for them to become governed by their new leaders. Donald Trump became President of the United States -- he is President with authority over me regardless whether I voted for or approve of him. My permission is not required. An attempted counterrevolution led by Robert Wilcox in early January 1895 failed to restore the monarchy.

On January 24, 1895 ex-queen Liliuokalani, seeing that the Wilcox attempted counterrevolution had failed, signed a five-page letter of abdication and a one-page oath of loyalty to the Republic of Hawaii. Six witnesses including her longtime trusted personal attorney and her cabinet ministers signed a statement certifying that she had freely and voluntarily signed in their presence. The documents were also notarized. Knowing that at least 19 nations had already recognized the Republic of Hawaii, and that the attempted counter-revolution by Robert Wilcox had been crushed earlier in the month, Liliuokalani decisively ended any hope for the monarchy and pledged her loyalty to the Republic. Thus Liliuokalani herself formally recognized the Republic -- her abdication and loyalty oath belong among the letters whereby heads of government around the world (including Liliuokalani for those who believed her position as head of state for the Kingdom of Hawaii was still viable) gave de jure recognition to the Republic as the lawful government of Hawaii.

But even if Lili'uokalani had not signed a formal abdication and loyalty oath, it would not matter. Very few revolutions throughout the history of the world, including in modern times, have ever been followed by a formal abdication. In many cases the monarch, dictator, or head of state who was overthrown was killed during or soon after the revolution without the nicety of signing an abdication. Whether the deposed head of state dies without signing an abdication, or continues living for many years, his/her government was ended by the revolution and he/she does not remain head of state. To say otherwise is absurd. During the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries, how many monarchs, dictators, or presidents in Europe, South America or Africa were overthrown? How many of them signed letters of abdication? How many of the overthrown dictators continued to be recognized as head of state until they died, by their treaty partners or under international law? Is Saddam Hussein still the lawful head of Iraq? Is Muammar Gaddafi still the lawful head of Libya? The Republic of Hawaii was merciful to ex-queen Lili'uokalani.

In 1897 the lawful, internationally recognized government of the Republic of Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S., which the U.S. accepted by joint resolution of its Congress in 1898. Following the merger Hawaii was no longer an independent nation. All citizens of the Republic of Hawaii became citizens of the United States under terms explicitly laid out in that treaty whether they wanted to be or not. That's how it is when nations merge or borders change. The government of Hawaii had full authority under international law to offer the Treaty of Annexation on behalf of all the people of Hawaii. Some Hawaiians today complain about the method used by the U.S. to accept Hawaii's offer of a Treaty of Annexation. But it's up to any nation, including the U.S., to decide for itself what method it will use to finalize a treaty. There are no international laws forcing any nation to have a Senate, or to ratify a treaty by a 2/3 vote of it. Certainly people in Hawaii (then a foreign nation) who disagreed with the U.S. method had no right to tell the U.S. what method it must use; and today's history-twister Hawaiian activists have no standing at all on that issue. The only people who were directly injured by avoidance of the 2/3 requirement for Senate ratification of a treaty were the Senators who opposed it. Having suffered injury to their rights as Senators, they would have had legal "standing" and could have filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court to nullify the joint resolution of annexation, but never did so. During the 20th Century the borders of Poland had major changes on several occasions. Either through war or through treaties, people in parts of Poland suddenly found themselves to be citizens of Germany or Russia, and vice versa. The individuals had nothing to say about it. Likewise people living in the Saar district along the Rhine River were switched from being citizens of Germany to being citizens of France, or vice versa.

Contrary to what this resolution says, all persons born in Hawaii since 1898, regardless of race, are citizens of the United States, not nationals of a long-dead nation of Hawaii. And all citizens of the Republic of Hawaii from 1893 through 1898 also became U.S. citizens under terms of the Treaty of Annexation. With Annexation all Hawaii nationals became U.S. nationals. There are no more Hawaii nationals today, despite the wishes of the diehard deadenders professing loyalty to the Hawaiian kingdom.

