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

Hawaii Legislature 2020 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty and Racial Entitlement Programs. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Webpage published February 17, 2020 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.

BACKGROUND ON HAWAIIAN RACIAL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND EFFORTS TO PROTECT THEM BY CREATING A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED HAWAIIAN TRIBE THROUGH AN ACT OF CONGRESS (THE AKAKA BILL 2000-2012) OR A REGULATION ENACTED BY PROCLAMATION OF OBAMA'S U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (43CFR50, 2013-2016)

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. The Akaka bill in Congress was pushed hard but unsuccessfully during the period 2000-2012. A four-year process within the U.S. Department of Interior created a new pathway for federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe through a regulation 43CFR50 proclaimed in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016. One of the primary purposes of that 16 year effort has been 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. Federally recognized tribes are allowed to discriminate, including tax-supported racial entitlement progrms; 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 during 2017-2018 was the only state legislative body in the U.S. where all members belong to a single political party. For 2019-2020 there is one Republican in the Senate, but he leans left and votes the same way as the Democrats on nearly every item. 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 sat in the House as a registered Democrat.

The bills and resolutions covered in this webpage 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.

HOW THIS WEBPAGE TRACKS HAWAII LEGISLATION DURING 2020

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 appropriating millions of dollars (or hundreds of millions of dollars!) are usually listed ahead of non-monetary bills focused on culture or language; and then they are also in order of the date when the first hearing for a bill is scheduled, or its clone companion in the other chamber.

This webpage was created on February 17, 2020 after 12 different bills (not counting cloned companions) had already had numerous hearings held or scheduled in either the House or Senate, or both, for which Ken Conklin had submitted testimony. Items are listed approximately in chronological order according to the date of their first hearing. 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 here. 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.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS: List of bills and resolutions on which Conklin testified, in the order they appear below, for the 2020 Hawaii Legislature. Scroll down to find the one that interests you. They are in chronological order of when each item had its first committee hearing, not necessarily in the order of their importance.

SB2195 and HB1784 RELATING TO LANDOWNER LIABILITY.
Provides liability protections for public and private landowners who expressly allow access and use of their land to practitioners of Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices.

SB2265 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN HOMELANDS.
Establishes the micro enterprise assistance program on Hawaiian home lands revolving fund to provide grants and loans through the implementation of the micro enterprise assistance program to qualified native Hawaiians, native Hawaiian- controlled homestead associations, and homestead association community development corporations. Appropriates funds.

SB2113 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN HOMELANDS.
Requires the department of Hawaiian home lands to negotiate with native Hawaiians before offering Hawaiian home lands for lease to the public by auction. Requires annual report regarding negotiations.

HB1875 RELATING TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.
Requires the governor to appoint the governor's coordinator on Native Hawaiian affairs to coordinate responses to issues that impact Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian culture across state departments and agencies.

SB2387 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS.
Appropriates funds for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Office of Hawaiian Affairs as mandated by the Constitution of the State of Hawaii and Hawaii Revised Statutes.

SB2111 RELATING TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION.
Adds the chairperson of the Hawaiian Homes Commission or the chairperson's designee to serve as an ex officio, voting member of the Commission on Water Resource Management.

SB3142 RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL PURPOSE REVENUE BONDS TO ASSIST PUEO DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
Authorizes the issuance of special purpose revenue bonds for a master planned development proposed by Pueo Development, LLC.

SB2368 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE.
Designates the month of February as "Olelo Hawai�i Month" to celebrate and encourage the use of Hawaiian language. Requires all letterheads, documents, symbols, and emblems of the State and other political subdivisions that include Hawaiian words or names to include accurate and appropriate Hawaiian names, spelling, and punctuation. Establishes references for accurate, appropriate, and authentic Hawaiian names and words, including proper Hawaiian spelling and punctuation. Clarifies that the full text of bills and other official documents are not required to be written in Hawaiian and that misspelled or incorrectly punctuated Hawaiian words and names shall not invalidate the documents or render them unenforceable and no cause of action shall arise accordingly.

HB1781 and SB2192 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN EXPERTISE IN LAND USE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
Prohibits council, board, and commission members from serving if the member has not completed, within the requisite time, the required training course related to native Hawaiian and Hawaiian traditional and customary rights, native Hawaiian and Hawaiian natural resource protection and access rights, and the public trust, including the State's trust responsibility. Requires that at least 4 members of each the board of land and natural resources and the state land use commission be appointed from a list submitted by the office of Hawaiian affairs.

HB2208 RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOMELANDS.
Appropriates funds to DHHL for the acquisition of land to be developed by DHHL for affordable housing units.

HCR37 REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR TO CONVENE A BLUE RIBBON RECONCILIATION COMMISSION TO EXAMINE AND FORMULATE A RECONCILIATION PROCESS RELATING TO ISSUES OF PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE IMPORTANCE TO THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE, THE STATE OF HAWAII, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

SB3067 RELATING TO PRINCE JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE.
Requires certain public buildings on Hawaiian home lands to display portraits of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole.

HB1880 and SB3094 RELATING TO THE KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION.
Appropriates funds to the Department of Land and Natural Resources for the operations of the Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission and for 2 full-time equivalent positions to support the Commission.

SB1363 and HB402, deferred (undecided) from 2019 into 2020:
RELATING TO INCREASING THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS' PRO RATA SHARE OF PUBLIC LAND TRUST FUNDS. Establishes $ as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' pro rata share of the public land trust. Transfers $ less certain funds to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for underpayment of the public land trust funds for 7/1/2012 to 6/30/2019. Requires the Director of Finance to make up the difference between a specified minimum amount and an amount of public land trust receipts from an agency to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs by transferring the difference into the carry-forward trust holding account. Requires the Department of Land and Natural Resources to provide an annual accounting of receipts from lands described in section 5(f) of the Admission 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. (SD1)

SCR57 URGING THE STATE OF HAWAI�I TO PROVIDE NATIVE HAWAIIANS WITH THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE PUBLIC LAND TRUST REVENUE.

SCR189/SR159 URGING THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN CONVENTION TO CONVENE A WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES TO CREATE HAWAIIAN NATIONALITY AS A PROTECTED CLASS FOR PURPOSES OF HAWAII'S ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS.

SCR61 URGING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO: (1) DEVELOP A HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE AND HAWAIIAN CULTURAL SENSITIVITY AND FAMILIARITY PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES THROUGH ITS OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN EDUCATION TO INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION BY 2023; (2) ESTABLISH A HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE GRADUATION EXIT REQUIREMENT FOR ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS BY 2030; AND (3) STRENGTHEN THE HAWAIIAN HISTORY REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE PRE-1959 HISTORY TO BE TAUGHT FROM AN INDIGENOUS HAWAIIAN PERSPECTIVE BY 2030.

** 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.

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

FULL TEXT OF KEN CONKLIN'S TESTIMONY ON EACH BILL OR RESOLUTION, AND LINKS TO LEGISLATURE'S WEBSITE WHERE THE PROGRESS OF EACH ITEM IS TRACKED AND FILE OF ALL TESTIMONY IS PROVIDED

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=SB&billnumber=2195&year=2020
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1784&year=2020

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE INTENT BUT PROPOSING AMENDMENTS

This testimony supports the intent of this bill provided that it is amended to make clear that there is no requirement for practitioners to have any particular racial component in their heritage and that there is no requirement for any particular culture to be the one that the practitioners are engaging in.

See the webpage "Four Fundamental Principles of Unity and Equality" at
https://tinyurl.com/yxg5plnb
and the version emailed to all legislators on January 6, 2020 preserved on Facebook at
https://tinyurl.com/yh32yex8

Article 12 Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution grants special rights to Native Hawaiians for �traditional and customary practices� interpreted to include trespassing for shoreline access, religious practices, or gathering certain materials. The pono way to honor that provision while also honoring equality under the law is to extend the traditional and customary rights of Native Hawaiians to all citizens. In the Kingdom those rights were for everyone regardless of race (�hoa�aina� meant �tenant� or "resident" and not race-specific �native tenant�; �kanaka� meant race-neutral �person�).

The general concept should be that landowners are protected against liability for injury or damage to the person(s) or property of practitioners who enter less than fully developed land, whether with or without landowner permission, when their entry is for the purpose of engaging in cultural practices; and that such protection from liability extends to all practitioners and cultures and does not depend upon which culture is being practiced nor which racial group(s) are contained in the genealogy of any practitioner.

The best improvement in this bill would be to waive all landowner liability for injury or property damage regarding any intruder who enters uninvited or without permission, regardless of motive or reason for entering; and then to extend the waiver of liability to apply even when an intruder has been invited or enters with permission provided that the intruder is engaged in cultural practices regardless of the particular culture being practiced or the race(s) of the practitioner.

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill is extremely short, vague, and poorly written; yet there are 9 Senators already supporting it. So it must be taken seriously! But what's it really about?

The bill would establish a "micro enterprise assistance program" for DHHL beneficiaries or their associations or corporations. Presumably it refers to providing small grants or loans to small businesses.

Microloans as pioneered in Asia at first seemed like a wonderful idea, until they led to severe economic and personal crises for recipients.

In 2006 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank which he founded, for their creativity in setting up a program of very small loans to individual entrepreneurs, mostly female, in underdeveloped Asian countries afflicted with severe poverty. The recipients used the money to buy equipment and supplies to start up new companies, mostly in their own homes, where they might spin yarn, make clothing, etc. There were several million recipients who were almost all successful, repaid the loans in tiny weekly payments to local collectors who came to their doors, and often grew their businesses by reinvesting profits or taking out additional loans.

