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

Hawaii Legislature 2021 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty and Racial Entitlement Programs. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Webpage published March 1, 2021 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, developed 2013-2016 but available for implementation at any time)

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. After that 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. During the four years from 2017 through 2020 there was no significant activity to create a Hawaiian tribe either in Congress or through the Department of Interior regulation, probably because everyone realized that President Trump, along with the Republican-controlled Senate, would block any such effort.

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 2019-2022 there is one alleged Republican in the Senate (Kurt Fevella), but he is ethnic Hawaiian, engages in political activism favoring Hawaiian racial entitlement programs, and leans left and votes the same way as the Democrats on nearly every item. In the state House which has 51 Representatives only 4 are Republicans; and their longtime leader Gene Ward was a strong pusher of the Akaka bill and remains a strong supporter of racial entitlement programs.

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 2021

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 here on this webpage in simple text 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 March 1, 2021 after numerous different bills (not counting cloned companions) had already had many 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 2021 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.

SB321 and SB1317 and HB1266.
RELATING TO INCREASING THE PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS' PRO RATA SHARE OF THE PUBLIC LAND TRUST.
Requires agencies that collect receipts for any disposition of the public land trust shall each fiscal quarter transfer to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs twenty per cent of each receipt from the disposition. Returns to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs certain moneys previously claimed as public land trust overpayments to the office. Establishes a public land trust revenues negotiating committee exempted from part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

SB211 and HB1230
RELATING TO HAWAIIAN AS AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE STATE OF HAWAI�I.
 Requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and then translated into English.

SB195 and its companion/clone HB658
RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.
Amends the process for electing members to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees. Requires the Reapportionment Commission to establish a reapportionment plan for the members of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs so that they are elected according to their respective districts, rather than an at-large statewide election for each seat.
and
SB196 and its companion/clone HB644
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE THE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN TO DRAW DISTRICT LINES FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

SB978
RELATING TO PRINCE JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE.
Requires certain public buildings near mass transit projects and on Hawaiian home lands to display portraits of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole.

SB1410
RELATING TO AGRICULTURE.
Clarifies that "customary and traditional subsistence farming", which is customary and traditional subsistence farming conducted by a native Hawaiian cultural practitioner in certain situations, is included as a protected activity under the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. Clarifies that the cultivation of crops and activities related to game, fish, and livestock on agricultural lands may be for economic use or customary and traditional subsistence farming. Provides that one of the State's policies under the Hawaii State Planning Act's agricultural objectives is to assure the right of native Hawaiian cultural practitioners to engage in customary and traditional subsistence farming for direct personal or family consumption. Effective 7/1/2060.

SB1246
RELATING TO THE LAW OF THE SPLINTERED PADDLE.
Prohibits a county from enacting any ordinance that prohibits a person from lying by the roadside in safety in accordance with the law of the splintered paddle.

SB1409
RELATING TO TRAINING IN NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS. 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.

SB85
RELATING TO HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.
 Authorizes the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to engage in lottery and bingo enterprises pursuant to state law.

HB1297, HB1298, HB1299
Sylvia Luke, chair of the House Committee on Finance, introduces 3 bills to raid numerous special funds which have unencumbered money sitting idle and transfer that money to the general fund so it can be redeployed to cover huge deficits in the state budget caused by massive unemployment, welfare costs, and reduced tax revenue resulting from the COVID-19 virus. Two of these bills specifically single out particular accounts held by OHA -- for the first time beginning to treat OHA's massive stash of $666 Million as a special fund available for the legislature to raid, similar to the Hurricane Relief Fund or the Highway Fund.

HCR179,HR148
URGING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION TO REQUEST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL BACK TO THE SCHOOL'S PREVIOUS NAME OF HONOLULU HIGH SCHOOL AND TO REMOVE THE STATUE OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY FROM THE SCHOOL PREMISES.

HB499 HD2 SD2 CD1 is a bill passed by both chambers of the Hawaii legislature after many committee hearings and amendments, and was sent to the Governor on April 28, 2021.
RELATING TO LEASE EXTENSIONS ON PUBLIC LAND.
Report Title: Public Lands; Lease Extension; Development Agreement
Description: Authorizes the board of land and natural resources to extend certain leases of public lands for commercial, industrial, resort, mixed-use, or government use upon approval of a proposed development agreement to make substantial improvements to the existing improvements.
The bill is controversial, as can be seen by the numerous NAY votes in both chambers. Full text of the final bill, and all versions of the bill as amended along the way, and the committee reports and list of who voted which way in each committee, and files of all the testimony from each hearing, can be found at
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=499&year=2021
Hawaiian sovereignty activists staged protest rallies and launched a letter-writing campaign asking Governor Ige to veto the bill. Ken Conklin sent a message to Governor Ige urging him NOT to veto it, but to either sign the bill or allow it to become law without his signature.

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

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=321&year=2021
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1317&year=2021
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1266&year=2021

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 39 years of bitter controversy and litigation. Act 273 (1980) 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. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. The legislature often raids special funds such as the Highway fund or Hurricane Relief fund to balance the budget or transfer to other departments, so why should OHA be treated any differently?

7. 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. It is not in the Statehood Admissions Act nor in the State Constitution. Therefore, this law can be amended by the legislature at any time to reduce the percentage; or the law can be rescinded entirely.

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.

According to its 2020 Annual Report, OHA has $666 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. 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

6. 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."

According to its annual report for 2020, OHA currently has over $666 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. Enough already! Stop feeding this beast. No wonder the State is having budget problems!

7. The dollar amount for future annual payments to be 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.

In year 2019 the first draft of HB402, a bill comparable to this one, 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 that bill would transfer to the Office of Hawaiian affairs a sum of $139,000,000 to pay OHA 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 propaganda film broadcast repeatedly on TV, are evidence that no amount would ever be enough to satisfy the monster that is devouring Hawaii. Enough already! Stop feeding this beast.

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

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=211&year=2021
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1230&year=2021

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

First let's note that this bill is written entirely in English. Now, why in the world would that happen in view of the main purpose of this bill? It seeks to establish that if a bill is written first in Hawaiian and then translated into English, the Hawaiian version shall take priority as the official version. So why not write this bill first in Hawaiian and then provide an English translation?

Indeed, why not write this bill solely in Hawaiian with no English at all? Would the members of this committee feel comfortable with that? Would you feel confident that you understand what you are enacting? No? Then why in the world would you even so much as fool around with the idea of making the Hawaiian version of a bill take priority over the English version in case of a dispute later on over how it should be interpreted or implemented?

This bill is so poorly written, and lacking in detail -- it's surprising that the Chair of this committee called it up for a hearing (or perhaps that's not so surprising after all, considering that hearing the bill is a virtue signal to celebrate "Hawaiian language Month"). But there were bills two years ago along the same lines. Those bills failed, and were also poorly written, but at least they had more detail. The best thing about SB701 and SB195 from year 2019 was that they were written in Hawaiian language first, and then had English translations of their various sections. Thus those bills give us an opportunity to do a thought-experiment. Let's put the members of this committee to a test where they can judge for themselves whether they could possibly be serious about enacting the concept "that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and then translated into English." Here is a link to full text of SB701 from year 2019:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/Bills/SB701_.pdf

Go ahead now. Read the first part of that bill, which is in Hawaiian, and then stop the first time you encounter the subordinate English translation. Did you understand it? Even if you as an individual are one of the rare legislators who speaks Hawaiian fairly well, do you understand what you read with sufficient confidence to vote for it even if it was highly controversial? More importantly, do you seriously believe that your colleagues in the legislature are competent to vote on it? If necessary, continue this thought-experiment by reading only the Hawaiian portion of each subsequent part of the bill, and then summarizing its main concepts in whatever language you prefer, before you read the English translation.