----------

Opposition reason #2: On March 13, 2013 David M. Louie, Hawaii Attorney General; and Charleen M. Aina, Deputy Attorney General; provided written testimony in opposition to a predecessor of today's resolution, and the arguments in their testimony remain valid. Here is their complete testimony:

"The Department of the Attorney General recommends that this resolution be held. By its title and its principal resolving paragraph, this resolution recognizes that Hawaiian Nationals reside lawfully in Hawaii. Under the Constitution of the United States, the states of the United States do not have jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a lawful resident of a state. Determining who is residing lawfully in the United States and thus, within a state �is exclusively a federal power.� DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976). Accordingly, to prevent people from incorrectly concluding that the Legislature of the State of Hawaii is empowered to confer lawful resident status on persons who are in Hawaii, and to assure that persons who consider themselves to be only Hawaiian Nationals do not conclude that they are residing lawfully in Hawaii as a result of this resolution adoption, this resolution should be held by the Committee."

=============

HCR 89/HR73 and SCR73/SR44
REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO AMEND THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT TO ENSURE THAT THE ACT RECEIVES PERMANENT FUNDING.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HCR&billnumber=89&year=2018
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HR&billnumber=73&year=2018
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SCR&billnumber=73&year=2018
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SR&billnumber=44&year=2018

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition

The Native Hawaiian victimhood assertions on page 2 of this resolution are based on "studies" which knowingly and intentionally commit statistical malpractice in gathering and analyzing data for the purpose of enriching the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry and enhancing their political power.

For decades politicians, academics, and the people of Hawaii have been bombarded with claims that Native Hawaiians have the worst victimhood statistics for virtually every terrible disease or social dysfunction: heart disease, breast cancer, diabetes, drug abuse, poverty, incarceration -- the list of woes is endless. Such claims are presented along with statistics which appear to prove them. The claims, sometimes accompanied by statistical "studies", are published in newspapers or academic journals to influence public opinion to feel sympathy for those poor, downtrodden Native Hawaiians and to build political support for racial entitlement programs. The "studies" are also cited when powerful institutions with well-established bureaucracies apply for government or philanthropic grants to conduct race-based screening programs and further studies, which are then used to apply for additional grants, etc.; thereby perpetuating the institutions and the salaries of their bureaucrats.

Victims are assigned to the category of "Native Hawaiian" without regard to the other ethnicities that make up a majority of their ancestry. This greatly inflates the alleged victimhood of Native Hawaiians while at the same time depriving those other ethnicities of the victimhood recognition to which the facts entitle them. Anyone with even a single drop of Hawaiian native blood is classified as "Native Hawaiian" and solely as Native Hawaiian (see the "smoking gun" confession of statistical malpractice copied from a scholarly article cited below). The opposite sort of one- drop rule is used when counting Caucasians. A person whose ancestry is 7/8 Caucasian might be classified as Filipino merely because the father has 1/8 Filipino ancestry. These two applications of the one-drop rule grossly increase the apparent level of Native Hawaiian victimhood while also reducing the apparent level of Caucasian victimhood. An accurate assessment of ethnic victimhood would require researchers to have the courage to ask the politically incorrect but scientifically essential question: What are you? What racial groups are present in your ancestry, and what is the percentage of each one?

If victimhood is to be ascribed as being genetically caused by or correlated with race, then each racial group should be awarded a fractional victimhood tally mark for each victim, equal to the fraction of that race in the ancestry of each victim. If victimhood is to be ascribed as being caused by ethnic lifestyle or culture or religion, then a researcher should create for each lifestyle or culture or religion a list of activities or attitudes that characterize each culture or religion, and award fractional points to each of them according to the activities or attitudes of each victim. Whether genetics or lifestyle is being studied as a cause or correlation of victimhood, a graph should be drawn for each kind of victimhood with regard to each ethnic group, comparing percentage of ethnicity against percentage of victimhood. If women with a low percentage of being Native Hawaiian by race or lifestyle have a low percentage of breast cancer while women with a high percentage of being Native Hawaiian by race or lifestyle also have a high percentage of breast cancer, then it would be reasonable to conclude that being Native Hawaiian is correlated with and probably a cause of getting breast cancer. Researchers could then try to discover what specific elements of genome or lifestyle cause the trouble. It would certainly be scientifically interesting to discover clear causes for the bad outcomes. But then would arise the question what should be done with such knowledge. It would be politically incorrect and socially dangerous to recommend genetic modification for Native Hawaiians, or changes in culture or lifestyle, as ways to prevent victimhood.

