Akaka Bill Public Opinion Poll of March 2005; and Previous Scientific Surveys

SUMMARY:

In March 2005 the Honolulu Star-Bulletin conducted an on-line poll which asked the question "Would you like to see the Akaka bill become law?" When the poll ended, the votes were "Yes" 436 and "No" 1301 -- a resounding 75% opposed. This in the only time public opinion on the Akaka bill has ever been gathered in a survey open to anyone who cared to participate. That is important, because the State of Hawai'i does not allow citizens to place "initiative" questions on the ballot; and even Constitutional amendments must first be approved by the Legislature before being placed on the ballot. Previous Akaka-bill polls were conducted under controlled circumstances. For example, a private polling firm was hired by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to do a survey of ethnic Hawaiians and of the general public, in which the sequence of questions and the wording of them was designed to evoke favorable responses (the results were then used as part of a propaganda and lobbying campaign). In 2003 two separate scientific polls, one of which was paid for by OHA, asked people in general and ethnic Hawaiians in particular to rank their order of priority for various political, economic, and social issues. Hawaiian "nationhood" (i.e., the Akaka bill) was the lowest priority among each ethnic group, including Hawaiians. The Star-Bulletin newspaper has frequently and forcefully editorialized in favor of the Akaka bill. Ten days after the Star-Bulletin's own poll showed overwhelming opposition to the Akaka bill, the newspaper published a heavily edited commentary analyzing the poll by Akaka bill opponent H. William Burgess, BUT accompanied by editorial elements designed to undercut the commentary. The full commentary, as originally submitted to Star-Bulletin, was published in Hawaii Reporter on-line newspaper. Comparison of the two clearly shows the Star-Bulletin's journalistic misbehavior. A week after the Star-Bulletin commentary by Burgess, that newspaper published a rebuttal by Haunani Apoliona, OHA chair, which made personal attacks against Burgess, Twigg-Smith, and Conklin while failing to respond to their most important point -- the best poll or survey would be a vote of Hawai'i's people on the ballot in the next general election.

Below are the following items:

(1) The Star-Bulletin poll on the Akaka bill

(2) A short letter to editor by Ken Conklin published in the Star-Bulletin, thanking the newspaper for running the poll. The letter points out that the best poll would be a vote at the ballot box; but that will never happen because the Akaka bill does not require it and the Legislature is in the pockets of the big institutions pushing for the bill.

(3) Commentary by H. William Burgess published in the Hawaii Reporter on-line newspaper of March 28, 2005. The commentary points out that the Star-Bulletin poll results are opposite to a frequently-quoted survey from 2003 paid for by OHA. The OHA survey has been repeatedly cited by the Governor and by Hawai'i's Congressional delegation, even though a careful review of the OHA survey shows its methodology was grievously flawed and biased. The commentary also points out that the Star-Bulletin is subsidized by advertising from OHA, and has failed in its journalistic responsibilities by reporting the OHA survey as fact without bothering to review the biased nature of that survey.

(4) On Sunday, March 27 the Star-Bulletin ran a heavily edited version of the Burgess commentary but accompanied by elements apparently intended to discredit it. Those unwelcome elements included an editorial note that the Star-Bulletin poll does not claim to represent the opinion of Hawai'i's people but only of those who took part in the poll. The Star-Bulletin version was accompanied by a photo of Mr. Burgess and of a woman labeled as his wife but who is actually a Hawaiian sovereignty activist with a similar name. The Star-Bulletin has shown its bias and unreliability by publishing the Burgess commentary heavily edited to remove criticism of the newspaper, by sabotaging it with an editorial disclaimer that its own poll might not be accurate, by including a photo of a different woman incorrectly labeled as being the author's wife, and by previously reporting as fact the results of an OHA-sponsored poll without reviewing the propagandistic way that poll was conducted.