A majority of your fellow legislators whose fluency in Hawaiian language is moderate or even non-existent will be relying entirely on the English translation, but they will actually be voting on what the Hawaiian version says, according to the injunction "that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and then translated into English."

If you'd like another example, run the thought-experiment with SB195, also from year 2019:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/Bills/SB195_.pdf

Giving priority to Hawaiian language is a political stunt to bolster ethnic pride and get votes from a constituency that demands visible tokens of validation and status; but it has no practical usefulness. It seems likely that every person outside Ni'ihau who speaks Hawaiian also speaks English with greater fluency. Hawaiian activists, following the lead of Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani (hoo dat?), sometimes insist on speaking Hawaiian in the courtroom or when giving speeches, interviews, or testimony; but they are perfectly capable of speaking and understanding English. Nobody NEEDS to speak or hear Hawaiian to express himself or to understand what someone is saying -- the activists demand it to score a political point; and sometimes to simply "gum up the works" when there is testimony on an environmental impact statement regarding telescopes on Mauna Kea or construction on a military base.

Please see a large and detailed webpage "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/HawLangPolitWeapon.html

Kaleikoa Kaeo is a community college instructor who speaks English fluently. In fact he teaches classes using English as the language of instruction, makes fiery political speeches in English, and has also learned to speak Hawaiian fluently. He demanded to give court testimony in Hawaiian, not because he is unable to speak English, but merely as a stunt -- a form of Hawaiian sovereignty street theatre or political activism.

Kaleikoa Kaeo took his inspiration from the wealthiest person in Hawaii in the 1860s and 1870s, Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani, who could speak perfectly good English but refused to do so when politicians or journalists visited her -- she took great pleasure in humiliating them by forcing them to hire translators. She felt she was having a political and "moral" victory by forcing them to use Hawaiian. Is that what legislators and Hawaiian language zealots are doing with this bill?

Hawaii is filled with the Aloha Spirit. Our people are kind and generous, and show our good will to people who cannot speak English by allowing them to give testimony in their own language and by providing them at our own taxpayer expense with interpreters who have been certified by the court to be fluent in both their own language and English. But Kaleikoa Kaeo's political stunt was neither kind nor generous. It did not display good will, let alone the Aloha Spirit. He could easily have spoken English, but he chose to speak Hawaiian as a way to FORCE everyone else to either learn Hawaiian or to spend taxpayer dollars to hire speakers of Hawaiian. That's what today's bill in our legislature is all about -- a political stunt that would inconvenience everyone and cost a lot of money over time merely for the sake of cultural/ linguistic chauvinism.

Hawaii has large numbers of people from many ethnic backgrounds who speak different languages in their homes; but we all come together in shared spaces where we are expected to speak English. Inability to speak English is treated as a disability or handicap. People who cannot speak English are given special accommodation to help them communicate in their own language, just as someone who is deaf gets a sign-language interpreter, someone who is blind is allowed to use a seeing-eye dog even in places where dogs are not normally allowed, and someone who cannot walk is allowed to use a wheelchair and elevator. Kaeo who is fluent in English but insists on speaking Hawaiian is like a marathon runner who might demand just for fun to come to court in a noisy wheelchair with a taxpayer-supplied assistant to push it for him.

If this bill were enacted into law, the Hawaiian language content of a bill would be the official law even though your comprehension of its meaning came only from the English-language version. And you can be quite sure that Hawaiian-language zealots would give top priority to writing many important bills in Hawaiian before getting them translated into English, thereby invoking the new rule that the Hawaiian version takes priority. Would your expertise in Hawaiian be sufficient to enable you to detect kaona (wat dat?) -- subtle double meanings that you would never vote for if you knew they were in the law you just finished enacting? Kaona were widely used orally in ancient times and later in Hawaiian language newspapers, as a sort of secret code, so that insiders "in the know" about obscure cultural metaphors would understand hidden social or political meanings in poetry or songs. For example, a hula might seem to be about a bee spreading pollen while flitting from flower to flower sipping nectar; but in reality one of its hidden meanings was about a man "spreading his seed" while engaging in intimate activities with one after another young ladies. On a more serious note, a phrase that seemed to be celebrating a needle piercing a white plumeria flower while stringing a lei might actually be an incitement to hurl a verbal or actual spear at a haole opponent.

Perhaps you're aware that there are some Hawaiian sovereignty activists who would love to get you to enact laws whose legally binding meaning in Hawaiian language would undermine or even overthrow the [fake!] State of Hawaii and replace it with a rejuvenated Kingdom; even though the merely advisory subordinate English translation being relied upon to solicit votes appears to pertain only to plowing on a farm as a way to turn over the soil. ("Huli" is to turn over, whether it refers to plowing the soil on a farm or inciting to violent political revolution.)

I conclude this testimony by citing an extremely important example from Hawaiian history illustrating how a single phrase, and especially an individual word in that phrase, has been subjected to deliberate distortion over time because of what the word meant in Hawaiian when proclaimed into law seventeen decades ago and what it has come to mean in English since then. The phrase in the Mahele laws beginning in 1848 and culminating in the Kuleana Act of 1850 is: "koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka." The individual word whose meaning has morphed is "kanaka." When private land ownership was created by granting royal patent deeds during the unfolding stages of the Mahele, chiefs were given huge swaths of land, while peasants living on and farming individual parcels were given the right to have fee-simple ownership of their parcels. The problem was that the chief's land completely surrounded the peasant's small parcel, thus making it necessary for a peasant to trespass through the chief's land in order to gather materials necessary for daily life, or to go to the ocean for fishing. So in the interest of what we today might call "social justice", the chief's royal patent deed gave him ownership "but reserving the rights of the people" [for gathering or shoreline access]. That Hawaiian phrase �koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka� today is always translated to mean "reserving the rights of the native tenants." However, there was nothing racial about the word "kanaka" back in 1850, although today it has come to refer to so-called "Native Hawaiians." The word "kanaka" simply meant person, or human being, with an implication that it might be referring to a servant or peasant. If you look up "kanaka" in the big Pukui/Elbert dictionary you will find no racial terms. Furthermore, the word "kanaka" does not mean "tenant" -- that word is "hoaaina." Although non-natives made up only a small percentage of Hawaii's population in 1850, the rights reserved to the "kanaka" in the Kuleana Act were reserved for ALL the "people" regardless of race and regardless whether they were tenants under a particular chief.

The Hawaii Constitution Article 12 Section 7, and also the PASH decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court, include racial restrictions which are modern distortions and simply do not grow out of the Mahele or the Kuleana Act. "The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua�a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights." The traditional and customary rights of native Hawaiians from before 1778, and still possessed under the Kuleana Act of 1850 -- those terms describe what rights are being referred to, but those terms should NOT be construed as limiting those rights to members of any particular racial or ethnic group. By interpreting those rights to be possessed by ALL Hawaii's people, we would ensure equality under the law for everyone including ethnic Hawaiians. The fact that my interpretation of "koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka" is so controversial should serve as an important illustration of why it is dangerous to give primacy to a language which very few people understand with sufficient fluency -- especially when the only people who do have sufficient fluency have been trained by teachers and institutions which are politically active; and the students mastering the language under their tutelage have been indoctrinated with their political views and will interpret the meaning of laws in a manner that facilitates their political agenda.

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

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
SB195
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=195&year=2021
and its clone/companion HB658
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=658&year=2021
and
SB196
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=196&year=2021
and its clone/companion HB644
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=644&year=2021

Ken Conklin's CONSOLIDATED TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO BOTH SB195 AND SB196, CONCERNING CONCEPTS WHICH BOTH BILLS HAVE IN COMMON. The clones/companions of those two bills, HB658 and HB644, respectively, had no scheduled hearings and will probably lie dormant to allow the Senate bills to get amended and consolidated with each other and eventually move to the House or be abandoned. All testifiers agree that both bills are chaotic and impractical; Conklin was the only testifier who pointed out that the bills include unconstitutional racial restrictions on who can vote for and/or run as a candidate for the OHA board in violation of federal court decisions in Rice v. Cayetano and Arakaki v. State of Hawaii; and those unconstitutional racist restrictions were NOT corrected by the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs as they produced revised versions, voted unanimously in favor, and forwarded them to the next committee.