But as years went by problems emerged, as reported in "The Economist" weekly magazine dated August 15, 2019. "In parts of Sri Lanka�s north and east, some women keep track of their microloans by the day of the week the collectors come. Others identify the lenders by the colours of their collectors� shirts. Monday loan blue shirt, Tuesday loan yellow shirt: small, unsecured loans promoted by the government after the decades-long civil war ended in 2009 have enmeshed many women in hopeless debt. A central-bank official says his employees have talked desperate borrowers out of killing themselves. At least 170 committed suicide last year. Nalani Wickremesinghe, from Baduraliya in the south, has taken loans from 11 companies ... The first was to pay for her husband�s medical treatment. Then he fell at his workplace and is still bedridden. She has borrowed 500,000-600,000 rupees ($2,800-3,400) in total ... She has already pawned, and lost, her gold jewellery. Struggling to feed her family, she has little option but to borrow again ..."

It's a shame this bill is so poorly written that readers have no way to know whether microloans as pioneered by Muhammad Yunus are actually being proposed for DHHL communities, nor whether the social disasters described in "The Economist" article might then afflict communities in Hawaii.

One element of this bill is totally unacceptable. Section 2 appropriates money for this program from the state general fund. But under terms of the bill all the recipients must be native Hawaiians, or homeowner associations or companies owned by native Hawaiians. Despite the long history of Hawaii providing tax dollars to racially exclusionary groups, such programs are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. But even if it were OK to have government-sponsored racial entitlements, let's remember that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has more than $600,000,000 in assets hoarded over the years, and it's long past time to spend that money for the purposes that it was set aside to serve. OHA, not the taxpayers, should pay for this program.

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

The clear purpose of this bill is to require that when DHHL decides to raise funds by leasing land for commercial development, preference must be given to native Hawaiians or companies owned by them rather than leasing to the general public. The bill uses highly pejorative language decrying a "de facto policy [whereby] the department requires native Hawaiians to compete in a bidding war against well- financed for-profit corporations, often from the mainland, who may not employ native Hawaiians, use native Hawaiian subcontractors and suppliers, or have any ongoing commitment to native Hawaiian self- sufficiency or cultural preservation. Instead, these entities seek only to maximize profits for their investors."

In other words this bill would allow DHHL to award commercial leases to a highly favored racial group at lease rents far below market value by cutting out potential bidders of the wrong racial groups who otherwise would generate higher lease rent to provide money which DHHL is always complaining it needs. DHHL would no doubt demand (probably through lawsuits, as we have repeatedly seen) that the legislature appropriate tax dollars from the general fund to make up the difference for whatever might be deemed "sufficient funding."

This bill goes far beyond merely requiring DHHL to give a racial preference in awarding leases for commercial development.

This bill actually authorizes DHHL to negotiate any commercial lease in secret with native Hawaiians before even making known to the general public that a parcel of land is on offer to be leased, thus guaranteeing that the lease can be awarded for a bid below market value because potential bidders are racially excluded from competing or even knowing about it.

Indeed, language in the bill appears to allow a DHHL bureaucrat to single out a particular individual native Hawaiian friend of theirs, to notify such an individual in secret that a particular parcel of land is available for lease, and then to make a secret deal with that individual to lease that parcel for an absurdly low rent in return for whatever bribes or personal favors the friend might secretly give in return to the bureaucrat.

This bill not only authorizes generalized racist behavior apart from individualized favors -- this bill is also a recipe encouraging nepotism, bribery, and corruption by individual DHHL bureaucrats wishing to enrich their individual buddies who remain hidden behind the scenes. The bill is sponsored by an individual Senator whose signature is illegible, "by request" from an unknown person, in return for favors we can only imagine. Hey, that's exactly the scenario this bill would authorize when DHHL awards leases for commercial development! I mention that not to disparage the most honorable sponsoring Senator, of course, but merely to illustrate the depth of distrust and conspiracy theorizing that passage of this bill would engender.

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Identity politics is already destroying the Aloha Spirit and ripping our state apart. The primary purpose of this bill is to worsen the role of identity politics by forcing the Governor to appoint an advisor to push the Governor to adopt policies desired by a faction within one highly- favored racial group, while leaving all other racial groups out in the cold because they will have no comparable spokespeople. Where is the bill to make the Governor appoint a special advisor on Caucasian affairs? (Considering that most interracial violence today is directed against Caucasians). What about immigrant affairs in general, or Filipino affairs in particular? How about a special advisor on poverty in general, or homeless people in particular?

Over the years OHA has successfully pushed through the Legislature numerous bills which require that various government agencies, boards, and commissions must have one or more voting members who are appointed by OHA, or appointed from a list approved by OHA; i.e., they must be ethnic Hawaiian or strongly committed to OHA's agenda of racial entitlements. The agency members appointed by OHA are essentially spies and lobbyists who report on the internal deliberations of those agencies and attempt to shape policy-making in accord with OHA's agendas. No other ethnic group has a government agency exclusively devoted to its own people, empowered to spend annually tens of millions of dollars from taxes and land lease revenues exclusively for its own racial group, or empowered to appoint or veto members of other government agencies.

In recent years OHA successfully pushed through the legislature bills which force employees of numerous government agencies to attend annual seminars where they are required to read materials, and listen to lectures, indoctrinating them with OHA's propaganda about the history of Hawaii and the special "rights" of "Native Hawaiians." The materials forced upon agency employees are hidden from public scrutiny; and no effort is made to include lecturers or curriculum presenting any alternative views. This bill proposes to add yet another brick to Hawaii's wall of apartheid, by forcing the Governor to appoint a "Hawaiian affairs" advisor to pressure him into making policy decisions consistent with OHA's views about such matters as the thirty-meter telescope on Mauna Kea, how government lands should be used, how people wishing to visit certain government lands must listen to "orientation" lectures presenting one- sided views about the history or sacredness of that area; etc.

It's time to stop dividing people along lines of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and gender. It's time to stop singling out for special favoritism people who have one particular racial element as a component in their genealogy.

It is a fundamental principle of civil rights that all people should be treated equally under the law regardless of race. Equal treatment under the law means there should be no special rights or government entitlement programs for one race preferentially or exclusively. See the webpage "Four Fundamental Principles of Unity and Equality" at
https://tinyurl.com/yxg5plnb
and the version emailed to all legislators on January 6, 2020 preserved on Facebook at
https://tinyurl.com/yh32yex8

Please trash this bill.

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Four points are briefly discussed below:
1. Bill title is inconsistent with bill contents;
2. "Financial autonomy" of the "native Hawaiian community"?
3. "Sufficient funds" and DHHL dictates how much money that is?
4. 20% of ceded lands revenue for OHA -- exercise your power to repeal that statute!

1. This poorly written bill is probably contrary to the state Constitution because its title does not correspond to its contents. The title merely says "RELATING TO HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS" but half the content is relating to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Either the title must be broadened to refer to both DHHL and OHA or else all the content providing justification and funding for OHA must be removed.

2. The first sentence in Section 1 states that the legislature supports the "financial autonomy of the native Hawaiian community." But such a sentiment is contradicted by the fact that there has never been proposed legislation that would foster financial autonomy of that ethnic group -- on the contrary there have been decades of legislation appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars for OHA and DHHL, with no expectation of repayment and with full expectation that such appropriations will continue forever and will grow ever-larger as the years go by. That sentence is more than disingenuous -- it is intentionally misleading (dare we use the word "lie"?).

3. This bill says "the legislature shall make sufficient sums available for the administration and operating budget of the department" DHHL. The phrase "sufficient funds" has been the subject of litigation in recent years specifically regarding DHHL. The courts ordered the legislature to appropriate sufficient funds and the legislature pointed out that the phrase is vague and non- justiciable; and the legislature also gave serious consideration to retaliatory legislation that would penalize the judiciary regarding salaries, budgets, and numbers of positions. It would be bad policy for the legislature to re-enter this swamp. Furthermore, this bill would undermine the authority of the legislature by requiring the appropriation of however much money DHHL demands -- the bill specifically says "The purpose of this Act is to appropriate, from the general fund: (1) An amount equal to the budget request (for operating and administrative expenses) that is annually submitted by the department of Hawaiian home lands ..." Do you legislators really want to sign a blank check for however much money is demanded by the bloated, inefficient, and scandal-ridden bureaucracy at DHHL?

4. This bill says "In accordance with section 10‐13.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the State is obligated to provide the office of Hawaiian affairs with twenty per cent of the funds derived from the public land trust."

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 40 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.

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.

The Ceded Lands Trust costs the State many times more annually for operating expense than the 1.2 million acres bring in. 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://tinyurl.com/62qs2

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.

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.

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

"The purpose of this Act is to add the chairperson of the Hawaiian homes commission or the chairperson's designee as an ex officio, voting member of the commission on water resource management."

The commission on water resource management currently has seven members, and this bill proposes to add an eighth. Five members are appointed by the Governor. Three of them are identified by their fields of expertise, regardless of race: "at least one member shall have substantial experience or expertise in traditional Hawaiian water resource management techniques and in traditional Hawaiian riparian usage such as those preserved by section 174C-101. The chairperson of the board of land and natural resources shall be the chairperson of the commission. The director of health or the director's designee shall serve as an ex officio voting member."