(5) In 2003, two separate scientific surveys were done by the Honolulu Advertiser and by OHA, to discover what order of priority is placed on various issues by the general public and by ethnic Hawaiians. Both surveys yielded very similar results, showing that all ethnic groups including Hawaiians place Hawaiian "nationhood" (i.e., the Akaka bill) and resolution of historical grievances atthe bottom of the list of priorities, while at the top of the list are education, healthcare, housing, and other non-race-based economic and social issues.

(6) On Sunday April 3, 2005 the Honolulu Star-Bulletin published a rebuttal to Conklin and Burgess by Haunani Apoliona, Chairperson of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It is regrettable that Apoliona does what so many Hawaiian sovereignty activtsts do; namely, attacking Conklin and Burgess on issues not related to the topic under discussion. The topic here is the Star-Bulletin opinion poll, and the reliability of an earlier survey designed and paid for by OHA. However, Apoliona attacks Burgess by noting that he is attorney for a group of plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to abolosh OHA -- true, but irrelevant to the Star-Bulletin poll and the OHA survey. She identifies the plaintiffs collectively as "wealthy clients" and singles out Thurston Twigg-Smith as the grandson of one of the leaders of the revolution of 1893 that overthrew the monarchy. While Apoliona is correct that Twigg-Smith is wealthy, it is irrelevant to the topic under discussion (but does help to stir up emotions) that his grandfather helped overthrow the monarchy; and while it is true that Twigg-Smith is wealthy, Apoliona is badly mistaken in characterizing the entire group of plaintiffs as wealthy (and what's the point anyway even if they WERE wealthy -- OHA has $400 Million to fight them!). In her diatribe Apoliona cites statistics from her 2003 OHA-sponsored survey. Here we might remember Apoliona's own words from this very article: "... we believe readers should consider the source." OHA designed and paid for the earlier survey by Ward Research, and OHA is spending millions of dollars to lobby for the Akaka bill. In citing her statistics Apoliona fails to mention that OHA wrote the questions, and the sequence of questions, to lead respondents down her primrose path; and OHA paid for Ward Research to select the respondents and to collect their answers while following the carefully-laid-out interview script. FINALLY, APOLIONA NEVER ANSWERS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT RAISED BY BOTH BURGESS AND CONKLIN -- THE BEST POLL OR SURVEY TO SEE WHETHER HAWAI'I'S PEOPLE FAVOR CREATING A RACE-BASED GOVERNMENT WOULD BE A VOTE IN AN ELECTION OPEN TO ALL HAWAI'I'S QUALIFIED VOTERS; BUT THE AKAKA BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SUCH VOTE AND NONE OF THE POLITICIANS WANT TO RISK IT BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE RESULTS WOULD BE AGAINST AUTHORIZING SUCH AN APARTHEID REGIME. CLEARLY THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO SETTLE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE STAR-BULLETIN POLL OR THE OHA-PAID SURVEY IS ACCURATE -- PUT IT TO A GENUINE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BALLOT IN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. WOULD APOLIONA BE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT? HER SILENCE SHOUTS HER ANSWER LOUDLY.

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

(1) The Star-Bulletin poll on the Akaka bill

Every week the Star-Bulletin runs a poll starting on Sunday and closing on Thursday, with final results continuing to be displayed Friday and Saturday. The poll always has URL http://starbulletin.com/poll/index.html However, that URL leads to whatever poll is currently in play. There is no permanent URL for any particular poll, nor any archive of polls.

The following display reconstructs what the poll results page looked on Friday and Saturday, March 18 and19, 2005, after the poll had closed and results were final:

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

Akaka Bill

The U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has approved the Akaka bill for a vote by the full Senate. Would you like to see the Akaka bill become law?

Yes 436 24.90 %
No 1301 74.30 %

Total votes: 1751

THE POLL IS NOW CLOSED.
FINAL RESULTS ARE ABOVE.

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

Note that the number of "Yes" plus the number of "No" add up to 1737, not 1751. If only the "Yes" and "No" votes are counted, then the "No" votes are 75%.