This testimony is in regard to both SB195 and SB196, concerning concepts which both bills have in common. No doubt the bills will be consolidated after more careful reflection which should have already been done.

The main topics addressed in this testimony:

1. Both SB195 and SB196 contain requirements that are blatantly unconstitutional under widely publicized federal court decisions from two decades ago. The writers and introducers of these bills are either woefully ignorant of the legal history or else willfully trying to stage an insurgency that violates the oath they swore, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

2. The obvious motive for redistricting OHA elections is to stop a 40- year history whereby the voters on O'ahu decide who will represent all the neighbor-island constituencies, due to the fact that O'ahu voters vastly outnumber the voters on any other island or even the total of all neighbor-island voters.

3. Under the 1-person 1-vote federal requirement, the number of voters must be roughly equal across all districts, and excessive gerrymandering to ensure particular racial outcomes will elicit intervention by the U.S. Attorney followed by federal court injunctions to force a more equitable redistricting. Several Southern states with long histories of racial discrimination remain under federal injunctions that they cannot engage in redistricting without approval from the Department of Justice under terms of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which has been repeatedly extended.

4. Staggering: Institutional memory, and continuity of policy, could be lost if all 9 board members leave office at the same time. Currently either 4 or 5 of the 9 members remain in office for two more years after an election for the other 5 or 4 seats.

Further explanations of each topic.

1. Both SB195 and SB196 are unconstitutional under widely publicized federal court decisions from two decades ago. The writers and introducers of these bills are either woefully ignorant of the legal history or else willfully trying to stage an insurgency that violates the oath they swore, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

SB195 Section 2 says "No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the board unless the person is Hawaiian and ..."
SB196, Section 5 says "There shall be a board of trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elected by qualified voters who are Hawaiians, as provided by law. The board members shall be Hawaiians."

Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000) was decided in a 7-2 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2000, which ruled that the right to vote for OHA board members cannot be racially restricted to Native Hawaiians.

Arakaki v. State of Hawaii was decided by Judge Helen Gillmor, U.S. District Court in Honolulu, No. 00-17213 and her decision was upheld by a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on December 31, 2002. The right to run as a candidate for the OHA board cannot be racially restricted to Native Hawaiians.

SB195 is unconstitutional under Arakaki.
SB196 is doubly unconstitutional under both Rice and Arakaki.

It is shocking to see a resurgence of desire to impose outright racist restrictions on who can vote for or stand as a candidate for the OHA board which is an agency of the State government, not an Indian tribe. Both the right to vote and the right to run as a candidate were litigated and decided two decades ago. I am angry to see such racism rear its ugly head again, and am shocked that the writers of these two bills and the legislators who introduced them and scheduled hearings on them are either woefully ignorant of the legal history or else willfully trying to stage an insurgency that violates the oath they swore, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

2. The obvious motive for redistricting OHA elections is to stop a 40- year history whereby the voters on O'ahu decide who will represent all the neighbor-island constituencies. This happens because all registered voters vote for all the OHA seats. Five seats are reserved for candidates who must be residents of five specific islands: the 4 counties plus Moloka'i. But all voters regardless of where they live get to vote for all the candidates including the ones who must be residents of specific islands; and O'ahu voters vastly outnumber the voters on any other island or even the total of all neighbor-island voters.

On March 31, 2020 the U.S. Census Bureau released a table displaying population numbers for each county for each year from 2010 through 2019.
https://census.hawaii.gov/whats-new-releases/2019-county- population-estimates/

Total State population in 2019 was 1,415,872. There are 9 OHA board members. Thus if the 1-person 1-vote principle is upheld, each board member should represent approximately 157,319 residents. Kaua'i County (including Kaua'i and Ni'ihau) had only 72,293 residents. So if Kaua'i gets to elect one OHA board member, it would have more than double the representation it should have under 1-person 1-vote. That would clearly be contrary to federal law. And under the districting rules proposed in SB195 and SB196, the problem could not be fixed by extending Kaua'i's district boundary to include a portion of O'ahu or any other "basic island unit."

Another difficulty is that Maui had 167,503 residents, only slightly above 1/9 of the State's population, and would therefore be entitled to elect only one OHA board member. Moloka'i has only about 7400 residents, and is part of the Maui "basic island unit"; therefore Moloka'i, dearly beloved by Native Hawaiians as being "the most Native Hawaiian" island, would lose its own OHA board member which Moloka'i has unfairly had for 40 years. The people of Maui would now decide who will speak for Moloka'i on the OHA board. Walter Ritte might stage a protest riot over the "injustice" of having upper-class haoles from the mainland deciding what's best for the Native Hawaiians of Moloka'i!

There will be a strong temptation to count only "Native Hawaiians" for purposes of apportionment when redistricting. Don't try it! For evidence that this is a bad idea and probably unconstitutional, look at discussions during 2019 and 2020 regarding whether the federal decennial census could choose to count only U.S. citizens for reapportionment because only they have the right to vote; or whether to include permanent residents with "green cards", or whether all residents including illegal aliens must be counted for purposes of reapportionment and redistricting. Reread topic #1 in this testimony and be reminded that all registered voters in Hawaii, regardless of race, have the right to run as candidates, and vote, for OHA board members.

4. Staggering: Institutional memory, and continuity of policy, could be lost if all 9 OHA board members leave office at the same time. For 40 years either 4 or 5 of the 9 members remain in office for two more years after an election for the other 5 or 4 seats.

SB195 and SB196 ignore the issue of staggering, the issue of term length, and the issue of what to do with the 4 current "at large" board members during the redistricting transition period. The U.S. House of Representatives (435 members), and the Hawaii House of Representatives (51 members), have terms of two years; and all the representatives are up for election at the same time every two years. Thus the "lower house" feels much more accountable and quickly subject to the changing desires of the voters. But when terms are longer, and members are fewer, there is staggering to ensure some measure of continuity. The Hawaii Senate (25 members) has terms of 4-years, staggered so that half the members are up for election in each even-numbered year. The U.S. Senate (100 members) serve terms of 6 years, and are staggered into three groups so that every two years all 33-34 members of just one group are up for election. The U.S. Supreme Court has lifetime terms, thus ensuring continuity and institutional memory, while turnover is slow but guaranteed by the face that sooner or later each life will come to an end or each Justice will get too sick or weary to continue. O'ahu, with a 2019 population of 974,563, can expect to have 6 board members out of the 9. And unlike under the present system the O'ahu board members will owe their loyalty entirely to the residents of O'ahu who elected them instead of to all the people of Hawaii. There could be some nasty geographical turf battles not only between O'ahu and the neighbor islands but also infighting among the 6 regions of O'ahu (where will be their boundaries?).

For 40 years half of the OHA board members have faced re-election in every even-numbered year. The reapportionment committee envisioned in these bills must pay attention to the issue of staggering and designate which seats will be up for election in each 2-year general election cycle, because the current 4 "at large" members will no longer be elected by all Hawaii residents and must somehow be allocated to specific voting districts where some of them might currently not be residing.

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

SB978
RELATING TO PRINCE JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE.
Requires certain public buildings near mass transit projects and 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.

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

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY REQUESTING A SMALL AMENDMENT

Please delete the racial reference on the front page of this bill, in the following portion of Section 1 Item 1:

""Customary and traditional subsistence farming" means customary and traditional subsistence farming conducted by a native Hawaiian cultural practitioner that is:" There is no need whatsoever for the pair of words "native Hawaiian" and no need for the pair of words "cultural practitioner."

