Archive for category Commentary

Hawaiian language never banned; Goebbels Award to PBS-Hawaii

The Goebbels Award For Outstanding Use of Media for Propaganda Disguised As Fact

has been awarded jointly to PBS-Hawaii and Leslie Wilcox, its President and CEO;

for refusing to correct a racially inflammatory falsehood about the alleged banning of Hawaiian language in the schools of Hawaii. The falsehood was asserted repeatedly in advertisements through email, televised teasers, and website announcements ahead of an INSIGHTS panel discussion televised live on March 28, 2019 regarding the history and revival of Hawaiian language; and was anticipated to be also asserted by panelists during the discussion.

This Goebbels Award can be seen at

For a long time PBS-Hawaii President/CEO Leslie Wilxcox has been sending out an email blast on Fridays announcing major TV shows that will be broadcast during the following week. The contents of those announcements are also displayed on the station’s website, Facebook page, etc. for maximum publicity. The announcement sent on Friday March 22, 2019 included a description of an upcoming 60-minute live panel discussion in the long-running “Insights” series to be broadcast on Thursday March 28 from 8-9 PM.

The announcement can be seen where it was placed on the PBS-Hawaii website on March 22 at

The first sentence says:
“Ka ‘Ōlelo Hawai’i, the Hawaiian Language, once forbidden in schools and nearly lost, is flourishing again in these Islands.”

The racially inflammatory falsehood is this seemingly harmless phrase of four words in the first sentence: “…once forbidden in schools…”

The truth is that HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE HAS NEVER BEEN MADE ILLEGAL OR SUPPRESSED IN WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS, NOR IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SPEECH OR PERFORMANCES; AND HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE HAS NEVER BEEN FORBIDDEN BY LAW IN SCHOOLS. An amendment to the compulsory attendance law was passed in 1896 to require that any public or private “school” must use English as the language for teaching all subjects in order for that school to be certified as meeting the requirement that all children must attend “school” — but the amendment did NOT forbid after-school or weekend academies from using Japanese or Hawaiian or any other language, and did not prohibit teaching language courses. Japanese parents created such Japanese language academies for their children to learn Japanese culture and history; but Hawaiian parents chose not to do that.

Why is it racially inflammatory to assert that Hawaiian language was illegal in daily life or forbidden in schools? Because today’s Hawaiian sovereignty activists have repeatedly and loudly made such claims as a way of portraying Native Hawaiians as victims entitled to reparations. The U.S. in general, and “haoles” (white people) in particular, are called colonial oppressors who suppressed native culture and even “made our native language illegal right here in our own homeland.” “My grandma told me she was beaten by her haole teacher for speaking Hawaiian in school.” For decades the activists claimed that Hawaiian language had been made illegal. When they were challenged to cite such a law, or to name even a single person who had been jailed for speaking Hawaiian, they could not do so. When it became publicly clear that dozens of Hawaiian language newspapers had been openly published continuously through 1948, and the Kamehameha song contest had been running since 1920 etc., a few professors of Hawaiian language nevertheless continued to insist the language had been made illegal. The claim of general illegality has been forced by the facts to retreat to a claim of the language being banned in school. But it is false, and still racially inflammatory, and must be completely discredited. Comes now the PBS-Hawaii “Insights” TV show with a panel of Hawaiian-language zealots accustomed to earning a living based partly on asserting the now-disproved lie, with the PBS-Hawaii corporate leadership acting as accomplices by giving them a megaphone. Hawaiian is a beautiful language that deserves to be preserved and to thrive as an important element of the culture which is the core of what makes Hawaii a special place. The beautiful language must be liberated from an ugly political demagoguery broadcasting a racially incendiary lie which serves only to foment racial resentment and hatred.

The Goebbels Award provides a copy of the warning to PHS-Hawaii and its executives demanding a correction of the falsehood, which included a summary of evidence that it is false, an explanation of why it is racially incendiary, and links to webpages where detailed proof of falsity can be found.

See the Goebbels Award to PBS-Hawaii and Leslie Wilcox at

Was Hawaiian Language Illegal? Did the Evil Haoles Suppress Hawaiian Language As A Way of Oppressing Kanaka Maoli and Destroying Their Culture?

Examples of published false claims that Hawaiian language was made illegal:

Hawaii Dept of Education refused to correct the language-ban falsehood on its website and in its curriculum, and was given a Goebbels Award on April 25, 2016

Tags: , , , , , ,

Hawaii Legislature 2019 — Bills and Resolutions

Hawaii Legislature 2019 — Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty and Racial Entitlement Programs. Text, testimony, and outcome.

A webpage provides complete information on 19 bills or resolutions for which Ken Conklin has submitted testimony as of February 10, 2019:

The webpage will be updated continuously whenever a new item is introduced (there might be many more).


SB1501 appropriates $439 Million tax dollars for DHHL for 2 years!

HB402/SB1363 gives OHA $139 Million to make up for alleged underpayment of 20% of ceded land revenues, and then $35 Million per year starting now.