Comparing Native Hawaiians against other ethnicities as entire groups without regard to age levels, makes Native Hawaiians appear to have lower incomes and higher rates of incarceration and drug abuse. That's because Native Hawaiians as a group are 16 years younger than the rest of Hawaii's people! In Census 2010 the median age of "Native Hawaiians" in Hawaii was 26, while the median age of the remainder of the population was 42. People at age 26 have far lower incomes, and higher rates of drug abuse and crime than people at age 42 -- it's not race that is the cause of social dysfunction, but rather it's the rebelliousness and hormone-driven emotional excesses of youth. Violent crimes such as shooting, stabbing, or robbery through home invasion deserve more severe prison sentences and are far more likely to be committed by young people. Non-violent crimes like fraud or embezzlement deserve lesser prison sentences and are more likely to be committed by older people. The fact that Native Hawaiians as a race are found guilty of more crimes and serve longer prison sentences than other races does not mean Native Hawaiians are worse criminals or are being discriminated against -- it merely results from the fact that Native Hawaiians on average are 16 years younger than other groups, so it is statistical malpractice to lump an entire racial group together without regard to age when making comparisons between racial groups. The right way to compare income, crime, or incarceration disparities between ethnic groups would be to compare 15-19 year olds of one ethnicity against 15-19 years olds of other ethnicities, then compare 20-24 year-olds, etc.; and also to award fractional tally marks to different ethnic groups in proportion to the fractions of ethnicity in the ancestry or lifestyle of each person whose data are analyzed.

When people see a news report saying that Native Hawaiians have double the rate of some terrible disease as any other group, or 30% lower income, they take the report at face value because they lack the mathematical sophistication to raise questions about how the data were collected and analyzed. But the reports compiled by the Native Hawaiian grievance industry are created by experts with strong backgrounds in statistical analysis. They SHOULD know better. Some of them certainly DO know better -- they have been told about their statistical malpractice but continue engaging in it. Knowing the truth but proclaiming a falsehood is not merely an unfortunate error -- it is a deliberate LIE. In the Native Hawaiian grievance industry many experts have been knowingly perpetuating lies for many years to get public sympathy, political power, and hundreds of millions of dollars in government and philanthropic grants. It's a SCAM whose costs are measured not only in wasted megabucks but also in heightened racial tension as the racial group who believe they have proof of victimhood demand monetary and political reparations from groups they perceive as their oppressors.

Sadly we remember the legacy of racial entitlements in the U.S. South. There might be two drinking fountains side by side. One had a sign saying "Whites Only." The other had no sign and was available to people of all races (including whites who, of course, never drank there). "Separate but equal" was the law of the land, although in actual practice the segregated facilities available to blacks were grossly unequal.

Jim Crow laws and socially established customs mandating racial segregation have taken their rightful place in the dungheap of history -- except in Hawaii where they flourish and worsen as each year goes by. Hawaii's racial entitlement programs have established racial separatism and attitudes of racial supremacy as social norms; and are fueling demands for federal recognition of "Native Hawaiians" as a sovereign Indian tribe. The main justifications offered for racial entitlement programs are claims of racial disparities, which are based on bogus statistical analysis due to deliberate refusal to allocate victimhood to ethnic groups in proportion to the percentage of each ethnicity in the heritage of each victim, and the refusal to compare ethnic group victimhood data within the same age cohorts.

Suppose help is given to people in a race-neutral way based on need alone. Then "Native Hawaiians" will automatically get the lion's share of the help, if "Native Hawaiians" truly have the worst statistics among all ethnic groups. A 450-page monster book proclaiming and celebrating Native Hawaiian victimhood "studies" over the years was produced by Kamehameha Schools "Policy Analysis and Systems Evaluation" division in 2006 just at the right time to influence debate in the U.S. Senate over the Akaka bill to create a Hawaiian tribe. But a different way to think about that book is to see it as a 450-page proof that "Native Hawaiians" will get more help than other ethnic groups if help is given based on need alone. It is selfish, immoral, and racially divisive for "Native Hawaiians" to demand more government and philanthropic assistance than would be warranted by their actual needs.