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

(2) Letter to editor by Ken Conklin published in the Star-Bulletin, thanking the newspaper for running the poll. The letter points out that the best poll would be a vote at the ballot box; but that will never happen because the Akaka bill does not require it and the Legislature is in the pockets of the big institutions pushing for the bill.

http://starbulletin.com/2005/03/21/editorial/letters.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Monday, March 21, 2005
Letters to the Editor

Foes of Akaka bill outnumber its fans

Thanks to Star-Bulletin for its on-line poll regarding the Akaka bill. "Would you like to see the Akaka bill become law?" 1,301 voted "no" and only 436 "yes."

The only poll that really counts is a vote at the ballot box, but politicians will never allow such a vote. They know the results would be similar to the Star-Bulletin poll.

Hawaii's politicians are pawns of the large, wealthy institutions pushing this evil bill. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Kamehameha Schools, Alu Like, Papa Ola Lokahi, etc. want the bill to protect their unconstitutional, racially exclusionary programs.

Politicians mistakenly see ethnic Hawaiians as a monolithic 20 percent swing vote. But most Hawaiians I know, both native and non-native, oppose the Akaka bill. We do not want to splinter our rainbow to create a race-based government.

The Akaka bill allows fat-cat institutions and people trapped in dependence upon them to create an apartheid government without ever taking a vote among all 401,000 ethnic Hawaiians, or all Hawaii's people.

If the bill passes, there is no way to stop Hawaiian apartheid. That's why all Hawaiians, native and non-native, must rise up now to stop this abomination. Please see http://tinyurl.com/5jp5r for further information.

Ken Conklin
Kaneohe

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

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?412e1e46-949d-455c-8cb3-977411c7be5c
Hawaii Reporter (on-line), March 28, 2005

Poll Shows Opposition to the Akaka Bill is Overwhelming

By H. William Burgess

A poll just completed by the Honolulu Star Bulletin asked the following question:

"The U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has approved the Akaka bill for a vote by the full Senate. Would you like to see the Akaka bill become law?"

The final vote tally was “436 Yes” and “1,301 No”. Fourteen votes were apparently not counted. That means 25 percent of the votes cast and counted said “Yes” and 75 percent said “No”, they would not like to see the Akaka bill become law.

This is opposite to the figures used in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial just over a week ago, March 11, 2005, reporting “overwhelming support”, “86 percent of Hawaiians and 78 percent of non-Hawaiians favor the Akaka bill.”

CBS's Dan Rather’s career ended in disgrace because he failed to check the accuracy before relying on sources and documents which supported his personal bias.

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin supports the Akaka bill. It receives substantial advertising revenues from OHA. It took the word of OHA for the “overwhelming support” supposedly shown by a 2003 survey “conducted by an independent research firm” (Honolulu Advertiser, July 17, 2004 letter by Clyde Namu’o, OHA Administrator.)

Had the Honolulu Star-Bulletin asked to see the survey, it would have learned it was not an independent poll at all, but “Pre-Campaign Research” commissioned by OHA to “plan to launch a communications campaign in support of Hawaiian nationhood” and the Akaka bill. All questions were designed in consultation with OHA. Even with the deceptive “explanation” used in the survey of what the bill would do, the Ward Research report concludes,

“In the non-Hawaiian population, however, no consensus exists relative to Hawaiian-only programs, entitlements and a future Hawaiian government. Clearly, non-Hawaiians are not prepared to accept the creation of a Hawaiian nation in the near future.” (The underlining is in the original.)

This part of the Ward research was never mentioned by your editorial or by our political leaders or disclosed by OHA. A friend of ours pried the report out of OHA under the U.I.P.A. (Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act) despite OHA’s delay and resistance. You could and should have done so as well. If you were not willing to check the source, and its accuracy, you should not have published the egregious falsehood of overwhelming support for the bill.

This failure of journalistic standards has consequences. It disserves the public and our political leaders. The misstatement of the 2003 survey is often cited as the prevailing "view" of the people of Hawaii. It was mentioned this month by Governor Lingle in her testimony before Congress and by Lt. Gov. Aiona in opinion pieces.