Any person should be allowed to engage in customary subsistence farming regardless of race and regardless of which culture they live by or practice. If you legislators would write laws protecting us all equally, and extending the same rights to all of us, then you would thereby automatically protect and extend rights to each and every demographic group including our much-beloved "Native Hawaiians."

In these times of racial and cultural disrespect and divisiveness, why not bring people together in mutual love and respect -- aloha kekahi i kekahi -- and stop dividing us based on race and culture.

Please rewrite the beginning of this bill to read what is below the line
-----
"Customary and traditional subsistence farming" means subsistence farming that is:
(1) Used for direct personal or family consumption;
(2) Conducted on land that does not contain a dwelling or residence; and
(3) Conducted on land on which no person resides."

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

Ken Conklin"s TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION
(BUT STRONGLY FAVORABLE IF AMENDED IN TWO WAYS)

The Law of the Splintered Paddle is a great treasure of Hawaiian history, culture, and language. In many ways it marked the creation of Hawaii's legal system. It began the transformation of Hawaiian culture from a dictatorial "rule of men" where powerful leaders created law merely by giving voice ad hoc to their arbitrary whims of the moment, toward a "rule of law" where enduring principles were codified to be applied long-term to all members of a society. The Law of the Splintered Paddle was, of course, enacted orally by Kamehameha speaking it in Hawaiian language; but in modern times we write our laws, especially when they are the focus of legislation. Furthermore, Hawaiian language is a great treasure and considerable effort is being made to revive it and help it flourish in everyday use. Therefore:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT #1: The Law of the Splintered Paddle should be highlighted in this bill with precise language in written form (not merely a vague explanation), in our two official languages Hawaiian and English, and enclosed in a decorative box or display. Take time to look for original sources from the earliest possible date when a reliable story-teller wrote it down himself or told the story to a reliable scholar who wrote it down; for example Kamakau, Malo, Andrews, Laiana (Lorenzo Lyons); and cite the source(s).

This bill unfortunately would allow homeless squatters to erect tents on sidewalks, unintentionally but effectively endangering pedestrians who are forced to step into street traffic to go around them; and of course protesters would intentionally abuse this law by citing it as a defense against being removed when they intentionally block sidewalks to get publicity for their cause. Such misbehavior would be allowed under terms of this bill as written, because sidewalks are "by the roadside." I recall seeing that happen on the sidewalk along Beretania bordering Thomas Square several years ago during a year-long "Occupy" [or "de-occupy"] protest that copied a nationwide anti-capitalist protest by the same name. Protesters (sometimes many of them) pitched tents on the sidewalk including sleeping bags and even camp stoves and rudimentary toilets allowing themselves to spend days, nights, and weeks in residence there. The Mayor eventually placed large cement flowerpots on the sidewalk to deny enough space for tents, because he felt he lacked the authority to remove the squatters. In addition to the Thomas Square example, let's remember how protesters against the TMT telescope not only lined the access road to intimidate traffic headed toward the Mauna Kea summit but actually erected huge tents directly blocking the road itself. Therefore:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2: At the end of Section 1, immediately before Section 2, add the phrase: "Except that persons sitting or lying in sidewalks or other pedestrian walkways shall be removed, along with their tents and belongings, if their presence causes danger to pedestrians who must step into traffic or other dangerous conditions in order to avoid them."

FURTHER SUGGESTION: Consider including the mo'olelo (legend, story) of Kamehameha's initial assault on the fishermen, his later summons and mihi (repentance and apology) directly to the fishermen, and his restitution by pardoning them for their own self-defense against him and by proclaiming the Law of the Splintered Paddle. The way you write this bill, including the precise bilingual wording of the Law and the inspirational mo'olelo behind it, should be a source of inspiration for Hawaii's children and adults alike. A minor example of that sweet community engagement on legislation happened a few years ago when Hawaii's children were asked to participate in choosing the "state musical instrument" and the result, after considerable discussion in school and at home, was legislation recognizing both the pahu drum and the 'ukulele.

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

SB1409 and HB800
RELATING TO TRAINING IN NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS. 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.

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=1409&year=2021
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=800&year=2021

Ken Conklin"s TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

In 2017 OHA cajoled the legislature into passing a law that forced heads of specified state and county departments to take a training course whose content and instructors are dictated by OHA. In 2018 OHA expanded its empire by requiring more government employees of additional departments to endure the OHA training. This year OHA seeks to subjugate even more bureaucrats. Today Hawaii, tomorrow all of America. Woo-HOO!!

Make no mistake about what's going on here. OHA has certain views on controversial political issues and wants to make sure that decision-makers and employees of other government agencies get brainwashed to believe in OHA's propaganda, with no presentation of opposing views. Would any member of a state or county department dare to ask a question in class that challenges the correctness of what the OHA-designated teacher is saying, or disagrees with the opinions being presented? Please realize that many people feel moral revulsion at the concept of taxpayer funded racial entitlements. So by analogy, imagine the situation of a middle-school student from a Christian fundamentalist family being forced to attend a sex-education course which graphically describes anal sex as normal behavior, and whose parents are denied the right to opt-out their kids.

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

OHA has certain views regarding who owns the ceded lands and whether the state has a right to sell parcels of ceded lands. The Hawaii Supreme Court made a 5-0 decision upholding OHA's views. But on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that OHA's views are wrong. Can we expect OHA to teach correct information about who owns the ceded lands and whether the state can sell them?

OHA has certain views about the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 that overthrew the monarchy, and points to the Blount Report of 1893 and the U.S. apology resolution of 1993 to bolster OHA's views. But those views are controversial, and are disproved by the Morgan Report issued by the U.S. Senate in 1894 and by the majority report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission issued by a joint Senate/House commission in 1996. Can we expect OHA to provide both sides of this controversy, or will OHA brainwash state employees by teaching only the views OHA endorses?

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

This bill requires government employees to learn about "traditional and customary rights" of Native Hawaiians to ensure that in carrying out their duties, the employees will give respect and deference to Native Hawaiian beliefs and cultural values. For example, we might expect employees to be trained regarding sacred places, the reasons why taro patches are given special guarantees of access to water, the reasons why ancient burials must not be disturbed, etc.

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

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

In 1819, the year before the American missionaries came to Hawaii, the sovereign King Liholiho Kamehameha II, with his birth mother Keopuolani and his regent stepmother Queen Ka'ahumanu, and with Kahuna Nui (High Priest) Hewahewa, exercised self- determination on behalf of all native Hawaiians to abolish the ancient religion, and ordered the destruction of the heiaus and burning of idols. Those ethnic Hawaiians who try to resurrect the ancient religion for political purposes disrespect the decision of their ali'is and ancestors. By seeking to elevate that ancient religion above all other religions, they disrespect the right to freedom of religion possessed by all Americans. This committee should not disrespect the mainstream majority of today's ethnic Hawaiians, and the multiracial, multicultural people of Hawaii, by passing this bill. Please vote "No."

By the way, this committee utterly fails to exercise its fiduciary responsibility to the public to provide much-needed oversight and correction to OHA. Instead of forcing administrators of other departments to subjugate themselves to training by OHA, how about forcing OHA administrators and board members to be trained by the state Auditor and the Ethics Commission regarding what the laws require regarding compliance with accounting and procurement procedures.

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

SB85
RELATING TO HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.
 Authorizes the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to engage in lottery and bingo enterprises pursuant to state law.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

SUMMARY: If Hawaii legalizes gambling in any form, even so mild and limited as lottery or bingo, there is no way Hawaii can then block any federally recognized Indian tribe from coming to Hawaii, buying land, and establishing a casino. And if a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition, it can certainly do the same thing on land owned by OHA, DHHL, Kamehameha Schools, etc. whenever a parcel of such land is turned over to the Hawaiian tribe.

Many legislators seem to think that authorizing gambling in the form of a lottery or bingo is fairly harmless. That may or may not be true (but ask the Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling).