This has been a summary of a very detailed webpage which provides proof of statistical malpractice in how people are allocated to racial categories in various "studies", and detailed analyses of the "findings" in several iterations of the Native Hawaiian Healthcare Act over a number of years of its reauthorization.

See "Native Hawaiian victimhood -- malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction. How and why the Hawaiian grievance industry uses bogus statistics to scam government and philanthropic organizations, politicians, and public opinion." at
http://tinyurl.com/j3aolqg

===================

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition

Hawaiian language is a great treasure for Hawaii's people and for all the world. So I wish the writers of this resolution had exercised a little restraint in their zeal for reviving a nearly dead language and especially their rampant attempt to root out and exterminate well-known English language names for plants and animals.

I described this resolution as urging the EXTERMINATION of English names. That was not an exaggeration. Note the presence of the word "sole" in SR18 which urges "that state offices, including state educational entities and recreational facilities, are urged to use Hawaiian names as the SOLE common names of local flora and fauna, including distinctive Hawaiian names for different sizes or varieties of flora and fauna ..." Such ruthlessness � proposing ethnic cleansing of names � displays an unacceptable ethnic hatred which should not be tolerated in our multi-ethnic society striving for manifestation of the Aloha Spirit.

It is certainly a worthy goal to urge the inclusion of Hawaiian names. It is even reasonable to urge that the Hawaiian name should be listed ahead of the Latin name. But far more Hawaii people are familiar with the English names of plants and animals than could even recognize the Hawaiian names, so the order of listing should be English, then Hawaiian, then Latin.

The penultimate paragraph of SR18 hints that there are some plants and animals for which the Hawaiian names have been lost, and that newly identified species or newly introduced foreign species might never have had Hawaiian names. In such cases the customary international procedures for naming of species should be followed; most notably, that the discoverer has the right to name it, although different names in different languages may also be used secondarily in accord with local custom.

I would also urge that when a committee of Hawaiian language experts at the University of Hawaii invents a new name for an animal, plant, or technological creation, deference should be given to adopting a name which is culturally intuitive rather than mere mimicry of a non-Hawaiian word. For example the primary word for "computer" should be "lolouila" (electronic brain) rather than than the now-more-frequently heard transliteration "kamepiula."

================

HCR 160 / HR 110
URGING THE USAGE OF HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE WHEN REFERRING TO THE NAMES OF PLACES AND GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES IN HAWAI'I.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition

I described this resolution as urging the EXTERMINATION of English names. That was not an exaggeration. Note the presence of the word "sole" in HCR160/HR110 which urges "that state offices, including state educational entities and recreational facilities, are urged to use Hawaiian names as the sole common names of Hawai'i's places and geographical features ..." Such ruthlessness � proposing ethnic cleansing of names � displays an unacceptable ethnic hatred which should not be tolerated in our multi-ethnic society striving for manifestation of the Aloha Spirit.

It is certainly a worthy goal to urge the inclusion of Hawaiian names for places and geographical features in local signage and publications, and also in tourist brochures. However, names in English and other languages should not be disparaged or deleted, and might be necessary to communicate effectively with locals and visitors who are accustomed to those names.

Demands for Hawaiianization of all names reached an absurd level of viciousness a few years ago when the writer of the weekly Hawaiian language column in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser insisted on changing the English-language name of a famous PERSON into a Hawaiian-language name which translated the MEANING of the name into Hawaiian � an actual conceptual translation, not merely a transliteration of the way it sounds. The absurdity of doing this, and the confusion it would cause, can be illustrated by changing the name listed on the street sign for "King Street" to "Ala Mo'i Kane" or changing the name of "Kamehameha" to "Lonely One." Did you know that Lonely One School in Honolulu is located on Father Street?