The Akaka bill, if it becomes law, will divide United States citizens forever into two groups: Hawaiians, those with at least one drop of Hawaiian blood; and non-Hawaiians, those without the favored blood. American citizenship is defined by common ideals and aspirations of equality rather than by blood or ancestry. Every individual should be judged by his or her own merit and character. The greatness of the United States has been in its history of escape from ugly racial, ethnic or class distinctions. The Akaka bill would turn us back to that dark side.

If adopted, the Akaka bill will permit "Hawaiians" to establish a government and territory with at least all the sovereignty, jurisdiction, governing powers and authority of American Indian tribes and reservations:

* Unlike typical contiguous Indian reservations, the “reservation” in Hawaii will likely be a checkerboard of sovereign enclaves on all islands and in most neighborhoods, urban and rural;

* Tax-free, regulation-free tribal businesses will cripple local businesses;

* Citizens of the sovereign governing entity will use state and county infrastructure without paying their full share of state or local taxes;

* The new government will control traffic on streets and highways through its territory, be able to charge tolls, install traffic cameras, halt or regulate the passage of cars, trucks, busses, bicycles and pedestrians, and air traffic, cell phone and other communications transmissions overhead, as it sees fit;

* The phony new tribe will control water quality, air quality, underground water, underground minerals, streams, rivers, beaches, submerged lands, electricity, telephone, water and gas lines and fiber optic cables running through its territory;

* State and county governments will lack full civil and criminal process and law enforcement on the sovereign territory and over “tribal” members;

* The “tribal” government will be immune from suit in state or federal court for breach of contract or personal injuries or other misconduct;

* The new government will be able to make unlimited campaign contributions of untaxed dollars to “buy” political dominance;

* There will be harboring of drug traffic and anti-American elements exemplified by the recent visit of Ward Churchill, idolized at the Center for Hawaiian Studies;

* Conveyance of Kaho’olawe to the new sovereign entity will trigger claims for jurisdiction over all the ocean within a 200 mile radius of Kahoolawe;

* Although the bill says it does not authorize gaming under IGRA, it does not prohibit gaming. Once the new sovereign government is formed, with tax-free money and unlimited campaign contributions, casinos will follow;

* A myriad of other yet unforseen but drastic changes can be expected.

Under the Akaka bill all of these sweeping changes in our government and lives would happen without the consent of the governed. If, as the media and our elected officials would lead us to believe, a majority of Hawaii’s citizens of all races support the Akaka Bill, why doesn’t the Akaka bill require a plebiscite of the citizens of Hawaii? What are the media and the state so afraid of, the truth?

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

http://starbulletin.com/2005/03/27/editorial/commentary2.html
Another Perspective
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Sunday, March 27, 2005

Opposition to the Akaka bill is overwhelming

H. William Burgess and Sandra Puanani Burgess

The Big Question" online survey in the Star-Bulletin last week asked readers the following question:

"The U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has approved the Akaka bill for a vote by the full Senate. Would you like to see the Akaka bill become law?"

The final tally was 436 "Yes" and 1,301 "No." Fourteen votes apparently were not counted. That means 25 percent of the votes cast and counted said "Yes" and 75 percent said "No," they would not like to see the Akaka bill become law.

This is opposite the figures used in a Star-Bulletin editorial a week earlier (March 11), reporting "overwhelming support," "86 percent of Hawaiians and 78 percent of non-Hawaiians favor the Akaka bill," citing a poll taken by Ward Research for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 2003.

OHA claimed the 2003 poll was conducted by an independent research firm. The actual report, pried out of OHA under the Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act, shows it was not independent at all, but "pre-campaign research" commissioned by OHA to help it "plan to launch a communications campaign in support of Hawaiian nationhood" and the Akaka bill. All questions were designed in consultation with OHA. But, even with the deceptive "explanation" of the bill, the 2003 Ward Research report concludes, "In the non-Hawaiian population, however, no consensus exists relative to Hawaiian-only programs, entitlements and a future Hawaiian government. Clearly, non-Hawaiians are not prepared to accept the creation of a Hawaiian nation in the near future."