SB195/SB642 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. Requires that ‘okina and kahako be used, when appropriate, in documents prepared by or for state or county agencies or officials.

HB1119/SB1451 Reestablishes Kingdom holiday as a permanent annual official state holiday, November 28: La Ku’oko’a, which the bill calls “Hawaiian Recognition Day” although that has always been translated as, and will be perceived as, “Hawaiian Independence Day.”

More on the way!

The Hawaii legislature is in session each year from mid January to early May. Each year there are numerous bills and resolutions related to Hawaiian sovereignty and racial entitlement programs. For about 20 years Ken Conklin has been tracking such legislation, and submitting testimony. As of February 10, 2019 there are 19 different bills or resolutions on this topic for which committee hearings have been announced and for which Conklin has submitted testimony. There will probably be many more, and the webpage will be updated every time a new item gets a committee hearing (new RESOLUTIONS often get introduced later in the session, but a BILL will be treated as “new” only if it did not yet have a hearing). The count of 19 reflects completely different bills and resolutions, not counting the cloned companions in the other chamber, nor the amended versions sent by one committee to the next committee; all of which get Conklin’s revised and updated testimony reflecting amendments made along the way.

Some bills or resolutions have clones, called “companions”, which are introduced under different bill numbers in both the House and Senate. As the session goes forward, many committees make amendments before sending an item to the next committee or to the other chamber. After an item has passed all its committees in one chamber, then it gets sent to the other chamber where more committees consider it, and perhaps amend it. At the end of session a bill must be passed with exactly the same content in both chambers before it can pass out of the legislature to the Governor for his signature.

A webpage provides complete information on the 19 bills or resolutions for which Ken Conklin has submitted testimony as of February 10 2019:

The webpage will be updated continuously whenever a new item gets a hearing (there might be many more). For each item Conklin’s webpage provides full text of Conklin’s testimony; a link to the Senate or House “status” webpage where the full text of the bill or resolution can be viewed, along with a file containing all the testimony submitted to each committee along the way on the item (sometimes dozens of people submit testimony), and a record of which Senators or Representatives voted which way on it, and the official committee report that accompanies the item as it gets sent to the next committee or to the full chamber. Conklin sends a revised version of his testimony to the next committee whenever an item gets amended before it goes to the next committee or to the chamber’s floor; but normally Conklin posts on his webpage only the first version of his testimony, unless there are major changes to the primary concepts.

The webpage also provides, at the bottom, a long list of links to Conklin’s similar webpages from previous years providing testimony from Conklin and others regarding bills and resolutions. That’s a useful resource for anyone wanting to analyze the trajectory of legislation and testimony on any particular issue. Some bills or resolutions that fail get re-introduced essentially unchanged in later years, repeatedly, like zombies or mummies in science fiction movies; other items get significantly revised by the people who write them and get them reintroduced; and some items that fail are allowed to stay dead. Which is which? Do your research!

Tags: , , , , ,

How Kamehameha School bribes other schools to be partners in racial segregation

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

A new webpage at
focuses on a diabolical technique whereby Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) is now aggressively using its vast wealth (perhaps $15 BILLION) to enlist public and private schools and colleges as accomplices in racial segregation and also as partners in pushing race-supremacist curriculum not only to ethnic Hawaiian students but to all their students. Institutions in Hawaii and also mainland USA are being infected.

For about a century KSBE has ruthlessly enforced a policy of racial segregation in its admissions policy for full-time students from kindergarten through grade 12 on all of its campuses, except for a handful of students admitted to settle or forestall desegregation lawsuits. The funny thing is that the racist admissions policy is NOT required by the Will of founder Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, and was not in place in the school’s early years — it is a policy adopted by the trustees for their own political reasons, presumably related to facilitating ethnic pride and ethnic nationalism.
Despite propaganda to the contrary, the Will of KSBE founder Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop does NOT require a policy that only racially-defined Native Hawaiians can attend — even the mere “preference” for “children of the aboriginal blood” as set forth in Pauahi’s Will applies only to orphans and indigents, who are a small portion of the students.

The vicious tenacity whereby KSBE maintains its segregationist policy is demonstrated by the fact that in May 2007 the trustees paid SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS plus admission with full tuition for grades 7-12 to settle one lawsuit by a single student moments before the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to take that student’s desegregation case which trustees rightly feared would result in striking down the admissions policy.

The importance the trustees place on the segregationist admissions policy is also demonstrated by a decision made by the trustees at the time when scandals were capturing public attention and the IRS was investigating the corporate entity regarding its tax exemption: the trustees decided that if the IRS ever notified KSBE that it must choose between its tax exemption, worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year, or its race-based admissions policy, the trustees would give up the tax exemption to protect racial segregation.

A new webpage focuses not on the admissions policy for Kamehameha School itself, but on a diabolical technique whereby KSBE has been enlisting public and private schools and colleges as partners in racial segregation and also as partners in pushing race-supremacist curriculum not only to ethnic Hawaiian students but to all their students.