See webpage "Forcing the name of a person or place to be Hawaiianized through transliteration of its sound following Hawaiian grammatical rules or conceptual translation of its meaning into Hawaiian vocabulary" at
https://tinyurl.com/6on8k9s

===================

SCR74/SR43
REQUESTING THE AUDITOR TO ASSESS THE SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF REQUIRING HEALTH INSURERS TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NATIVE HAWAIIAN CULTURE-BASED ACTIVITIES.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition

I CALL UPON THE SENATORS ON THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND HEALTH TO PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO POINT #3 IN THE TESTIMONY BELOW, BECAUSE THE ISSUES RAISED THERE COME UP REPEATEDLY IN MANY BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS.

1. There are many physical activities which could contribute to physical health; but we do not force health insurers to pay the fees for people to join organizations or clubs which sponsor such activities. If we force insurers to cover such things then the insurers will need to increase the premiums we must pay for their insurance policies. If we force insurers to pay membership fees for people to join canoe clubs or hula halaus, then by the same logic we should force insurers to pay the cost for people to join health spas, gyms, boxing clubs, and to participate in the Honolulu Marathon. Insurance premiums will rise to pay for insurers to cover activities which might be fun and even physically healthful, but are not necessary.

2. The whereas clauses in this resolution focus on allegedly poor health statistics for Native Hawaiians, together with the assertion that some cultural activities such as canoe paddling and hula are distinctive components of Native Hawaiian culture. The unspoken but obvious general principle being assumed here is that insurers should be forced to pay for membership or activity fees solely for people of specific ethnic groups (but not others) to participate in cultural activities that are stereotypically identified specifically with those ethnic groups. There are several flaws with such reasoning.

2a. Hula and canoe paddling are presumably good for the health of all people regardless of ethnicity. If there are scientific studies supporting that hula and canoe paddling are good for physical health, then insurance companies should be forced to pay for anyone of any ethnicity to participate in such activities. Why force insurers to engage in racial discrimination? There are thousands of men and women with no Hawaiian native blood who are members of canoe clubs and hula halaus.

2b. If the legislature thinks it's wise to make a linkage between ethnicity and specific cultural activities, forcing insurers to pay for only the people of a specific ethnic group to participate in activities that fit the stereotype of that ethnic group, then you must certainly force insurers to pay for ethnic Filipinos to participate in escrima martial arts clubs; and for ethnic Scottish people to join the Scottish Highland clubs where they practice caber (log) tossing [an annual competition is held at Kapiolani Park]; and for women of Middle Eastern descent (but not Caucasians) to take lessons in belly dancing (because it is a stereotypically Middle Eastern cultural activity not traditionally practiced by Caucasians in Europe or America). Silly, isn't it?

3. The Native Hawaiian victimhood assertions in the top whereas clause of this resolution are based on "studies" which knowingly and intentionally commit statistical malpractice in gathering and analyzing data for the purpose of enriching the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry and enhancing their political power. The remainder of this testimony is addressed to that topic. For decades politicians, academics, and the people of Hawaii have been bombarded with claims that Native Hawaiians have the worst victimhood statistics for virtually every terrible disease or social dysfunction: heart disease, breast cancer, diabetes, drug abuse, poverty, incarceration -- the list of woes is endless. Such claims are presented along with statistics which appear to prove them. The claims, sometimes accompanied by statistical "studies", are published in newspapers or academic journals to influence public opinion to feel sympathy for those poor, downtrodden Native Hawaiians and to build political support for racial entitlement programs. The "studies" are also cited when powerful institutions with well-established bureaucracies apply for government or philanthropic grants to conduct race-based screening programs and further studies, which are then used to apply for additional grants, etc.; thereby perpetuating the institutions and the salaries of their bureaucrats.

Victims are assigned to the category of "Native Hawaiian" without regard to the other ethnicities that make up a majority of their ancestry. This greatly inflates the alleged victimhood of Native Hawaiians while at the same time depriving those other ethnicities of the victimhood recognition to which the facts entitle them. Anyone with even a single drop of Hawaiian native blood is classified as "Native Hawaiian" and solely as Native Hawaiian (see the "smoking gun" confession of statistical malpractice copied from a scholarly article cited in the webpage below). The opposite sort of one-drop rule is used when counting Caucasians. A person whose ancestry is 7/8 Caucasian might be classified as Filipino merely because the father has 1/8 Filipino ancestry. These two applications of the one-drop rule grossly increase the apparent level of Native Hawaiian victimhood while also reducing the apparent level of Caucasian victimhood. An accurate assessment of ethnic victimhood would require researchers to have the courage to ask the politically incorrect but scientifically essential question: What are you? What racial groups are present in your ancestry, and what is the percentage of each one?