This conclusion was never disclosed by OHA. OHA's shibai of broad public support is often cited as the prevailing "view" of the people of Hawaii. It was mentioned March 1 by Gov. Linda Lingle in her testimony before Congress and by Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona in opinion pieces. Indeed, that assumption of broad public support for the bill underlies the position of our congressional delegation, the local political establishment and seems to have been accepted by the Star-Bulletin and media generally.

Now, as indicated by the Star-Bulletin's latest poll and by the actual conclusion of the July 2003 survey, the overwhelming majority of Hawaii's citizens are clearly not prepared to accept the creation of a new Hawaiian government.

The last time citizens of Hawaii were asked what government they wanted was in the 1959 statehood plebiscite. More than 94 percent voted "Yes" for statehood. But the Akaka bill proposes sweeping changes to that government, allowing a new, separate Hawaiian government, not subject to Hawaii's laws, to be carved out without the consent of Hawaii's citizens.

American citizenship is defined by common ideals and aspirations of equality rather than by blood or ancestry. The grandeur of the United States has been a history of escape from ugly racial, ethnic or class distinctions. The Akaka bill would turn us back to that dark side. It would divide forever not only the people of Hawaii but the people of the United States, on grounds the Supreme Court has termed odious to a free people.

Before taking such a radical step, the voice of the people of Hawaii must be heard. The Akaka bill should be amended to first require a plebiscite asking Hawaii's citizens whether they want a new, separate Hawaiian government carved out of the state of Hawaii. Unless a plebiscite is required, the bill would bypass the bedrock principle on which the United States is based: A government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

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

(5) In 2003 two different scientific surveys were done to discover the relative importance of various priorities as ranked by the people of Hawai'i in general, and by ethnic Hawaiians in particular. One survey was paid for by the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, and conducted by the professional data-gathering and analysis company Ward Research. The other survey was paid for by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- it included data gathered both at public long-range planning meetings hosted by OHA in numerous neighborhoods, and also a survey conducted by the professional data-gathering and analysis company SMS Research which is frequently hired by OHA to do in-house surveys.

Both surveys produced remarkably similar results. It is also remarkable that the results were nearly the same for ethnic Hawaiians as for the general public. Top priorities are education, healthcare, housing, the environment, and traffic. The lowest priorities are Native Hawaiian rights, race-based handouts -- and. lowest of all -- ethnic Hawaiian "nationhood" (i.e., the Akaka bill).

For complete details, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/prioritieshawnonhaw.html

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

http://starbulletin.com/2005/04/03/editorial/commentary3.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Sunday April 3, 2005

Another Perspective

Haunani Apoliona

Scientific poll shows majority favors Hawaiian programs

Hawaiian sovereignty foes William Burgess, Sandra Puanani Burgess (Star-Bulletin, March 27) and Ken Conklin (March 21) are heaping praise on the Star-Bulletin for conducting an online "big question" survey regarding the Akaka bill.

What the three of them ignore is that in its own words the Star-Bulletin acknowledges this informal device "should not be used to determine the general public's opinion." The "Big Q" is an unscientific survey that allows all kinds of mischief to skew the results.

The response to the Star-Bulletin's "big question" was opposite of what Ward Research found in 2003.

Ward Research is a highly reputable, professional polling company that has been used extensively by many firms, including local media. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs commissioned Ward Research to do a poll, and here is the federal recognition question -- word for word -- that Ward Research posed, individually and directly, to 604 Hawaii residents.

"The Akaka-Stevens bill proposes that Hawaiians be formally recognized as the indigenous people of Hawaii, giving them the same federal status as 560 Native American and Alaska Native tribes already recognized by the U.S. government. Do you think that Hawaiians should be recognized by the U.S. as a distinct group, similar to the special recognition given to Native Americans and Alaska Natives?"