This bill would add a new interlocking director ex-officio from a different board, who must also satisfy a racial requirement. "The chairperson of the Hawaiian homes commission or the chairperson's designee shall serve as an ex officio, voting member." Both the requirement for shared directorate, and the racial requirement implied by specifying the chairperson of the Hawaiian homes commission, should be rejected.

If there is any reason for an interlocking directorate, then the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs would be a far more valuable partner than DHHL, because all of the commerce and consumer activity of the entire population of Hawaii is dependent on good management of water resources. In fact a subsidiary of DCCA, the Condominium Association, has larger membership and greater specialized needs that DHHL.

-----

Some general issues regarding interlocking directorates, with particular focus on identity politics and racial favoritism

When a corporation has one or more members of its board of directors who serve(s) also as a board member of one or more other corporation(s), such a situation is described by saying that the corporations have interlocking directorates. The shared director(s) help each corporation know the plans and activities of the other(s), enabling them to cooperate both in business and in political activity to lobby for laws and government policies that are mutually beneficial. An example of a good interlocking directorate would be if the state highway department had an institutional relationship with the county board of water supply and the private Hawaiian Electric Company, so that we would not have highways being newly repaved only to be dug up soon afterward to replace water pipes or electric poles or buried lines.

However, if two companies are major competitors against each other (Ford and General Motors, for example) it would violate anti-trust laws for them to have interlocking directorates who could use shared knowledge to "fix" prices or establish duopolies to drive out competitors.

In his farewell speech at the end of his second term, President Eisenhower warned about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex." He knew from experience that large corporations lobby politicians to get the government to spend money on purchases of billions of dollars of military supplies and equipment from their companies, even when military officers say those items are outdated or unneeded. Bribery, nepotism and corruption run rampant.

Interlocking directorates are a fact of life in the corporate world. But they can be problematic in the relations government agencies have with each other and with corporate suppliers of goods and services.

It is especially troubling when racial favoritism is a frequent component of decision-making in government; for example, if a Department of Education is predominantly ethnic Japanese in its leadership and staffing while it usually chooses ethnic Japanese companies as suppliers or contractors and usually favors Japanese cultural activities in its curriculum.

Over the years OHA has successfully pushed through the Legislature numerous bills which require that various government agencies, boards, and commissions must have one or more voting members who are appointed by OHA, or appointed from a list approved by OHA; i.e., they must be ethnic Hawaiian or strongly committed to OHA's agenda of racial entitlements. The agency members appointed by OHA are essentially spies and lobbyists who report on the internal deliberations of those agencies and attempt to shape policy-making in accord with OHA's agendas. Consider this: How would OHA like it if the legislature passed bills allowing other government agencies (like the Attorney General or state Auditor) to appoint ex-officio members to OHA's board?

No other ethnic group has a government agency exclusively devoted to its own people, empowered to spend annually tens of millions of dollars from taxes and land lease revenues exclusively for its own racial group, or empowered to appoint or veto members of other government agencies. The entire purpose is racial -- to ensure that those other agencies will comply with OHA's views about what is "pono"; i.e., meets the needs or desires of ethnic Hawaiian "culture", Hawaiian language, and ethnic Hawaiian political power. The only other government agency that is explicitly race-focused is Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Recently DHHL has been lobbying for legislation to establish its own fiefdom of interlocking directorates. "Native Hawaiian" is the only racial group that has entire government agencies at its beck and call; or board positions racially and ideologically earmarked.

Let's remember that OHA has worked very hard for many years to create a racial separatist Hawaiian tribe and secure federal recognition for it. Other Hawaiian sovereignty activists are working at the international level to re-invent Hawaii as a totally independent nation. Both the racial separatists and the ethnic nationalists enthusiastically grab all the racial entitlements they can get from the federal and state governments; and they use resources and laws of "the system" to undermine the system.

Consider the cuckoo bird. It is famous for laying its eggs one by one in different nests of other birds. Whenever possible the cuckoo bird will go to the temporarily unattended nests where it laid its own egg and push some or all of the rightful eggs out of the nests so the cuckoo egg gets more attention than it otherwise would. When the egg hatches, the birds who laid the rightful eggs end up feeding the cuckoo chick who has usurped the place of the rightful chicks. OHA is the cuckoo bird, laying its eggs in other agencies, where they will hatch and eat the resources there.

Readers might recall various examples where parasites use the body of a host as a source of food. This is not the gentle symbiosis of a cleaner wrasse and a reef fish, where the wrasse feeds itself by eating the parasites plaguing the reef fish, and thereby both the wrasse and the reef fish benefit. Perhaps the mildest example of a harmful parasite is the tapeworm which enters the human body through food or ingested dirt and then grows in the intestine to lengths of several feet, eating the food being digested in the intestine and thus sapping the person of strength and causing disease. The example of the tapeworm illustrates how OHA has been feeding itself off the body politic of Hawaii.

It's time to stop playing identity politics with Hawaii's government.

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill has the smell of corruption, violation of Hawaii procurement law, insider dealing, pay-to-play, and racism.

What is PUEO? Who are the owners and board members? It's not easy to find out! How was PUEO chosen for this deal? Was PUEO's involvement in this housing scheme a sole-source contract? If not, which contractors were the other bidders?

There's a long history of PUEO's relationship with Alaska native corporations in relation to lobbying for the Akaka bill during the period 2000-2012 when that bill was being pushed in Congress. PUEO was closely involved with Robin Danner and her (still ongoing!) schemes for organization and housing on DHHL lands; and also the involvement of Danner and Alaska corporations in the creation of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Danner and Senator Inouye arranged for Julie Kitka, President/CEO of the Alaska Federation of Natives, to come to Hawaii to lobby for the Akaka bill, including testifying at the weeklong joint U.S. House/Senate committee hearing at the Blaisdell in Honolulu in August 2000.

Danner and Inouye were also instrumental in the 2001 recruitment of a grossly incompetent but politically connected Evan Dobelle from an obscure college in Massachusetts to be President of University of Hawaii system (in 2004 he got fired for cause, whereupon he sued and got a large settlement).

On September 11, 2002 Dobelle gave the inaugural address to the first annual convention of CNHA, a consortium of wealthy, powerful ethnic Hawaiian institutions assembled for the primary purpose of pushing the Akaka bill and securing racial entitlement programs. In his speech to CNHA, as reported in The Honolulu Advertiser of Sept. 12, 2002, President Dobelle enlisted the University of Hawaii as a political force fighting for ethnic Hawaiians. He pledged that U.H. will work as a strong partner to help Native Hawaiians "redress past injustices"; achieve "self-determination," "decolonization," and "social justice"; and that U.H. will help push the dream of a nation-state into a reality. Dobelle said "It seems to me that those of you who are battling to define your people according to self-defined terms have a dual citizenship -- of this state, and of a state yet to come into existence. Of Hawaii and Ha-va- ii," he said. "Ha-va-ii, home of your ancestors, exists now as a state of mind -- and with the university as your partner, the Hawaiian community will turn that into a state of being. ... "

Some of the issues identified above regarding PUEO are mentioned in an article in Kaua'i's "The Garden Island" newspaper of September 18, 2006. "The Native Hawaiian Economic Alliance Board of Directors this month approved the acquisition of a small business owned by the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation of Alaska. Currently headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska, the purchase transaction will move the company, a federal government contracting firm, permanently to Honolulu and into the hands of Native Hawaiians. ... 'We contacted Robin Danner at CNHA, told her what we were looking for, and she arranged a week full of meetings in Alaska with tribal governments, corporations and nonprofit leaders there,' Billy Ornellas, a Honolulu attorney and advisory board member of NHEA, said in a press release. 'She also arranged meetings with tribal leaders from North Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico and other states from around the country. It was an incredible experience to meet other native business leaders working to achieve the very same goals we were seeking.' ... NHEA hired Derek Sakaguchi, president of a hula halau with 25 years experience in business, 15 of them in the telecommunications field. Under the memorandum and partnership agreement, the company changed its name to Nuvuk Construction doing business as Pueo Group Contracting, and was certified by the Small Business Administration"

The public needs a detailed explanation of how PUEO was chosen to receive up to $50,000,00.00 in state-guaranteed revenue bonds "to design, build, and operate a master planned development in support of a public-private partnership with Waiohuli Hawaiian Homesteaders Association, Inc., on approximately one hundred fifty acres of department of Hawaiian home lands land in Waiohuli, Maui."

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's COMMENTS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION TO HELP IMPROVE THIS BILL

Congratulations to whomever wrote this bill for finally making it more reasonable and practical than in previous years. Some earlier versions would have required that all government documents must be made available in Hawaiian language (full-employment bill for Hawaiian language teachers and the students who major in it); that bills in the legislature must be in both Hawaiian and English and that in case of any dispute over interpretation the Hawaiian version would govern (how many legislators are able to grasp any hidden meanings in the Hawaiian version before enacting the decisive interpretation of a bill?); etc.

I spent 6 semesters beginning in Fall 1992 studying Hawaiian language in a classroom setting for 5 hours per week; and then occasional ad-hoc community-based courses and TV programs in subsequent years. I did that out of love and respect for Hawaiian culture and language, and a desire to assimilate to the multiethnic community of my adopted homeland. I am moderately fluent in Hawaiian and two European languages from schooling, reading and travel; and also have limited ability in two others from travel.

I have mild disagreement about the importance of diacritical marks, especially considering that they are modern inventions by UH professors and were not part of the language until recent decades. A dear friend of mine -- a distinguished retired professor of Hawaiian language -- to this day still does not use kahako (macron), and uses the English apostrophe rather than the curly Hawaiian 'okina when corresponding.