Whether genetics or lifestyle is being studied as a cause or correlation of victimhood, a graph should be drawn for each kind of victimhood with regard to each ethnic group, comparing percentage of ethnicity against percentage of victimhood. If women with a low percentage of being Native Hawaiian by race or lifestyle have a low percentage of breast cancer while women with a high percentage of being Native Hawaiian by race or lifestyle also have a high percentage of breast cancer, then it would be reasonable to conclude that being Native Hawaiian is correlated with and probably a cause of getting breast cancer. Researchers could then try to discover what specific elements of genome or lifestyle cause the trouble. It would certainly be scientifically interesting to discover clear causes for the bad outcomes. But then would arise the question what should be done with such knowledge. It would be politically incorrect and socially dangerous to recommend genetic modification for Native Hawaiians, or changes in culture or lifestyle, as ways to prevent victimhood.

Suppose help were given to people in a race-neutral way based on need alone. Then "Native Hawaiians" would automatically get the lion's share of the help, if "Native Hawaiians" truly have the worst statistics among all ethnic groups. A 450-page monster book proclaiming and celebrating Native Hawaiian victimhood "studies" over the years was produced by Kamehameha Schools "Policy Analysis and Systems Evaluation" division in 2006 just at the right time to influence debate in the U.S. Senate over the Akaka bill to create a Hawaiian tribe. But a different way to think about that book is to see it as a 450-page proof that "Native Hawaiians" will get more help than other ethnic groups if help is given based on need alone. It is selfish, immoral, and racially divisive for "Native Hawaiians" to demand more government and philanthropic assistance than would be warranted by their actual needs.

The legislature has a fiduciary duty to provide help to needy people without regard to race. "Native Hawaiians" are highly favored by government and philanthropic programs that are racially exclusionary solely for their benefit, while people of other ethnicities who desperately need help cannot get it because the limited resources are diverted to Hawaii's favorite race. This has been a summary of a very detailed webpage which provides proof of statistical malpractice in how people are allocated to racial categories in various "studies", and detailed analyses of the "findings" in several iterations of the Native Hawaiian Healthcare Act over a number of years of its reauthorization.

See webpage entitled "Native Hawaiian victimhood -- malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction. How and why the Hawaiian grievance industry uses bogus statistics to scam government and philanthropic organizations, politicians, and public opinion" at
http://tinyurl.com/j3aolqg

==========================
==========================

HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN PREVIOUS YEARS -- TESTIMONY BY KEN CONKLIN AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE ALOHA FOR ALL AND GRASSROOT INSTITUTE GROUPS.

Personal note by Ken Conklin: I came permanently to live in Hawaii in 1992. From then until 1998 I spent full time doing independent study about Hawaiian language, history, and culture. I felt a strong spiritual relationship with the land and people, which I sensed on three summer vacations beginning 1982 and was one of my main motives for coming to live here permanently. Because of the beautiful spirituality in Hawaiian music, hula, and legends, I was inclined to go along with the historical victimhood narrative pushed by Hawaiian sovereignty activists on such topics as the overthrow of the monarchy (1893), annexation (1898), and statehood (1959). I attended a large number of Hawaiian sovereignty rallies, panel discussions at University of Hawaii, and conversations in public places or in private homes; and read many books. But having a Ph.D. in philosophy I am accustomed to studying issues that are both complex and controversial, asking lots of questions, and doing research. And my masters in Mathematics made me feel a need to be logical and keep my beliefs clear and consistent. The more questions I asked, the more my erstwhile "friends" began questioning my "loyalty" to them and to their movement. In many cases they did not know the facts; and in some cases they did know the facts but persisted in telling me half-truths or outright lies. It took many months of soul-searching, gut-wrenching introspection to figure things out; and then everything fit together within a few days and I saw the whole gestalt picture -- the face of evil in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Since then I gradually began stepping out of private life, writing letters to editor, creating this website, running as a candidate for OHA trustee in 2000, writing my book, etc. I began writing testimony on bills in Congress and in the state legislature around year 1999. For the past decade the internet has made it increasingly easy to keep up to date about bills in the legislature and to submit testimony by email or through the legislature's website.