Many legislators also MISTAKENLY seem to think that making it legal to gamble through lottery or bingo does not automatically open the door to more dangerous and harmful forms of gambling such as casinos.

Mainland experts on the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, say that if a State government allows ANY legalized form of gambling (including merely lottery tickets or bingo parlor), then any federally recognized Indian tribe has a right to set up a full-blown casino on land owned by the tribe, regardless of what State that land is in. So for Hawaii that means if the legislature enacts a state lottery, for example, then regardless of what our state legislature or DHHL might decide to do, any federally recognized mainland tribe can come here, buy land, and set up a casino. Or if a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition (which they will be pushing for very hard in 2021-2022), then that tribe can set up a casino in Hawaii or on the mainland. This is what's meant by self-determination; and it's part of the government-to-government relationship between USA and a recognized tribe, where the State government has little authority over what happens.

One issue that will severely impact any Hawaiian tribe which gets federal recognition and wants to use that to get a casino is a Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v.Salazar in 2009, which ruled that the feds cannot take land into trust on behalf of a tribe unless the tribe already had federal recognition before 1934 when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. Turning a tribe's privately owned land into federal land (i.e., taking the land into trust) is what enables the tribe to avoid state taxation and regulation of that land and any business (i.e., casino) it operates there [a State cannot tax federal land]. Tribes newly recognized (since 1934) have tried but failed for 12 years to get Congress to pass a "Carcieri fix", but even Inouye and Akaka, each of whom served as chair of the Indian Affairs Committee, failed to pass a Carcieri fix. A Carcieri fix would be needed for a Hawaiian tribe to get a casino; but most mainland tribes could get a casino here anyway.

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

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=1299&year=2021
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1298&year=2021
and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1297&year=2021

Ken Conklin's CONSOLIDATED TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB1297, HB1298, HB1299 AND THE UNDERLYING CONCEPTS THEY IMPLEMENT. SPECIAL ATTENTION TO OHA.

Mahalo nui loa to Sylvia Luke, Chair of the House Committee on Finance, for conceptualizing and authoring these bills regarding "special funds" and for bringing them forward to a hearing. Thanks to her also for clipping a notch in the ear of a sacred cow which we desperately need to milk.

The basic principle embedded in these bills is that unencumbered money remaining in special funds should lapse and be returned to the general fund. As coaches and teachers might say about muscle tone and skills: USE IT OR LOSE IT.

Other basic principles are that money held by government agencies comes from taxpayer dollars combined with fees and revenues earned by property owned by the government on behalf of all our people; and that money is fungible and may be spent only for the specific purposes authorized by the legislature -- purposes which the legislature always has a right to change as changing circumstances may call for.

There's nothing new about "raiding" the special funds. Two favorite funds for raiding over many years have been the Hurricane Relief Fund and the Highway Fund (much to the displeasure of motorists and the double-happiness of car repair shops). At this time of financial crisis caused by the COVID-19 virus, people and businesses have great need for government assistance; even while government has great loss of revenue. Hence the need for big-time raiding of cash hoarded by numerous special funds.

There is one government agency that has a HUGE cash stash of hundreds of millions of dollars accumulated during four decades by hoarding government money that should have been spent providing help to needy beneficiaries. That Daddy Warbucks among Hawaii's special funds is OHA -- the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. According to their annual report, as of July 1, 2020 OHA had $666,000,000 of assets, mostly in stocks, bonds, and real estate -- by now probably much more. That money has been sucked out of Hawaii's economy and buried like pirate's treasure. The auditor assigned to draw a map to the treasure's location has had his pen taken away by the pirate.

No other Hawaii government agency has ever hoarded so much money as OHA. You, the state Legislature, can and should go grab as much of it as necessary to help our desperately needy families and businesses, instead of dreaming up new taxation schemes that will hurt us even more. While we are desperate for money for basic needs like food and rent, OHA has bills in the legislature, and a history of many lawsuits against the State, demanding more, MORE money to make the cash stash bigger and BIGGER. And what do they plan to do with all that money? For more than two decades they have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Department of Interior to pass legislation or proclaim a regulation to establish a federally recognized tribal "Nation of Hawaii"; and, alternatively, they have paid authors and outside "experts" on "international law" to describe strategies for ripping the 50th star off the flag to make a "Nation of Hawaii" truly sovereign and independent. Either way, OHA leaders and employees have made clear their intention to simply turn over OHA's cash stash to the Hawaiian nation; and then turn out the lights at OHA while raising a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!" Not even a Mahalo to the oppressor colonizer United States or its subsidiary puppet regime, the "Fake State of Hawaii."

So how has Chairwoman Sylvia Luke clipped a notch in the ear of a sacred cow? Two of these bills, HB1298, HB1299, actually mention the name of that sacred cow -- OHA -- and name specific programs inside OHA whose funds should lapse and be returned to the general fund. It's only a notch in the ear, not a piece of the tail or a chunk of offal. But there's a famous proverb from Chapter 64 of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse, or sometimes said to have been stated by Confucius: A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

HB1298 and HB1299 introduced in the House Committee on Finance show that the Legislature might finally muster the courage to fight back against the bully OHA -- the bills are a portent that OHA is losing the mandate of heaven. OHA propagandists like to say that either the Statehood Admissions Act of 1959, section 5(f); or the Hawaii Constitution Article XII Section 6; require that 20% of ceded land revenues must be paid to OHA. That is false. Section 5(f) of the Admissions Act lists 5 purposes for which ceded land revenue can be spent and identifies one of them as "for the betterment of native Hawaiians AS DEFINED IN THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT OF 1920" [i.e., Hawaiians with at least 50% native blood quantum -- a clear reference to supporting what is now known as DHHL and clearly not a reference to what is now known as OHA whose beneficiaries are identified according to the "one drop" rule].

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 requirement to pay OHA 20% of ceded land revenue is statutory law enacted as Act 273, Session laws of 1980. It is not in the Statehood Admissions Act nor in the State Constitution. Therefore, this law can be amended by the legislature at any time to reduce the percentage; or the law can be rescinded entirely.

At this time of severe budget crisis, 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 may be spent. Then there would be no further conflict or litigation over how to calculate the 20%.

Furthermore, the 20% rule violates one of the fundamental principles of legislative control over budgeting; namely, that specific amounts of government money are appropriated by the legislature for specific purposes, and administrative agencies are not allowed to re-allocate money among those purposes or to different purposes altogether. Lapsing unencumbered money back to the general fund is one way the legislature can exercise its authority to designate the purpose for appropriated money to be spent. Raiding special funds in the middle of a budget cycle is another way of doing this. But under the 20% rule money is simply handed over to OHA with no designated purposes and no accountability for results. Rescinding the 20% rule is an important way to free the legislature to exercise its power to lapse or to raid.

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. "Shall" means it is mandatory, which is very different from "May" which is merely permissive. 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.

According to its 2020 Annual Report, OHA has $666 Million in assets -- a Beastly number. 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 pay all its current expenditures for more than a decade. Stop feeding this beast! And feel free to raid it. Indeed, the legislature has a moral obligation to make use of hundreds of millions of dollars lying fallow, to avoid raising taxes on suffering citizens.

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

March 17-19, 2021:

HCR179, HR148
URGING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION TO REQUEST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL BACK TO THE SCHOOL'S PREVIOUS NAME OF HONOLULU HIGH SCHOOL AND TO REMOVE THE STATUE OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY FROM THE SCHOOL PREMISES.

Reso text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
Simple House resolution HR148:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HR&billnumber=148&year=2021
and
Concurrent resolution HCR179
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HCR&billnumber=179&year=2021

** Ken Conklin's oral testimony in opposition, restricted to 2 minutes:

Aloha kakou. 'O Ken Conklin ko'u inoa.