I also have mild disagreement about politicizing the topic by declaring February to be 'Olelo Hawai'i Month (Hawaiian language month). I hope we can speak Hawaiian everywhere all year long. Furthermore February has already been commandeered to be Black History Month.

This bill needs improvement to specify more clearly the criteria and sources for determining which Hawaiian words, phrases, and spellings are to be treated as correct in the context where they are used -- especially when the item or its context could lead to considerable controversy.

For example, consider the term "kanaka maoli." For perhaps three decades that term has been hijacked for political purposes to refer to any person who has any amount of Hawaiian native blood, no matter how small the percentage. The concept is: a Hawaiian is a Hawaiian. Forget small-n "native Hawaiian" vs. large-N "Native Hawaiian." Set aside the category forced upon some of us in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 whose purpose is to create internal divisiveness and strife and to commit genocide by definition through attrition. Hey, we're all Hawaiians; and we reject the colonial English- language label our oppressors have forced upon us; and we call ourselves "kanaka maoli" as our ancestors labeled themselves because "we are who we were."

But for centuries of ancient Hawaiian history the term "kanaka maoli" simply meant "real person" as opposed to god or ghost, and for nearly two centuries of modern history up until the late 1900s, the term referred to full-blooded Hawaiians as opposed to natives of mixed race. In case committee members or members of the public are surprised or think this is nonsense, read the evidence in several paragraphs below. The point is that if a committee of language police at the University of Hawaii is given equal status with highly respected kupuna and authoritative dictionaries in ruling what is acceptable use of Hawaiian language, then this legislation needs to clarify which source will make the final determination, or by what method the dispute should be resolved.

What was the meaning of the term "kanaka maoli" at the time of Captain Cook's arrival? I moved permanently to Hawaii in 1992. From then until his death, there were several times when I saw Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell explain in public lectures and televised interviews that it meant "true human being" as opposed to spirit-person or ghost. The story told by Dr. Blaisdell is that at the time of first encounter (unclear whether on Kaua'i in January 1778 or Kealakekua Bay upon returning from Alaska in November 1778), a British officer (Perhaps Captain Cook himself), using a Polynesian interpreter traveling with them, spoke to a Hawaiian leader and asked "Who are you?" And a Hawaiian replied "We are kanaka maoli, and who are you?" Dr. Blaisdell guessed that the Hawaiian natives saw the pale white skin of the British sailors and imagined them to be either gods or spirit-people; so the Hawaiian, when asked who he was, replied that he was a "real person" or "genuine human" and not a god or ghost. So apparently the term "kanaka maoli" at that time in history had always meant simply "real human being" or "real person."

During the 1800s and 1900s there was an increasing amount of interracial sex between natives and non-natives; and there was a corresponding increase in the number of mixed-race children, grandchildren, and their descendants of ever-more-attenuated native ancestry. It became a point of pride for some natives with 100% native blood to proclaim their status as "pure Hawaiians." That term carries the unfortunate implication that mixed-blood natives are somehow impure or deserve lesser status. Nevertheless, many ethnic Hawaiians today who have 25% or 50% native blood will use that phrase with no suggestion of negative stigma when they proudly say their mother or their grandfather was "pure Hawaiian." The Hawaiian language pride-asserting term for "pure Hawaiian" as opposed to mixed-race or even the disparaging "poi dog" was "kanaka maoli."

The most authoritative Hawaiian dictionary, widely used today, was published by UH Press in 1957, authored by Mary Kawena Pukui and Samuel H. Elbert; and republished through several editions. My own "revised and enlarged" edition was published in 1986. On page 127 it has many examples of how the word "kanaka" is used, and how it is combined with other words. But at the bottom of all the examples, and the only time the phrase "kanaka maoli" appears, it has a line all by itself, saying in its entirety:

kanaka maoli. n. Full-blooded Hawaiian person.

Today that term has been hijacked as the identifier for any person who has any percentage of Hawaiian native ancestry, no matter how low the percentage. However, that current usage is a heavily politicized twisting of what the term originally meant prior to Captain Cook's arrival, and also a twisting of what that term later meant throughout the 1800s and even into the mid or late 1900s.

The point is that if a committee of language police at the University of Hawaii is given equal status with highly respected kupuna and authoritative dictionaries in ruling what is acceptable use of Hawaiian language, then this legislation needs to clarify which source will make the final determination, or by what method the dispute should be resolved.

---------------------

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=HB&billnumber=1781&year=2020
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2192&year=2020

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This testimony focuses on these four main points:

1. OHA should not be given authority over other boards or agencies by empowering OHA to use force to compel board members and employees to attend or pass a course created by OHA. OHA should not be empowered to compile lists of noncompliant resisters and report them to their supervisors for punitive action or termination. The heavy-handed compulsion authorized by this bill stands in sharp contrast with the huge attendance at voluntary non-credit classes in Hawaiian language made available free of charge in January 2020 at UH Manoa open to students, staff, and community.

2. The course created by OHA has the clear purpose of brainwashing attendees with the views of OHA regarding controversial topics of Hawaiian history, culture, and religion; with no requirement for legislator or auditor oversight of course content, no requirement for advocates of alternative views to be able to teach them, and no objective assessment of the value or effectiveness of the course.

3. OHA has a long history of pushing the legislature to enact laws forcing other boards, agencies, and commissions to accept voting members named or approved by OHA. Such placement of political kommissars seeded throughout our state government is not done by any other government agency and provides OHA with a network of both spies and lobbyists to oversee and influence all areas of policy. Analogy to animal parasites.

4. This bill would convert the Land Use Commission and the Board of Land and Natural Resources into puppets of OHA by stacking them with multiple board members chosen by OHA.

Please defeat this ridiculous, racist, and dangerous bill. Here are detailed explications of each of the four points.

1. OHA SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN AUTHORITY OVER OTHER BOARDS OR AGENCIES BY EMPOWERING OHA TO USE FORCE TO COMPEL BOARD MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES TO ATTEND OR PASS A COURSE CREATED BY OHA. THE HARSH PUNITIVE ACTIONS THIS BILL WOULD AUTHORIZE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE IS EVIDENCE THAT OHA LIED IN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY WHEN OHA TOUTED THE ALLEGED SATISFACTION OF ATTENDEES WITH ITS COURSE.

OHA has been pushing the concept of this bill through the legislature for at least 8 years. Some good points remain valid from testimony regarding SB406 in year 2013. But new testimony is also needed, because OHA was later successful in getting the concept enacted into law. Once the concept was enacted OHA was then successful in expanding the number of agencies and employees forced to participate in its propaganda brainwashing sessions. And now OHA seeks not only to further expand the number of victims but also to take down the names of all individuals who negligently fail or bravely refuse to subject themselves to OHA's re-education camps so that OHA can then report those resisters to their employing agencies for disciplinary action or termination. Read the bill if you think this is an exaggeration. OHA's vindictiveness toward noncompliance should remind us what happened to teachers, scholars, and community leaders in China during Chairman Mao's "Cultural Revolution" 1966-76, and to less-than-enthusiastic Cambodians during the Khmer Rouge "social engineering" program under Pol Pot 1975-79.

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 of state and county department heads and hundreds of board members and agency employees have already been placed under the direct authority and supervision of OHA under Act 169 of 2015 and later expansions, 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?

This year's bill in 2020 makes it clear that punitive action is needed against noncompliant agency employees because, as the language in this bill confesses, "despite the regular provision of notice to board and commission administrators, a significant number of board and commission members subject to the mandatory training course continue to fail to comply with their training course completion responsibility." That's why this year's bill demands that OHA be empowered to "(1) Prohibit council, board, and commission members who fail to meet their training course completion requirement from serving on a permitted interaction group or voting on matters before their respective councils, boards, or commissions; (2) Require council, board, and commission members who fail to meet their training course completion requirement to complete their training requirement or be reconfirmed by the senate by the end of the regular legislative session following their training course completion deadline; (3) Require the office of Hawaiian affairs and the department of land and natural resources to compile an annual report of council, board, and commission members who have failed to complete their training course requirement, and to submit the report to the governor and legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regular legislative session."

Clearly there are a large number of board and commission members who have heard from previous attendees that the OHA courses are not worth their time, or are little more than propaganda taught by arrogant instructors to captive audiences. The admittedly large number of non- compliant resisters is proof that OHA WAS LYING TO THE LEGISLATURE when it said in SB2134 in 2018 that "the training course required by Act 169 has been implemented and has been well-attended and well- received. Attendees report that the course gave them a better understanding of the State's legal responsibilities to native Hawaiians; Hawaii's political history; the public land trust; native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights; Hawaii's water laws and the public trust doctrine; laws relating to native Hawaiian burials; and attendees' kuleana as decision-makers, lawmakers, and government staff. Policymakers, staff, and community members continue to request similar trainings."

OHA's mandatory course for members and employees of other state agencies, enforced by compiling lists of names of non-compliant resisters and reporting them for disciplinary action up to and including termination, stands in sharp contrast with the enthusiastic participation of UH students, employees, and members of the public when free classes in Hawaiian language were offered at the Manoa campus in January 2020. On January 10, 2020 the UH news webpage reported

"The Hawaiian language classes will be held at UH Mānoa Campus Center. The Associated Students of the University of Hawaiʻi (ASUH), the undergraduate student government at UH Mānoa, is hosting a free weekly, non-credit Hawaiian language class on the Mānoa campus in the spring ..." And on January 23, Hawaii News Now TV stations reported "Hundreds gather for first of 15 free Hawaiian language classes at UH." While khon2 News reported "Classes are free to University of Hawaii Manoa students, faculty, staff, alumni and the public, leaders said. No registration is required."