» Eighty-six percent of the 303 Hawaiian residents polled by Ward Research said yes. Only 7 percent said "no," with 6 percent unsure (saying "don't know." )

» Of the 301 non-Hawaiians polled, almost eight in 10 (78 percent) supported federal recognition, 16 percent opposed it, with 6 percent unsure.

Again, those numbers are exactly opposite the results reported in the nonscientific online survey posed by the Star-Bulletin on the Akaka bill.

The Ward Research poll also asked about self-governance and nationhood. Here was one question asked by Ward Research: "Hawaiian governance means the right of Hawaiians to make decisions about their land, education, health, cultural and traditional practices, and social policies. Do you believe that Hawaiians have a right to make these decisions?"

» Eighty-five percent of Hawaiians said yes, only 8 percent said no and 7 percent were unsure.

» Seventy-nine percent of non-Hawaiians also said yes to self-governance by Hawaiians. Sixteen percent said no and 5 percent were unsure.

Another question involved the formation of a new Hawaiian governing entity:

"There has been talk about creating a Hawaiian nation or a Hawaiian government that would represent the Hawaiian people in their dealings with the state and the federal government. Do you agree or disagree that a Hawaiian entity of some kind should be formed?"

» Seventy-two percent of Hawaiians agreed a Hawaiian entity should be formed, while 20 percent disagreed and 8 percent were unsure ("don't know.")

» Non-Hawaiians split down the middle, with more than half (53 percent) agreeing with this proposal, 38 percent disagreeing and 9 percent unsure.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs understands the Akaka bill and other programs that help Hawaiians have opponents, including those in the Hawaiian community. But this professional poll by Ward Research found that the silent majority of all segments of Hawaii support the continuation of those programs, and passage of the Akaka bill.

As for William Burgess and Conklin, we believe readers should consider the source. They are well known for their opposition to all the federal programs that help Hawaiians, in addition to the Akaka bill.

Burgess is the attorney for wealthy clients trying to kill all programs set up to right the wrongs of the past. Those include Thurston Twigg-Smith, whose grandfather was a major player in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.

Conklin operates an anti-Hawaiian Web page in which he refers to the apology bill passed by Congress and signed by the president in 1993, acknowledging the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Conklin writes: "The resolution gave an apology for the minor role of the U.S. in that event ..."

Even Congress saw the U.S. role as more than "minor" in apologizing for the overthrow.

Public Law 103-150, enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president as the apology bill, "apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination."

Perhaps what Burgess and Conklin are afraid of are the other questions posed by Ward Research.

Poll question: "There are over 100 federally funded programs for Hawaiians in the fields of health, education, employment, economic development and housing. Do you believe that these special programs should continue?"

» Ninety-three percent of Hawaiians said yes, and 82 percent of non-Hawaiians also agreed that the programs should continue.

Another question about litigation led by Burgess and vigorously supported by Conklin.

"Recently in a court case called Arakaki vs. Lingle, formerly called Arakaki vs. Cayetano, the plaintiff challenged the legality of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as illegal, race-based programs. Do you agree or disagree that these agencies are illegal because they are race-based?"

» Seventy-three percent of Hawaiians disagreed with the lawsuit, along with just over half (55 percent) of the non-Hawaiians. Only 15 percent of Hawaiians agreed with the lawsuit, along with 25 percent of non-Hawaiians.

OHA doesn't dispute the media's right to conduct free online surveys about issues instead of hiring professional research firms. We understand these samplings are generated by the many voices being heard in our democratic society about these important issues.

We urge all Hawaii to be skeptical of and scrutinize unscientific samplings.

Haunani Apoliona is the chairwoman of the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

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

Let’s recall that when Star-Bulletin published the Burgess commentary, the newspaper sabotaged the Burgess commentary by publishing its own contrary editorial comments in the middle of the Burgess commentary. So, following the example set by the Star-Bulletin, here are Ken Conklin’s own comments on the Apoliona commentary, repeated both before and after Apoliona’s commentary on this webpage.