Below are some webpages providing testimony to the Hawaii legislature over the years, mostly by myself but also some by friends who were members of the Aloha For All and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii groups. This is an incomplete list, but it shows the kind of issues arising in the legislature over time and how civil rights activists are fighting back in an effort to protect unity, equality, and aloha for all. There's a gathering storm in Hawaii as racial supremacists demand either creation of a racial separatist tribe recognized by the state and federal governments, or else restoration of Hawaii's status as an independent nation with racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians under the modern theory of "indigenous rights." See my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

I hope that Hawaii citizens who read the bills and testimony in the 2018 legislature, and in the legislatures since 2002, will see the dangers, rise to the occasion, and hold their state Senators and Representatives accountable.

Here are webpages covering State of Hawaii legislation related to Hawaiian sovereignty in previous years, listed in reverse chronological order (most recent listed first).

Hawaii Legislature 2017 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2016 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Hawaii Legislature 2015 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

In 2014 no compilation was kept of racist bills in the Hawaii state legislature. However, special attention was given to very dangerous legislation creating and expanding a racial registry for building a Hawaiian tribe. See webpage

"Building a Hawaiian tribe through actions of the state legislature: May 2014 progress report (Roll Commission failure to follow the requirements of enabling legislation Act 195; identity theft of 87,000 names from earlier racial registries; enrollment of minor children; legislative hearing as cheerleader rather than oversight enforcer; and more issues)" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/KanaiolowaluMay2014ProgRpt.html

March 11, 2013: Racial entitlement bills in the 2013 Hawaii legislature (and how all the Republicans except Senator Slom and Representative McDermott are voting in lockstep with the Democrats)

February 10, 2013: U.S. apology resolution 20th anniversary -- A resolution was introduced in the Hawaii legislature to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the U.S. apology resolution; and testimony was offered to the Hawaii legislature in the form of a substitute resolution explaining that the apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed.

July 24, 2011: Racial set-asides of land, money, and political power -- how Act 195 will move Hawaii toward New Zealand and Fiji

July 12, 2011: Gearing up for the divorce -- Klub Kanaka greedily looks ahead to property division and alimony from the State of Hawaii (Hawaii House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs holds informational briefing for government departments to tell how they can help implement Act 195 creating a state-recognized tribe)

May 4, 2011: Hawaii begins to create a state-recognized tribe. SB1520 passed the legislature on May 3, 2011. Why did they do it? What happens now?

April 1, 2011: HR258 and HCR293 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution to rip the Treaty of Annexation out of the hand of President McKinley in his statue in front of McKinley High School

March 22, 2011: HCR107 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration.

February 3, 2009: Ceded lands issues in the Hawaii Legislature, 2009

February 3, 2009: Legislation in Hawaii in 2009 to declare ethnic Hawaiians as an indigenous people

January 17, 2009: Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes in 2009 to Expand the Evil Empire. Subpages include protest of Supreme Court ceded lands case; OHA demand for legislative moratorium on ceded land sales; OHA demand for "back rent" settlement; Akaka bill; other issues as they arise in 2009 including Waimea Valley, Waokele o Puna, etc. Links to coverage of evil Empire expansion in previous years.

January 14, 2009: Some important issues for the Hawaii Legislature in 2009. Stop the giveaway. Just say no.

October 12, 2008: Iolani Palace and the Golden Jubilee of Hawaii Statehood. The Palace was the Capitol of the Republic of Hawaii (1894-1898), Territory of Hawaii (1898-1959), and State of Hawaii (1959-1968), where the transition to Statehood took place in 1959. But the state government is now prohibiting use of the Palace for jubilee celebration due to threats from secessionists and concerns for political correctness.