2. THE COURSE CREATED BY OHA HAS THE CLEAR PURPOSE OF BRAINWASHING ATTENDEES WITH THE VIEWS OF OHA REGARDING CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS OF HAWAIIAN HISTORY, CULTURE, AND RELIGION.

Here are two illustrations of the extremely controversial nature of the concepts about history and religion which OHA is likely to force upon students in its course. OHA will no doubt preach only one side of such controversies, despite the existence of authoritative views to the contrary.

2A. Does the State of Hawaii rightfully own the ceded lands and has the right to sell them; or is the State required to negotiate a settlement with OHA on behalf of Native Hawaiians; and what role does the 1993 apology resolution play in this issue?

When the State of Hawaii tried to sell a parcel of ceded lands, OHA filed a lawsuit to stop that particular sale and to prohibit the state from any further sales. On December 5, 2002 Hawaii circuit court judge Sabrina McKenna ruled against OHA, concluding that the State of Hawaii has a right to sell ceded lands. OHA appealed Judge McKenna's decision. On January 31, 2008 the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that Judge McKenna was mistaken. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the State of Hawaii is permanently prohibited from selling any ceded lands until such time as a settlement has been reached regarding the claims of Native Hawaiians. That decision was based on the 1993 U.S. apology resolution.

The State of Hawaii, through Governor Lingle and Attorney General Bennett, filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review and overturn the state Supreme Court decision. Twenty-nine other states shortly thereafter filed an amicus brief supporting Hawaii's petition for certiorari. On October 1, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court were heard on February 25, 2009. On March 31, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to overturn the previous Hawaii Supreme Court decision.

A webpage provides a detailed history of this case, including news reports and commentary spanning a decade, plus the transcript of the oral arguments and the final decision. See
http://bigfiles90.angelfire.com/CededNoSell.html

Does anyone think OHA will tell students in its mandatory course that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the ceded lands belong to the State of Hawaii in fee simple absolute, and has the right to sell them without first getting permission from OHA, and that the apology resolution is merely a resolution of sympathy which has no legal effect upon ownership or sales of the ceded lands? Will OHA give its students access to the oral arguments and final ruling?

2B. 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.

3. OHA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF PUSHING THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS FORCING OTHER BOARDS, AGENCIES, AND COMMISSIONS TO ACCEPT VOTING MEMBERS NAMED OR APPROVED BY OHA. SUCH PLACEMENT OF POLITICAL KOMMISSARS SEEDED THROUGHOUT OUR STATE GOVERNMENT IS NOT DONE BY ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND PROVIDES OHA WITH A NETWORK OF BOTH SPIES AND LOBBYISTS TO OVERSEE AND INFLUENCE ALL AREAS OF POLICY. ANALOGY TO ANIMAL PARASITES.

For many years now OHA has been laying its eggs in the nests of other government agencies. OHA's infiltrators act as spies, keeping track of what those agencies are planning.

OHA infiltrators in other agencies also act as parasites, demanding resources for OHA to use for its own purposes.

A more monstrous example is the parasitic wasp. The adult female wasp uses its ovipositor to puncture the skin of a caterpillar and deposit numerous fertilized eggs inside the caterpillar, where the baby wasps eat the caterpillar's insides until the full-grown wasps emerge and fly away as the caterpillar dies. By inserting its own agents OHA uses other government boards and commissions as minor-league training camps or incubators for growing its own activists.

4. THIS BILL WOULD CONVERT THE LAND USE COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES INTO PUPPETS OF OHA BY STACKING THEM WITH MULTIPLE BOARD MEMBERS CHOSEN BY OHA.

The Land Use Commission (LUC) has 9 members: 5 at large plus one for each of the 4 counties. This bill would "Require four members of the land use commission to be nominated from a list provided to the governor by the office of Hawaiian affairs."

The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) is composed of seven members, one from each of the four counties, two at large, and the Chairperson who is the executive head of the Department. This bill would "Require four members of the board of land and natural resources to be nominated from a list provided to the governor by the office of Hawaiian affairs"

If this bill is enacted, then by law an absolute majority of BLNR would be OHA appointees; and a near majority of LUC would be OHA appointees. Presumably the existing county residency requirements would remain in place. But BLNR would be transformed into a wholly- owned subsidiary of OHA, and LUC would probably be that way as well, considering that at least one of the members not specifically allocated to OHA would likely be an OHA-sympathizer if not puppet. Does the legislature really want to convert departments that are theoretically autonomous into puppet regime subsidiaries of OHA?

Let's return for a moment to the analogy of the cuckoo bird. Occasionally the public gets a glimpse of outright racism when cuckoo birds feel it is not sufficient for their own chicks merely to get fed and protected in the nests of the rightful birds, but aggressively try to shove the eggs of the rightful birds out of the nest to their destruction. In October 2017 there was an example of that at a meeting of BLNR when ethnic Hawaiian protesters got arrested for disrupting the board meeting to demand the ouster of Dr. Samuel Ohu Gon III (O'ahu seat) simply because he lacks a drop of Hawaiian native blood. Dr. Gon is senior scientist and cultural advisor at the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, where he has worked for 30 years. He is an expert on Hawaiian culture, fluent in Hawaiian language, and a renowned chanter. He is the officially-designated expert on Hawaiian culture for BLNR. But he has no Hawaiian native blood, which is why the ethnic Hawaiian cuckoo birds demanded his expulsion when he voted in favor of the Thirty Meter Telescope.

Here are excerpts from a news report read by Ashley Nagaoka broadcast on October 27, 2017 on Hawaii News Now TV stations:

"Three Thirty Meter Telescope opponents were arrested at a state Land Board meeting Friday for being disruptive. The three, identified as Samuel Kaeo, Chase Kanuha and Andre Perez, were among a group of about a dozen Native Hawaiians who interrupted the meeting to call for the immediate resignation of board member Sam Ohu Gon. Gon recently voted to approve the telescope's construction permit and serves as the board's official cultural adviser. He has an extensive resume in environmental issues and is also a well-respected practitioner of Hawaiian culture. But because he's not Native Hawaiian, the protesters say he should not be making decisions that affect their people. "We are asking that you should leave the seat because you do not represent the lahui kanaka!," one member shouted. After ignoring requests to calm down, the meeting was put on hold as law enforcement officers carried some of the protestors out of the room. ... BLNR Chair Suzanne Case defended Gon's respectability and knowledge of Hawaiian culture. "It is disappointing and frankly offensive that some who disagree with the Land Board's recent decision on the TMT telescope choose to aim personally at Ohu or any board member. This is not peaceful protest. We must simply reject this kind of divisiveness in Hawaii as well as nationally and globally, and practice respect in our public discourse no matter our views," Case said. Group members say the land board's cultural advisor should be Hawaiian and not appointed by the governor. "He (Gon) has cultural expertise for sure, but anybody can gain that. That seat should be occupied by a Native Hawaiian that is vetted through a process by the Native Hawaiian community," said Ilima Long, opponent of TMT."

Thus we see that race is more important than cultural expertise. And OHA, of course, is the officially-designated agency for ensuring that other government agencies have board positions "occupied by a Native Hawaiian that is vetted through a process by the Native Hawaiian community."

---------------------------

HB2208 RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOMELANDS.
Appropriates funds to DHHL for the acquisition of land to be developed by DHHL for affordable housing units.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 set aside 203,500 acres of public lands in the Territory of Hawaii exclusively for Hawaiians with at least 50% native blood quantum to be given leases for land parcels to build homes or have pastures for livestock. Since that time there have occasionally been land swaps between The Department of Hawaiian Homelands and other government agencies where both parties to the swap could more effectively use the lands for which they traded.

It would be unprecedented, probably illegal, and certainly immoral for State government taxpayer dollars taken from people of all races to be used to purchase land specifically to hand over to DHHL for the exclusive benefit of a subgroup of a particular racial group. It's bad enough that we have dozens of racially segregated ghettos scattered around our islands. We don't need to be creating new ones with tax dollars from the general fund.

There is one State agency which has hoarded more than $600 Million in assets which it believes it is authorized to spend on racially exclusionary projects. If the bad concept in this bill somehow gets enacted, the legislature should first amend this bill to require that all the money for purchasing the land should come from the assets of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs rather than from the general fund.

---------------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

The proposed resolution HCR37 would set in motion a badly misguided process to achieve "reconciliation" with "Native Hawaiians" merely because a group of activists, who are a small minority among ethnic Hawaiians, decided to break the law. They blocked access for construction equipment for a telescope on Mauna Kea, and kept their blockade in place for several months at a cost of millions of dollars for police "presence" because a timid and incompetent Governor and Hawaii Island Mayor on day #1 failed to make expeditious use of the police presence they had ordered.

The existing HCR37 would reward lawbreaking and disrespect for a ten- year process where all views were given fair consideration through informal community deliberations, formal hearings, and lawsuits.

HCR37 kow-tows to the use of mediation and reconciliation as weapons of delay and obstruction. Let's remember that very recently the partners from India in the 30-meter telescope project announced that they are likely to pull out of the project if it stays in Hawaii because of current interminable delays and the likelihood of ongoing future disruptions and protests even after construction is finished. This resolution would reward threats of violence disguised as "kapu aloha." Under international law, a blockade is viewed as a form of violence and is an act of war.