On Sunday April 3, 2005 the Honolulu Star-Bulletin published a rebuttal to Conklin and Burgess by Haunani Apoliona, Chairperson of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

It is regrettable that Apoliona does what so many Hawaiian sovereignty activtsts do; namely, attacking Conklin and Burgess on issues not related to the topic under discussion. The topic here is the Star-Bulletin opinion poll, and the reliability of an earlier survey designed and paid for by OHA. However, Apoliona attacks Burgess by noting that he is attorney for a group of plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to abolosh OHA -- true, but irrelevant to the Star-Bulletin poll and the OHA survey. She identifies the plaintiffs collectively as "wealthy clients" and singles out Thurston Twigg-Smith as the grandson of one of the leaders of the revolution of 1893 that overthrew the monarchy. While Apoliona is correct that Twigg-Smith is wealthy, it is irrelevant to the topic under discussion (but does help to stir up emotions) that his grandfather helped overthrow the monarchy; and while it is true that Twigg-Smith is wealthy, Apoliona is badly mistaken in characterizing the entire group of plaintiffs as wealthy (and what's the point anyway even if they WERE wealthy -- OHA has $400 Million to fight them!).

If Apoliona thinks it’s appropriate to attack Twigg-Smith because he is wealthy, or Burgess because he seeks to destroy OHA, then let’s attack Apoliona because she has spent her most productive years heading organizations whose sole purpose is to spend government money to provide racially exclusionary benefits at the expense of all taxpayers -- she was head of Alu Like before she became head of OHA. She has composed songs celebrating racial pride and looking forward to the establishment of race-based government: most notably “Alu Like”, “E Mau Ana Ka Ha’aheo”, and “Na ‘Oiwi ‘Olino.” The first two songs are well enough known that they were featured in the Kamehameha School song contest of 1993. The third one is the theme song of the propaganda campaign for the Akaka bill, featured in a CD widely distributed by OHA using money from Hawai’i’s public treasury, and was sung by Apoliona herself at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on March 1, 2005.

In her diatribe Apoliona cites statistics from her 2003 OHA-sponsored survey. Here we might remember Apoliona's own words from this very article: "... we believe readers should consider the source." OHA designed and paid for the earlier survey by Ward Research, and OHA is spending millions of dollars to lobby for the Akaka bill. In citing her statistics Apoliona fails to mention that OHA wrote the questions, and the sequence of questions, to lead respondents down her primrose path; and OHA paid for Ward Research to select the respondents and to collect their answers while following the carefully-laid-out interview script.

FINALLY, APOLIONA NEVER ANSWERS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT RAISED BY BOTH BURGESS AND CONKLIN -- THE BEST POLL OR SURVEY TO SEE WHETHER HAWAI'I'S PEOPLE FAVOR CREATING A RACE-BASED GOVERNMENT WOULD BE A VOTE IN AN ELECTION OPEN TO ALL HAWAI'I'S QUALIFIED VOTERS; BUT THE AKAKA BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SUCH VOTE AND NONE OF THE POLITICIANS WANT TO RISK IT BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE RESULTS WOULD BE AGAINST AUTHORIZING SUCH AN APARTHEID REGIME. CLEARLY THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO SETTLE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE STAR-BULLETIN POLL OR THE OHA-PAID SURVEY IS ACCURATE -- PUT IT TO A GENUINE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BALLOT IN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. WOULD APOLIONA BE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT? HER SILENCE SHOUTS HER ANSWER LOUDLY.

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

Note: The approximate accuracy of the Star-Bulletin informal on-line poll was confirmed on July 5, 2005 when the Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i released the report of a scientific survey of Hawai'i's people done by an out-of-state professional survey company. The survey showed that out of 10,000 people who were called on the telephone, 67% of those who responded to the question said they are opposed to the Akaka bill. Furthermore, 45% feel strongly enough about this issue that they are less likely to vote for any politician who supports the bill. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaScientificSurvey070505.html

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

You may now

SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL (AKAKA BILL)

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE

Email: ken_conklin@yahoo.com