I submitted detailed testimony regarding the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, the Republic, and the Treaty of Annexation; and hope you have studied it carefully.

Let me now put things in very direct terms.

This resolution is NOT about McKinley's name on the school, or his statue.

This resolution is an attempt by a gang of secessionists to recruit you as allies in ripping the 50th star off our flag by declaring Annexation was both illegal and immoral, with McKinley as the evildoer who made it happen.

In 1893 the Hawaiian revolution overthrew a corrupt and ineffective monarchy. In 1894 Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations personally signed letters to President Dole recognizing the Republic as the rightful successor to the Kingdom; see photos. That's why the Republic had the authority to speak on behalf of Hawaii and offer a Treaty of Annexation. The U.S. as a sovereign nation had the right to agree to it by whatever method it might choose, and did so after months of debate in Congress.

The winners in a political struggle have the right to govern the losers whether they like it or not.

Hawaii's royalists lost in the revolution of 1893. They lost in the Annexation of 1898. Their successors lost in the Statehood vote of 1959. Their diehard deadenders remain sore losers trying to "cancel" President McKinley 123 years after he helped secure Annexation.

I'm proud to be an American, and hope you are also.
Please do NOT help these secessionists. Please vote NO on this resolution.

-----

** Ken Conklin's written testimony (on both the regular and concurrent resolutions)

There is only one reason why some activists want to abolish "McKinley" from the name of the school and remove his statue from the campus. The reason is, they want to rip the 50th star off the American flag and return Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation. And through this resolution they want to enlist you legislators as collaborators in their treasonous propaganda campaign.

The strongest evidence that this is their motive is easy to see in the "whereas" clauses of this resolution and in documents provided by the NEA and the HSTA which are filled with historical falsehoods trashing the alleged U.S. "invasion" and "occupation" of Hawaii; alleged suppression of Hawaiian language and culture; and civics curriculum in the early Territorial period. Portraying Native Hawaiians as victims of colonial oppression and/or belligerent military occupation is designed to bolster demands to "give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians", thereby producing a race-supremacist government and turning the other 80% of Hawaii's people into second-class citizens.

The leaders of America and also most of the leaders of the Republic of Hawaii were White men. So it's no surprise that today's secessionist efforts to reverse Annexation and establish ethnic Hawaiian racial supremacy are anti-White. But in recent years that racism has also become anti-Asian. The activists have produced a book and other materials saying that Hawaii citizens of Japanese and other Asian ancestries, even after several generations born and raised in Hawaii, are mere "settlers" or "guests" in a Hawaiian homeland where they have special rights as the "hosts." They say that unless Hawaii people of Asian ancestry line up to support Hawaiian secession under the leadership of ethnic Hawaiians, you are colonialists, just as guilty as the haoles, oppressing the "indigenous" people whose blood makes them children of the gods and brothers/sisters to the land (Kumulipo creation legend) in a way you never can be if you lack a drop of the magic blood. This is the same sort of "blood and soil" race-supremacist fascism that ruined Germany and Japan causing world war in the 1930s and 40s; and more recently it was revived by white nationalists in the U.S. You legislators have a responsibility to stop that fascism from getting established in Hawaii. See my detailed review of the book "Asian Settler Colonialism" published by UH Press in 2008, demanding that Asians subordinate themselves to ethnic Hawaiians:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AsianSettlerColonialism.html

The activists hate President McKinley because he successfully persuaded Congress to pass the joint resolution in 1898 whereby the U.S. agreed to the Treaty of Annexation offered by the Republic of Hawaii in 1897. McKinley also signed the Organic Act in 1900 establishing basic laws for the Territory of Hawaii. McKinley also appointed Republic of Hawaii's President Sanford B. Dole to be the first Territorial Governor, thus ensuring stability and continuity of governance under the same head of state throughout the turbulent decade from 1893 (Revolutionary Provisional Government) to 1894 (Republic of Hawaii) to 1898 (Annexation) to 1900 (Organic Act) to 1903 (end of Dole's term as Governor).

The activists hope to enlist you legislators as allies in their campaign of secession. They know that if you agree to this resolution, they will have a propaganda victory allowing them to say to the rest of America "Let us outa here!" They will cite your approval of this resolution as evidence to our nation's enemies in the United Nations that "America is weak and falling apart." Communist China, now building a navy more powerful than ours, and seeing the Hawaiian secessionist movement being led by so many people whose ancestry is Chinese as well as Hawaiian, might decide Hawaii is low-hanging fruit for plucking, in much the same way that a German leader in the 1930s felt he had a right to take over part of Czechoslovakia and all of Austria to liberate his fellow ethnic Germans who were so numerous there. Certainly when the U.S. complains in the United Nations about China's internal suppression of ethnic minorities and oppression of Tibet and Hong Kong, China will answer by accusing the U.S. of doing the same thing in Hawaii as evidenced by the resolution passed by Hawaii's own legislature bitterly crying out to be liberated.

In November 2020, seeing how aggressive the activists were becoming in their drive to purge "McKinley" from the school, I created a webpage documenting their intentions and opposing them. Please see my "Open letter to students, alumni, teachers, administrators, staff, community, and Board of Education explaining why the school's name and statue deserve to remain in place, and why a Hawaiian secessionist demand to remove them should be strongly rejected" at
tinyurl.com/hmepjz7k

A friend of mine, the late Thurston Twigg-Smith, wrote a book entitled "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?" which he graciously allowed me to post on my website where you can download it for free:
http://tinyurl.com/6osxwp

Yes, the facts do matter. There are numerous falsehoods about Hawaii's history in the "whereas" clauses of this resolution, and in two articles authored by Keanu Sai in the NEA newspaper, and in the lengthy HSTA essay:
https://www.hsta.org/news/recent-stories/mckinley-high-school- deserves-a-name-that-honors-its-true-spirit-community-legacy/

Shame on Hawaii's teachers for propagating such falsehoods, and especially for filling the minds of our children with them. Below are just a few of those falsehoods, with brief corrections and links to evidence proving falsehood. I know you don't have time to study these issues now, but hopefully when the legislative session is over you might take the time to learn about some of them.

By the way, an item in the HSTA essay says "According to the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, 168 Confederate symbols, including 94 monuments, were removed across the United States in 2020, virtually all of them following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers."

I'm sure we all remember the outbreak of violence, arson, looting, and attacks on police that accompanied the "removal" of those statues and monuments in numerous cities. Perhaps we should wonder whether the mention of those events in the HSTA essay is intended as a veiled threat that something similar might happen to McKinley High School and/or to the statue if we fail to comply with the activists' demands. That's all the more reason to stand up against such threats. Please do not knuckle under to them. It might be wise to ask each activist who testifies, to give a pledge that they will not engage in violence or vandalism, and that they will assist law enforcement in identifying, arresting, and prosecuting anyone who does. "Kapu aloha", right? Testimony from anyone who refuses to take such a pledge should be summarily rejected for the same reasons it is unwise to negotiate with terrorists.

Please vote "NAY" and consign this resolution to the trash.

Below are brief replies to specific falsehoods in the resolution (and to arguments often put forward to bolster them)

WAS THE MCKINLEY STATUE ERECTED TO HUMILIATE AND SUBJUGATE NATIVE HAWAIIANS?

Reso: "... when the statue of William McKinley was erected in 1911, several years after the renaming of the school, it was not to honor the President of the United States, but rather as a symbol to perpetuate the subjugation of Native Hawaiians and reinforce the lie that the Hawaiian islands belong to the United States of America"

Reply: There is not even any attempt to give evidence that was the motive; legislators should never endorse such bitter sentiments. And by the way, it is not a lie to say: the Hawaiian islands really do belong to the United States of America; don't you legislators agree? Didn't you take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Meet some of those enemies; i.e., the suporters of this resolution.

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE SIGNED ANTI-ANNEXATION PETITION?