This testimony in opposition is provided in the form of a new resolution in the nature of a substitute, whereby the reasons for opposing the existing HCR37, and the way forward to achieve true reconciliation, will become clear. Please replace the entirety of HCR37 with the new language below.

---------

Whereas the greatest source of racial divisiveness in Hawaii has been coming for many years from a few ethnic Hawaiian activists who refuse to abide by decisions reached through democratic due process where their participation was welcome; and Whereas some ethnic Hawaiian activists refuse to acknowledge that Hawaii is the 50th State of the United States and seek to restore Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation; and

Whereas some ethnic Hawaiian activists seek to create a Hawaiian tribe and get federal recognition of it; and

Whereas both the tribalists and the race-nationalists embrace a creation legend which they say portrays anyone with a drop of Hawaiian native blood as being genetically a child of the gods and a brother/sister to these living Hawaiian islands in a way nobody else can ever be who lacks a drop of Hawaiian blood; and

Whereas that fascist religious belief is used as the theological justification for asserting Hawaiian racial supremacy and the right to race-based political power and ownership of all lands and waters in Hawaii [note #1]; and

Whereas Hawaiian religious fascism along with demands for race-based ownership of all the lands and waters of Hawaii were proclaimed in a so-called Constitution for a Hawaiian nation adopted by a monthlong meeting financed by OHA in February 2016, which is expected to be submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Interior as part of an application for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe when political conditions are deemed favorable [Note #2]; and

Whereas the United States adopted a joint resolution in 1993 apologizing to ethnic Hawaiians for sending in peacekeepers to protect lives and property during the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, but that resolution of sentiment, filled with falsehoods, has been abused by portraying it as a confession of a crime under international law which would require financial reparations and disgorgment of Hawaii as the 50th State [Note #3]; and

Whereas ethnic Hawaiian activists have repeatedly, over a period of several decades, staged large protest marches and forcible occupations of public lands disrupting lawfully authorized projects, costing many millions of dollars, causing lost economic opportunities, bitter resentment, and racial divisiveness; and

Whereas calls for peace and reconciliation, along with efforts at mediation, have repeatedly been abused as weapons of obstruction and delay causing important projects to be abandoned for fear of never-ending threats and harassment; and

Whereas the people of Hawaii, of all races and cultures, are determined to come together in peace, mutual respect, and friendship guided by the Aloha Spirit [Note #4];

Now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2020, the Senate concurring, that the U.S. Congress is requested to repeal PL103-150 (the apology resolution of 1993) and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we pledge to place on the ballot in the general election of 2020 all amendments to the Constitution of the State of Hawaii necessary to abolish the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we pledge to repeal in this year and in coming years all statutes enabling or funding state or county programs providing benefits exclusively or preferentially to members of any particular racial group; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, Governor of the State of Hawaii, and Hawaii's Congressional delegation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we pledge to be guided in the future by the following four fundamental principles as clarified herein:

1. Equality before God: All humans are equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.

2. Equality under the law: Government should treat all people equally under the law regardless of race.

3. Unity with America: Hawaii is the 50th State of the USA, whose laws rightfully have jurisdiction here.

4. Unity of Hawaii: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, not divided along racial lines.

Clarifications:

1. Those who don�t believe in God, or believe in 400,000 gods, have other ways to say it. The U.S. Declaration of Independence said: "All men [people] are created equal." Don't believe in creationism? Natural law gives every human equal worth and inalienable rights.

A beautiful Hawaiian creation legend says the gods mated and gave birth to these islands as living beings. Later the gods mated and gave birth to the first human from whom we all are descended. Thus humans are children of the gods and brothers/sisters to the 'aina.

Unfortunately some activists twist this legend to say only people with Hawaiian blood have this genealogy; therefore ethnic Hawaiians have a god-given right to rule Hawaii. Using religion or race as a basis to demand political power in Hawaii is just as unacceptable as jihad in the Middle East, fascism in Europe, or white nationalism in South Carolina.

2. Equal treatment under the law means there should be no special rights or government entitlement programs for one race preferentially or exclusively. Hawaii has many hundreds of such programs. They are illegal under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and morally repugnant as "institutional racism" comparable to Jim Crow laws in the old South.

For each program, either open it so all races have access or shut it down. If Native Hawaiians are truly the most needy, then they will receive most of the help if help is given based on need alone.

Article 12 Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution grants special rights to Native Hawaiians for "traditional and customary practices" interpreted to include trespassing for shoreline access, religious practices, or gathering certain materials. The pono way to honor that provision while also honoring equality under the law is to extend the traditional and customary rights of Native Hawaiians to all citizens. In the kingdom, those rights were for everyone regardless of race ("hoa'aina" meant "tenant" not "native tenant"; "kanaka" meant race-neutral "person").

3. The Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was done entirely by local men while 162 U.S. peacekeepers, present for fear of rioting or arson, were never needed or used. Hawaii remained an independent nation until 1898.

The Republic of Hawaii was given full-fledged international recognition as the rightful successor government by emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of at least 19 nations, including Queen Victoria � all personally signed letters congratulating President Dole. A few months later, after an attempted counterrevolution failed, ex-queen Lili'uokalani personally signed a letter of abdication and an oath of loyalty to the Republic, after consulting with her longtime personal attorney and witnessed by her former cabinet ministers. [Note #5]

In 1897, the Republic offered a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S., which the U.S. then accepted in 1898. [Note #6] Some Senators complained that ratification by both House and Senate was not correct procedure for a treaty, but they lost. Neither Hawaiian secessionists nor U.N. has standing to overrule the method chosen by the sovereign U.S. to make its internal decision to ratify what the Republic of Hawaii offered. Yes, we are Americans.

4. What Kamehameha hath joined together, let no politicians rip asunder. The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, not divided along racial lines � no race-based government recognized as though it is an Indian tribe.

Note #1: Hawaiian religious fascism. A twisted version of a beautiful creation legend provides the theological basis for a claim that ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in the governance and cultural life of the Hawaiian islands. See
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/HawnReligFascism.html

Note #2: Full text of the so-called Constitution adopted February 26, 2016 as copied from the Na'i Aupuni website (which no longer exists)
http://big09.angelfire.com/NatHwnConstitAdopt022616.pdf

Right up front in your face, the preamble says "we join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people" [i.e., of the race, by the race, and for the race], and "affirm our ancestral [i.e., race-based] rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas." [i.e., we're gonna take over the whole place, just like Kamehameha did, who was known as "Ka Na'i Aupuni" -- the conqueror.] "We reaffirm the National Sovereignty of the Nation. We reserve all rights to Sovereignty and Self-determination, including the pursuit of independence. Our highest aspirations are set upon the promise of our unity and this Constitution."

The plain language in the preamble is the declaration of a race-war from a gathering blatantly labeled "Na'i Aupuni" which means "Conquest."

In case there's any doubt about fascist racial exclusivity, Article 2 -- Citizenship -- says "A citizen of the Native Hawaiian Nation is any descendant of the aboriginal and indigenous people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands and is enrolled in the nation."

Article 7, Section 4 reaffirms the religious belief that ethnic Hawaiians have a genealogical relationship with the islands, saying "The Nation has a right, duty, and kuleana, both individually and collectively, to sustain the 'Aina (land, kai, wai, air) as an ancestor, source of mana, and source of life and well-being for present and future generations.

Note #3: 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.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/ApologyReso20thAnniv.html

Note #4: "The Aloha Spirit -- what it is, who possesses it, and why it is important"
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/AlohaSpirit.html

Note #5: Photographs taken in the State of Hawaii Archives show letters personally signed by 19 foreign heads of state, and accompanying materials, plus Lili'uokalani's letter of abdication and oath of loyalty to the Republic.
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/

Note #6: Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

---------------------------

SB3067 RELATING TO PRINCE JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE.
Requires certain public buildings on Hawaiian home lands to display portraits of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole is widely regarded as a cultural and political hero among today's ethnic Hawaiians. But there are some important reasons why even Hawaiian sovereignty activists would want to re- evaluate their opinion of him, if they were aware of these facts about his life. Below are details about two of those reasons: (1) He abandoned Hawaii at the time when its independence was being lost to annexation, in order to go to South Africa on an adventure as a soldier fighting for Britain in the Boer War; and (2) he waged a personal attack against ex-queen Lili'uokalani during the last years of her life, trying to have her declared mentally incompetent so he could become conservator of her estate and grab her Waikiki properties for himself.

Before providing some details about those character flaws, let's think about the idea of putting up pictures glorifying Kuhio in public buildings on DHHL lands, even if his character had been beyond reproach.

In dictatorships around the world there are photos of the dictator looming large over public squares and inside government buildings. It's ugly. After a while those pictures arouse resentment and feelings of oppression more than they inspire love or respect. Haven't we all seen news reports from China showing the huge photo of long-dead Chairman Mao looming over Tiananmen Square in Beijing? In the old Soviet Union there was a big photo of Joseph Stalin in every classroom in every school, every office in every government building, and every grocery store. Big brother is watching you!

Some ethnic Hawaiians revere Kuhio as a prince for the same reasons the peasantry in any monarchial nation reveres its royalty -- majesty, mystery, pride in the nobility of a great leader, and hope for handouts to help the poor and downtrodden. Wealthy racial separatist Hawaiian government institutions honor Kuhio as their founding father, the man who bowed low enough to the colonizers to bring home the bacon from their far-away seat of power.