Reso: "... eighty percent of the adult population signed the Kū�e Petitions against annexation in 1897"

Reply: There were 21,269 signatures on the petition opposing annexation. Interpolation of Census data shows there were about 39,542 full or part Hawaiians in 1897, the year of the anti-annexation petition. Thus, the 21,269 signatures on the petition represented 54% of the native population. But wait! Everyone says there were non- natives among the 21,269 people who signed the petition, although we cannot be sure how many. Well, if there were non-natives signing, then shouldn't the percentage of signers be calculated using the whole number of people in the entire population? Apparently non-natives were welcome to sign the petition, but the overwhelming majority refused. The whole population in 1896 was 109,020; in 1900 it was 154,001; so interpolation yields 120,265 as the population in 1897, which means the 21,269 signatures represent only 18% of the population. Furthermore, at that time only men could vote, and there were other important voter eligibility restrictions; so there is no relationship between petition signatures and eligible voters. But there's more to the story. In addition to the anti-annexation petition with 21,269 signatures, there was allegedly another petition containing over 17,000 signatures collected by a different organization. The trouble is, that second petition had a different purpose -- it called for Lili'uokalani to be restored to the throne! Hawaiian sovereignty activists like to add the numbers on the two petitions, for a total of around 38,000 to 39,000 signatures, which would represent virtually every native and part-native man, woman, and baby. But of course that's silly. The two petitions are on different topics. And probably everyone who signed the smaller petition (restore the queen) would have also signed the larger petition (stop annexation). Indeed, the gap of 4,000 signatures could be interpreted to mean that there were 4,000 natives who opposed annexation but also opposed restoring the monarchy and wanted the Republic of Hawai'i to continue as an independent nation under the coalition of White and Hawaiian oligarchs!

DOES U.S. JOINT RESOLUTION HAVE POWER TO REACH OUT AND GRAB A FOREIGN NATION (I.E., HAWAII)?

Reso: "... the Newlands Resolution illegitimately claimed United States annexation of the Hawaiian islands, even though such a document does not have any power or legitimacy to annex an internationally recognized nation ..."

Sai, NEA, 10/01/18: "Many government officials and constitutional scholars could not explain how a joint resolution could have the extra-territorial force and effect of a treaty in annexing Hawai�i, a foreign and sovereign state. ... In 1824, the United Supreme Court explained that, �the legislation of every country is territorial,� and that the �laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory... for it would be �at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations.�

Reply: Annexation did not begin with the U.S. passing a resolution to reach out and grab Hawaii. Annexation began with the Republic of Hawaii offering a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S. Afterward, the U.S. Congress had heated debates about the Treaty in both the House and Senate for many months, and finally passed a joint resolution to accept it: Senate 42-21; House 209-91. Sovereignty means that a nation has the sole right to decide for itself what method it will use for agreeing to a treaty offered by another nation. In 1898 the U.S. used the method of joint resolution to accept the offer of the Treaty of Annexation from the independent nation Republic of Hawaii, just as in 1845 the U.S. used the method of joint resolution to accept the offer of the Treaty of Annexation from the independent nation Republic of Texas. See "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" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

Further reply: The secessionists also say that the Republic of Hawaii was not a legitimate government and therefore had no right to offer a Treaty of Annexation. But in fact the Republic was the successor government of a still-independent nation of Hawaii, following the revolution of 1893 which overthrew the monarchy. The Republic got its legitimacy under international law in the same way as the Kingdom had done: by receiving formal diplomatic recognition from the heads-of-state of numerous foreign governments. After holding a Constitutional Convention and producing a Constitution, President Dole requested formal recognition. During Fall 1894 letters were received in 11 languages that were personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 foreign nations on 4 continents formally recognizing the Republic as the rightful, lawful government of Hawaii. One of those letters was from Queen Victoria of Britain, who had close relationships with Queen Emma and Queen Lili'uokalani. Other letters were from the Tsar of Russia, the King and Queen of Spain, the Presidents of France and Switzerland, two Crown Princes of China under authority of the Emperor while a war with Japan was raging; etc. Even ex-queen Lili'uokalani personally signed a letter of abdication and oath of loyalty to the Republic, witnessed by her personal attorney and former cabinet ministers. Photos of all these documents, along with supporting letters from diplomatic representatives, were taken in the Archives of Hawaii and are available online at
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/

U.S. APOLOGY RESOLUTION

Reso: "the "Apology Resolution" ...acknowledges that "the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty ... either through a plebiscite or referendum""

Reply: Must the inhabitants of a territory be consulted, prior to being annexed? In the annexations of the Louisiana Territory and the Territory of Alaska, the inhabitants were not consulted by France or Russia (who sold those territories to the U.S.) nor by the U.S. There were only two times when annexations of land to the United States included consulting the inhabitants of the annexed areas: Texas and Hawaii. The reason why the inhabitants were consulted in these two cases was that these were independent nations prior to annexation. In the case of Texas, there was a plebiscite in which the vote was limited to white males who had sworn loyalty to the Republic of Texas. In the case of Hawaii, the elected legislature of the Republic of Hawai'i made the commitment. When a government makes a decision, it is binding on everyone in that nation regardless of the fact that some people -- perhaps many people -- don't like it. Native Hawaiians made up only 40% of the population at the time of the overthrow in 1893, 26% at the time of annexation in 1900, and perhaps 20% today. Source: Robert C. Schmitt. Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778-1965. (Honolulu, 1968) The first U.S. Census was in 1900 and it showed a total population of154,001 of whom 29,779 were Hawaiian, 7,857 were part-Hawaiian, 28,819 Caucasian, 25,767 Chinese, 61,111 Japanese. I did not vote for President Biden, nor for either of my Senators, nor for my House Representative. But they have authority to make decisions affecting me whether I like it or not.

Reso: "the "Apology Resolution" ... acknowledges that "the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their ... national lands ...""

Reply: The national lands of Hawaii belonged to the multiracial nation, not to any particular ethnic group. The government lands of the Kingdom belonged to the government on behalf of all the people, not to ethnic Hawaiians in particular. The crown lands became owned by the government in 1865 when the legislature passed a law -- eagerly signed by the King -- to issue government bonds to pay off the mortgage on the crown lands that had been made by Lota Kamehameha V and was in danger of being foreclosed, in return for the King surrendering ownership to the government. Further reply: The apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed. For details see
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/ApologyReso20thAnniv.html

FOLLOWING ANNEXATION, WERE HAWAII PUBLIC SCHOOLS USED TO STRIP NATIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR NATIONAL IDENTITY AND BRAINWASH THEM INTO PATRIOTISM TOWARD AMERICA?

Reso: "... following the enactment of the Newlands Resolution, Hawaii's public education system was pressed into service to indoctrinate, denationalize, "Americanize," and convert generations of Hawaii's children into patriotic United States citizens"

HSTA document citing Sai 10/13/18: "To enforce the annexation, the government implemented a �methodical plan of Americanization� that �sought to obliterate the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of the school children throughout the islands. It was developed by the Territory of Hawai�i�s Department of Public Instruction and called �Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools.��

Reply: Of course the local government of the Territory of Hawaii, and its Department of Education, felt it important to implement a civics education program to help school children understand their rights and responsibilities as U.S. citizens during the first decade following Annexation; just as the DOE today feels it important to mandate 4 years of "Social Studies" courses required for high school graduation. Even Kamehameha School required male students to take ROTC courses until the U.S. military withdrew its cooperation from that program in 2002 due to racially exclusionary admissions policy.

DID THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, OR THE TERRITORY, MAKE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE ILLEGAL?

RESO: "... the result of the illegal annexation ... displaced Native Hawaiians, robbing them of their ... language ..."