But was Kuhio's personal behavior princely? At least two major events in Kuhio's life after the revolution of 1893 should cause Hawaiian sovereignty activists to question his worthiness as their torch-bearer. On these two occasions Kuhio was grossly unpatriotic to his Hawaiian "nation." The first occasion was when he abandoned his nation at its time of greatest peril in order to pursue personal pleasure and foreign adventure. The second occasion was two decades later when he abused his power and prestige to launch a personal attack against Queen Liliuokalani in order to steal her land, for his personal enrichment, from the children she intended to help. Kuhio's behavior on both occasions should be seen as not merely selfish, but treasonous from the viewpoint of today's sovereignty activists.

In January 1895, at age 23, Kuhio participated in the attempted counterrevolution against the Republic of Hawaii led by Robert Wilcox. He was sentenced to a year in prison, where his fiancee visited him regularly. After his release they got married and went to Europe. It's understandable that the heir to the throne would feel unhappy about imprisonment and about the loss of his future crown. Certainly nobody would begrudge him the right to get married, and perhaps to travel for a while.

But Kuhio's extended absence is inexcusable in view of the major political events taking place in Hawaii. He played no part in fighting against annexation, even while his fellow "patriots" were making speeches, writing articles in the newspapers, and gathering 21,000 signatures on a petition in 1897 opposing annexation. Today's sovereignty activists excuse his non-participation by claiming he was "in exile." But nobody forced him to leave. Others who had been imprisoned with him stayed in Hawaii after their release.

Kuhio extended his European adventure by going to Africa where he spent three years fighting on the side of England in the second Boer War.

Let's put that in different terms so that today's sovereignty activists will get the point. Kuhio, designated heir to the throne, abandoned his native land during a time of great political upheaval and went to war halfway around the world, fighting on the side of one white colonial power against another white colonial power in a war to see which one would win control over the land of a poor, downtrodden dark-skinned native population.

Kuhio returned to Hawaii in time to join the Republican Party and defeat the incumbent Robert Wilcox in the 1902 election for Territorial Delegate to Congress, whereupon he took the oath of office swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (Traitor to the Hawaiian nation!). He introduced the first bill in Congress for statehood for Hawaii (Traitor to the Hawaiian nation!). He finally "brought home the bacon" after 19 years in Congress with passage of his Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (Sellout!).

The case of Kuhio vs. Liliuokalani in 1915-1916 is perhaps even more troubling. The "prince," now Hawaii's Territorial Delegate to Congress for 13 years, abused his power and prestige to launch a personal attack against Queen Liliuokalani in order to steal her Waikiki land from the children she intended to help. Kuhio publicly accused her of mental incompetence in order to nullify her creation of the Queen Liliuokalani Childrens' Trust, and to establish himself as conservator of her estate, so that after her death her Waikiki properties would go to him instead of to the benefit of the Hawaiian children. Luckily for the children, his lawsuit failed. Full text of the Hawaii Supreme Court decision, including details about what Kuhio was trying to do, is on a webpage: JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE v. LILIUOKALANI, Supreme Court of Hawaii, 23 Haw. 457; 1916. Syllabus and full text of the Court's decision:
http://tinyurl.com/ce7avc

Evelyn Cook's book "100 years of Healing" includes extensive description of the lawsuit, and especially the role of attorney W.O. Smith in defending Liliuokalani. Knowledgeable readers might be surprised, because W.O. Smith was one of the leaders of the revolution of 1893 that overthrew Liliuokalani. But as time went by the ex-queen realized that Smith was completely trustworthy whereas Kuhio was arrogant, selfish, greedy, and profoundly disrespectful to the woman most ethnic Hawaiians still regarded as their Queen. Instead of native Hawaiian "Prince" Kuhio, Lili'uokalani appointed white man W.O. Smith as trustee of her Queen Lili'uokalani Childrens Trust.

Kuhio was also a womanizer, both in Hawaii and in Washington D.C., -- in today's parlance we might call his scandalous behavior Trumpian. He earned the nickname "Prince Cupid" (Google it if you want some titillation).

Kuhio does not deserve to be ensconced as head of a cult of personality. Defer this resolution to avoid the embarrassment of voting against it or the even larger embarrassment of voting for it.

---------------------------

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=HB&billnumber=1880&year=2020
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3094&year=2020

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

This bill proposes to transfer an unspecified number of taxpayer dollars to the Department of Land and Natural Resources to provide funding for unspecified purposes for fiscal year 2020-2021 for the operations of the Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission, and funding for 2 (additional) full-time-equivalent positions. This bill is essentially a blank check for KIRC to do whatever it wants, with no accountability to DHHL or the Legislature.

But we can get an estimate of what is requested, because last year the comparable bill(s) proposed to transfer $1,000,000 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 2019-2020, plus an additional $72,000 for two FTE staff positions; and then the same amounts again for FY 2020-2021.

It's interesting that the previous year, 2018, the same legislation, SB3027 and HB2594, demanded only $600,000 instead of $1,000,000 to support the activities of KIRC. That was a 67% inflation rate in a single year from 2018 to 2019! And no telling how much the inflation rate will be this time around! Yes it's an island, but does that mean we must spend like drunken sailors?

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 20 YEARS.

As the language of last year's 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 (2017) shows that OHA has total assets of more than $650 million. And it continues getting more payments of state government money (ceded land revenues plus legislative appropriations) every year, including a bill in last 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.

------------------------

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=SB&billnumber=1363&year=2020
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=402&year=2020

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 40 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.

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.

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 $662 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
http://tinyurl.com/zrfuy8k

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."

Although this current version of the bill does not have dollar amounts filled in, a previous version of 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 the next fiscal year. Furthermore this bill would transfer to the office of Hawaiian affairs a sum of $139,000,000 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, 2019.

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 a propaganda film broadcast repeatedly on TV in 2019, are evidence that no amount would ever be enough to satisfy the monster that is devouring Hawaii. Enough already! Stop feeding this beast.

------------------------

SCR57 URGING THE STATE OF HAWAI�I TO PROVIDE NATIVE HAWAIIANS WITH THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE PUBLIC LAND TRUST REVENUE.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

The "whereas" preambles in this resolution are so filled with distortions and falsehoods that refutation of them would require a book-length rebuttal. But to avoid causing boredom with too many details, this testimony chooses to

(1) focus on one "whereas" example whose falsehood is especially simple, easy to understand, and very important.

(2) After the example exposing falsehood, I shall point out that the law mandating that 20% of ceded land revenue must go to OHA is merely an ordinary statute passed by the legislature in 1979, it is not a part of the Admissions Act and is not part of the state Constitution; therefore the legislature has the power to rescind that law AND SHOULD RESCIND IT TO AVOID ANOTHER 40 YEARS OF LITIGIOUSNESS AND RACIAL DIVISIVENESS. If the legislature unwisely decides not to introduce a Constitutional amendment to abolish OHA, then OHA should be funded through the same annual or biennial appropriations process as any other agency of the state government.

-----

(1) Example of falsehoods in the preambles: WHEREAS, as part of the incorporation of Hawai�i as a State of the Union, in section 5(f) of the Admissions Act the State of Hawai�i's public trust responsibilities to native Hawaiians is clarified whereby "[t]he lands granted to the State of Hawaii...shall be held by said State as a public trust for the support of...native Hawaiians"

Whoa! The author of this resolution wants you to believe the whole purpose of ceded land revenue is "for the support of native Hawaiians" with just three little dots "of ... native Hawaiians" indicating that some superfluous verbiage has been conveniently left out to make it easier for you to read. Whoa! Let's look at what section 5(f) of the Admissions Act really says. Here it is, in full. Look carefully to see how the "whereas" item cited above totally distorts the clear intent of what section 5(f) actually says. What's hidden in those three little dots?

"(f) The lands granted to the State of Hawaii by subsection (b) of this section and public lands retained by the United States under subsections (c) and (d) and later conveyed to the State under subsection (e), together with the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of any such lands and the income therefrom, shall be held by said State as a public trust 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. Such lands, proceeds, and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes in such manner as the constitution and laws of said State may provide, and their use for any other object shall constitute a breach of trust for which suit may be brought by the United States. The schools and other educational institutions supported, in whole or in part out of such public trust shall forever remain under the exclusive control of said State; and no part of the proceeds or income from the lands granted under this Act shall be used for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, college, or university."

There are clearly 5 purposes for using ceded land revenue:
(1) support of the public schools and other public educational institutions;
(2) betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act;
(3) development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible;
(4) for the making of public improvements;
(5) for the provision of lands for public use.

Please notice that the first, primary purpose was to support public schools and public universities; and that the only one of the 5 purposes to receive detailed attention was to ensure that schools and universities must be public and not religious or sectarian.

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 should be getting its 20% portion to maintain our parks and fill our potholes; etc.

For the first 20 years of statehood (1959-1979), 100% of ceded land revenue was given to the public schools. Nobody complained. That's because section 5(f) clearly says "Such lands, proceeds, and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes in such manner as the constitution and laws of said State may provide ..." Did you see that? It says FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE FOREGOING PURPOSES." There was never any requirement to spend even one penny for any particular racial group. It would be perfectly OK for the legislature to now choose to spend all the ceded land revenue for landscaping and related infrastructure to help the thirty-meter telescope consortium with its construction project on Mauna Kea, thus implementing purposes (4) and (5).

------

(2) The law mandating that 20% of ceded land revenue must go to OHA is merely an ordinary statute passed by the legislature in 1979 -- it is not a part of the Admissions Act and is not part of the state Constitution; therefore the legislature has the power to rescind that law AND SHOULD RESCIND IT TO AVOID ANOTHER 40 YEARS OF LITIGIOUSNESS AND RACIAL DIVISIVENESS. If the legislature unwisely decides not to introduce a Constitutional amendment to abolish OHA, then OHA should be funded through the same annual or biennial appropriations process as any other agency of the state government.

Here is another "whereas" item in this resolution that needs to be examined more closely:

WHEREAS, the Legislature determined that native Hawaiians should get at least twenty percent of the public land trust revenue (section lO-l3.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes)

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.

It's time for the legislature to exercise your power to rescind a bad law enacted by a previous legislature. Rescind Act 273 (1980), encoded as section lO-l3.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Stop feeding the beast (OHA). Stop sending megabucks to finance identity politics and racial separatism. OHA has more than $650 Million in assets which it has hoarded over many years. It's time for the legislature to treat that as a "special fund" and raid it the same way you raid the Highway Fund or the Hurricane Fund when you need money to balance the budget, especially at this time when tax revenues are likely to fall far short of projections due to the coronavirus crisis, its impact on tourism, and need for heightened expenditures on public health.

------------------------

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=SCR&billnumber=189&year=2020
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SR&billnumber=159&year=2020

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

For at least 8 years a fringe group of ethnic Hawaiians have tried to get a committee of either the House or Senate to pass a resolution recognizing Hawaiian nationals as a separate and distinct population residing lawfully in the Hawaiian Islands, and deserving special status under civil rights law as a protected group. Presumably they could then use such status as a basis for "standing" to file lawsuits on numerous topics for real or trumped-up grievances. This year's version of the resolution does not seem to directly ask the legislature for affirmation of such special status, but would merely put the legislature on record as asking a race-focused gathering of an ethnic Hawaiian pressure group (the annual "Native Hawaiian Convention") to convene a working group to study the topic at taxpayer expense and make recommendations for legislation. This year's version of the resolution thus seems new because it requests action from a group outside the legislature; but in reality the underlying concept is the same nonsense as before; viz, to affirm that there is a category of people who are "Hawaiian nationals" and that they have been discriminated against and that they deserve special protections and reparations.

In 2018 the resolution was 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."

In 2015 the resolution was HR45 "Recognizing Hawaiian nationals as a population residing lawfully in the Hawaiian islands"

In 2014 it was HR178 and HCR226 "Including Hawaiian nationals as a population residing in the Hawaiian islands"

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

Isn't it time to lay this concept to rest? No less than the Attorney General tried to do that in his testimony in 2013. But the House and Senate committees dealing with "Hawaiian affairs" keep bringing it back from the dead like the ancient mummy in horror films.

On March 13, 2013 the House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources, & Hawaiian Affairs held a hearing on HCR50/HR32. Written testimony for that hearing in opposition to the resolution was submitted by David M. Louie, Hawaii Attorney General; and Charleen M. Aina, Deputy Attorney General. 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." Since the perpetrators of this nonsense keep bringing it up year after year, and the committee chairs keep giving it a hearing, therefore it's entirely appropriate to repeat testimony from previous years that shot it down. If committee members choose not to read the testimony because it's repetitious, then you have an easy way to avoid being troubled -- vote against the resolution this year and tell your committee chair never again to hold a hearing on such nonsense. Now get some popcorn, kick off your shoes, and settle in for some dull reading.

Actually there are three good things about this resolution worthy of noting before we proceed to demolish what's bad about it:

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.

Now let's review some facts about Hawaii's history that refute the underlying assumptions on which this resolution is based.

Hawaii is legitimately and lawfully under the sovereignty of the United States. 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 at least 19 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. People are welcome to invent any fantasy identity they choose, based on places that really existed or are wholly imaginary; but other people are under no legal or moral obligation to play along. Once there were Hawaiian nationals just as once there were Carthaginians -- the places they lived are still there; we may romanticize historical events and heroes of the period when they had sovereignty; but their descendants no longer owe allegiance to a bygone nation and have no rights based on bygone nationality.

An attempted counterrevolution led by Robert Wilcox in early January 1895 failed to restore Hawaii's 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. Photos of Lili'uokalani's letter of abdication and oath of loyalty to the Rpublic, along with notarized affirmations by witnesses including her cabinet ministers, are available at
https://tinyurl.com/qt7hv26

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.

The clear purpose of this resolution is to begin a process of undermining the State of Hawaii, empowering a small group of agitators who call the U.S. a colonial oppressor and call Hawaii a "fake state." 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 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.

----------------------

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Let's begin by analyzing each of the three numbered elements of what this resolution would place the legislature on record as urging the Department of Education to do. Then we should examine the real purpose of this resolution, which is to help the head of a wannabe autonomous subdepartment inside DOE, which focuses on elective subjects, to expand her growing empire at the expense of the core subjects.

"(1) Develop a Hawaiian language and Hawaiian cultural sensitivity and familiarity program for employees through its Office of Hawaiian Education to include the members of the Board of Education by 2023."

The idea here is that the Office of Hawaiian Education should become a taskmaster and gatekeeper for all DOE employees to ensure that they are brainwashed with "cultural sensitivity" to ensure that they are at least compliant with, and hopefully sympathetic to, the political viewpoint that ethnic Hawaiians are the indigenous people who have suffered historical grievances and have the worst statistics for disease and social dysfunction due to American imperialism and therefore are entitled to reparations including racial supremacy in Hawaii's governance. The idea is to mold the hearts and minds of the teachers to be compliant with ethnic Hawaiian political goals, in the expectation that the teachers will then mold the hearts and minds of the kids in the same way. Our schools would thus become even more of a propaganda factory than they already are. The Office of Hawaiian Education wants to achieve the same power inside DOE that OHA has been developing inside the entire State bureaucracy as displayed in the 2020 bills HB1781 and SB2192 -- please read my extensive testimony in opposition to them.

"(2) Establish a Hawaiian language graduation exit requirement for all public school students by 2030."

'A'ole! Do not divert resources from teaching correct usage of English, the language of everyday use which unifies all Hawaii's people in the ability to communicate with each other and to participate effectively in democratic decision-making. Employers regularly complain that DOE has failed to produce graduates capable of reading, writing, and speaking good English.

"(3) Strengthen the Hawaiian history requirement to include pre-1959 history to be taught from an indigenous Hawaiian perspective by 2030"

The current graduation requirement for a semester course in the modern history of Hawaii is already filled with twisted history from the perspective of Hawaiian sovereignty activists, brainwashing our keiki with nonsense about illegal overthrow, no Treaty of Annexation, illegal Statehood vote, etc. The resolution specifying that history is "to be taught from an indigenous Hawaiian perspective" makes the intention for brainwashing explicitly clear.

In 2011 a webpage analyzed in detail the two textbooks approved by DOE at that time for the mandatory course in the modern history of Hawaii, including some of the "standards" set by DOE. Ten sample test questions (some T/F, some multiple choice) were created to show the likely ignorance and bias of students who have completed the history course (and probably of their teachers too!). See "History of modern Hawaii as taught in Hawaii schools" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/HawnHistPublicSchools.html

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 and authority over curriculum reduced rather than increased.

(4) The real purpose of this resolution is to help the head of a wannabe-autonomous subdepartment inside DOE, which focuses on elective subjects, to expand her growing empire at the expense of the core subjects.

Apparently the "Office of Hawaiian Education" (OHE) headed by Dawn Kau'ilani Sang is losing some turf battles inside the Department of Education (DOE), and is not getting as much money and bureaucratic power as it wants. So now OHE is asking the legislature to lean hard on DOE to expand OHE's fiefdom. Of course there is never enough money for DOE, especially when severe cuts in the state budget are expected because of the severe economic slowdown forecasted on account of the coronavirus pandemic. So if the legislature is successful in pressuring DOE to give more money and power to OHE, then there will be less money and power for the far more important subject areas like math, science, and English.

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, 2017, and 2018, the Hawaiian Studies division of DOE ("Office of Hawaiian Education") sponsored legislation 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. The 2018 effort was noteworthy because HB2685 as originally submitted would have appropriated funds for OHE (the Office of Hawaiian Education) separately from funds for the rest of DOE, to be spent specifically "at the three elementary schools with the largest population of native Hawaiian students." When testimony pointed out the clear racism of that wording, the amended HD1 version changed the wording to cover up the racist intent by saying only 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.

The title of this resolution should reflect its real purpose, which is: URGING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND THE LEGISLATURE, TO BUILD AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A GREATLY EXPANDED EMPIRE FOR DR. DAWN KAU'ILANI SANG AND HER OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN EDUCATION.

Why should that one sub-department OHE have more autonomy and more power than any other part of DOE, including the fact that the sub-department head is accountable to nobody but the Superintendent, along with demands for 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 Kau'ilani 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 20 years ago, 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.

The Office of Hawaiian Education 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 OHE, 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, because they are racially inflammatory and worsen a pervasive victimhood mentality.

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 racially incendiary 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. And for goodness sake, do not support any role for the Office of Hawaiian Education to have authority over all DOE personnel, and even over members of the BOE, by forcing them to take "sensitivity training" or cultural indoctrination classes from Ms. Sang or her OHE.

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

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 this year's 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 2019 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

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

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.