HSTA DOCUMENT: "The government made it illegal for anyone to have a Native Hawaiian first name, or even speak the Hawaiian language in public"

REPLY: I have thoroughly researched and disproved the often-repeated assertion that Hawaiian language was suppressed or made illegal, including a detailed rebuttal to a webpage making those assertions published by the Office of Hawaiian Education within the DOE; but DOE refuses to correct it despite overwhelming proof of falsity. For facts see "Was Hawaiian Language Illegal? Did the Evil Haoles Suppress Hawaiian Language As A Way of Oppressing Kanaka Maoli and Destroying Their Culture?" at
http://tinyurl.com/6zrka
and
"Holding the State of Hawaii Department of Education accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned" at
https://tinyurl.com/y6phnzeh

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

HB499 HD2 SD2 CD1 is a bill passed by both chambers of the Hawaii legislature after many committee hearings and amendments, and was sent to the Governor on April 28, 2021.

RELATING TO LEASE EXTENSIONS ON PUBLIC LAND.
Report Title: Public Lands; Lease Extension; Development Agreement
Description: Authorizes the board of land and natural resources to extend certain leases of public lands for commercial, industrial, resort, mixed-use, or government use upon approval of a proposed development agreement to make substantial improvements to the existing improvements. (CD1)

The bill is controversial, as can be seen by the numerous NAY votes in both chambers. Full text of the final bill, and all versions of the bill as amended along the way, and the committee reports and list of who voted which way in each committee, and files of all the testimony from each hearing, can be found at
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=499&year=2021

Hawaiian sovereignty activists staged protest rallies and launched a letter-writing campaign asking Governor Ige to veto the bill. The activists assert that Hawaii�s public lands, ceded to the U.S. at annexation in 1898 and returned to Hawaii at Statehood in 1959, are stolen crown and government lands from the Kingdom of Hawaii which, they say, rightfully belong to Native Hawaiians; and extending commercial leases to as long as 99 years unjustly delays the return of those lands to the Native Hawaiians. The Governor has until June 21 to notify the legislature if he is considering a veto of this bill; otherwise the bill will become law whether or not he signs it. If he notifies the legislature that he is considering a veto, then he has until July 6 to actually veto it or sign it or else it will become law without his signature. If he vetoes the bill, the record of NAY votes in the legislature indicates it is unlikely that the legislature could muster enough votes for the super-majority needed to override a veto.

On May 29 Kenneth Conklin, Executive Director of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies, sent Governor Ige a message urging him not to veto HB499, and to either sign the bill or let it become law without his signature. Dr. Conklin argued that the public lands never belonged to Native Hawaiians as a group. He provided a summary of the history related to those lands, including a 20-year-long litigation record ending with a 2009 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled unanimously, 9-0, that the public lands belong to the State of Hawaii in fee simple absolute, can be sold without needing permission from Native Hawaiians, and that the 1993 apology resolution is merely a resolution of sentiment with no legal force or effect regarding the public lands. Dr. Conklin�s message can be seen here.

------

To: David Ige, Governor, State of Hawaii
Re: Please do NOT veto HB499 RELATING TO LEASE EXTENSIONS ON PUBLIC LAND
Date: May 29, 2021

Aloha Governor Ige,

Please do NOT veto HB499. Please either sign it or allow it to become law without your signature.

In recent weeks the usual loudmouthed Hawaiian sovereignty activists have held rallies and engaged in a letter writing campaign trying to persuade you to veto HB499. They FALSLY say that Native Hawaiians are the rightful owners of Hawaii�s ceded lands, and that those lands should be �returned� to Native Hawaiians, and that lengthening the term of commercial leases delays or blocks the eventual �return� of these lands to �the rightful owners.� The Honolulu newspaper has repeatedly published lengthy propaganda articles in collaboration with the outside pressure group �Pro Publica� asserting falsehoods about the history of land ownership in Hawaii.

Native Hawaiians as a group never owned the public lands, nor any portion of them. At first Kamehameha The Great personally owned all the lands in Hawaii by right of conquest. The King owned the land, not native Hawaiians as a group. In 1848 his son Kamehameha3, having inherited the land, began the Mahele process dividing the land into 3 categories: Crown lands which he kept as his personal property; Government lands owned by the government for public purposes on behalf of all the people of Hawaii regardless of race; private lands given in fee simple to individual chiefs with carve-outs for individual commoners for small parcels where they lived or farmed.

Native Hawaiians as a group had no group-ownership of any Crown land, Government land, or private land. King Lota Kamehameha5 mortgaged his Crown Lands to pay gambling debts, and by 1865 the lender was threatening to foreclose for non-payment of principal or interest. The Kingdom legislature therefore passed a law taking ownership of the Crown lands, in return for issuing government bonds to pay off the mortgage; and the King happily signed. Revenue from the Crown lands was given to the King for his expenses in maintaining a lifestyle befitting his role as head-of-state; but otherwise the Crown lands were indistinguishable from the Government lands and the merger was known from then until now as Hawaii�s �public lands.� They belonged collectively to all Hawaii�s people of all races, with no racial set-asides for �Native Hawaiians.�

In 1893 the monarchy was overthrown, and replaced by the Republic of Hawaii in 1894 � the new government took control of the public lands from the former government, as happens after any revolution or election. 1897 the Republic of Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation which the U.S. Congress and President agreed to in 1898. As terms of the Treaty specified, Hawaii�s public lands were ceded to the U.S. in return for the U.S. accepting responsibility to pay off the accumulated national debt from the Kingdom and Republic (the monetary value of that debt payoff was larger than the market value of all the public land). The U.S. did not simply �take� the land; it was held in trust for all the people of Hawaii regardless of race, with revenue to be used �for education and other public purposes.� The ceded lands were returned to Hawaii under terms of the Statehood Act of 1959, except for national parks and military bases, with revenue to be used for any one of more of five purposes; and for the first 20 years of Statehood virtually all the ceded land revenue was used for Hawaii�s public schools (including UH) serving all Hawaii�s children regardless of race. Native Hawaiians as a group never owned the public lands, nor any portion of them.

OHA, and a few other groups or individuals, have repeatedly sued the State of Hawaii demanding revenue from the ceded lands, or demanding that the State be prohibited from selling any parcel of ceded lands without permission from Native Hawaiians. Probably the most significant contested case over the ceded lands ran through state agency and court proceedings beginning in 1990, and ended with a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2009. It concerned the State�s wish to transfer land at Leialii and Laiopua from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources to the State Housing and Community Development Corporation, to develop low-income housing.

When the State of Hawaii tried to sell a parcel of ceded lands there, 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 in which the U.S. �confessed� to helping overthrow the monarchy in 1893, and the U.S. acknowledged that Native Hawaiians have never relinquished their claims to Hawaii lands.

The State of Hawaii 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. On February 25, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments, and on March 31, 2009 ruled unanimously, 9-0, to overturn the Hawaii Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State of Hawaii owns the ceded lands in fee simple absolute, has the right to sell those lands without needing permission from Native Hawaiians, and that the 1993 U.S. apology resolution is merely a resolution of sentiment which has no legal force or effect on who owns the ceded lands or what procedures must be followed when selling them.

A very large webpage provides links to legal briefs and memos, transcripts of oral arguments and decisions, full text of numerous news reports and commentaries, tracking this case from beginning to end. See
https://bigfiles90.angelfire.com/CededNoSell.html

It is quite ludicrous to hear ethnic Hawaiian activists complaining about extending some leases of public land to a term of 99 years, when DHHL leases are routinely granted for 99 years and are expected to be easily renewed for another 99 years. Indeed, there are some homestead leases whose term is 999 years! (yes, that�s nine hundred ninety-nine years!) Allowing 99-year leases (and especially 999 year leases) exclusively to people who have Hawaiian native blood while denying such leases to people lacking the magic blood would be an example of systemic racism, and would be clearly contrary to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Governor Ige, please do NOT veto HB499. Please sign it, or allow it to become law without your signature.

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

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 2020 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

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 alleged 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.