This technique allows KSBE to infiltrate and subvert the admissions policies and curricula of other schools and colleges in Hawaii and mainland USA by matching the number of dollars those other schools set aside to provide scholarships for students to pursue majors in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) — but ONLY for students who have Hawaiian blood. Most private colleges and K-12 schools have relatively small endowments, and have a limited amount of money which they can set aside each year to provide scholarships to academically well-qualified students whose families are financially needy. When KSBE now makes contractual agreements with those schools to provide matching funds but only for ethnic Hawaiians, KSBE provides a strong incentive to those other schools to take scholarship money away from students who lack Hawaiian blood in order to get extra money from KSBE. Those other schools will now be enthusiastic to recruit ethnic Hawaiians but far less eager to recruit students of other ethnicities, and will divert their limited pot of scholarship money toward ethnic Hawaiians at the expense of other races.

KSBE’s sudden announcement in December 2018 that it is focusing on STEM subjects as those are taught in other schools and colleges coincides with an announcement by University of Hawaii that its Mathematics department is now a world leader in curriculum development and teacher certification in the field of ethnomath.

What is ethnomath? It is the description of how any particular culture, past or present, has used unique culture-based ways of estimating, counting, measuring, constructing buildings, describing natural phenomena, etc. Ethnomath might study how astronomy was used for practical purposes in astrology, navigation, planting and harvesting; and learning how some cultures had priests and princes who secretly anticipated eclipses and thereby inspired awe, fear, or political revolutions. Ethnomath might create lists of the names of the counting-numbers in different cultures; comparing Roman numerals with Arabic numbers, visiting merchants in Chinatown to watch them using an abacus, analyzing the ratios found in Egyptian pyramids, the human body, and the spirals of certain plants. Ethnomath might study the temperature and speed of water flowing through a taro patch to analyze how those factors affect the health and size of the kalo (corm) and length of the ha (stalk). In Hawaii ethnomath will certainly include descriptions of how navigators on the hugely celebrated voyaging canoe Hokule’a use the positions of the stars to “calculate” which way to point the boat.

To a casual observer, STEM subjects like mathematics, biology, technology, etc. would seem to have objective subject matter not corrupted by politics, emotions, and race. These subjects are also academically difficult and demanding. Genuine Mathematics involves abstract reasoning to prove theorems, solving equations, calculus, etc., unlike ethnomath which focuses on low-level measurement and description of tangible objects used in everyday cultural activities. STEM subjects attracted few ethnic Hawaiian students who were generally more interested in studying culture-based “soft subjects” like history, anthropology, or political science; and staging political rallies; rather than keeping their noses to the grindstone in the library.

Ethnomath is a way for racialists to finally be able to invade those parts of the liberal arts curriculum that were previously safe from identity politics. So it’s no wonder that the University of Hawaii, with its huge “Hawaiian Studies” program, is proud to boast of being a world leader in ethnomath. And KSBE is happy to provide matching grants for colleges in Hawaii and on the mainland to give racially exclusive scholarships for students to major in ethno-STEM.

The detailed new webpage is entitled “How Kamehameha School bribes other schools to be partners in racial segregation” and can be found at

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Proposed regulations for Mauna Kea, September 2018

On September 27, 2018 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. submitted testimony of 18 pages regarding proposed regulations for “Public and Commercial Activities on Mauna Kea Lands.” Conklin explains 4 fundamental principles of unity and equality, and applies them to criticize and improve the proposed regulations. Conklin’s complete testimony is at

Here are four fundamental principles for all issues related to Hawaiian sovereignty, which are also helpful for analyzing the proposed rules for Mauna Kea:
1. We are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.
2. All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.
3. Unity with America: Hawaii is in fact the 50th State of the USA, whose laws rightfully have jurisdiction here.
4. Unity of Hawaii: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.

Two obvious conclusions for Mauna Kea rule-making can be derived from those fundamental principles. Many proposed rules should be improved to reflect these two conclusions. These conclusions motivate and underlie all the comments I have made about specific proposed rules.
(A) Every rule should apply equally to people of all races; there should be no racial set-asides or special privileges.
(B) If rule-makers believe Article 12 Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution requires certain rights to be granted to one particular racial group, then the best way to fulfill that requirement is to grant those same rights to all Hawaii’s people regardless of race. There is legal precedent that a law requiring benefits for one racial group can be satisfied by granting those benefits to all persons regardless of race. Furthermore, the Aloha Spirit and the need for pono require such inclusiveness rather than racial exclusion.

Proposed rules for Mauna Kea analyzed by applying those principles and conclusions include the following topics:
*Mandatory orientation program for visitors;
*Fees charged to visitors;
*Traditional and customary rights of Native Hawaiians;
*Burials and scattering of cremated remains;
*Interference with government function;
*Racial set-asides or preferences;
*Access for religious or cultural purposes;
*Demographic characteristics of employees, volunteers, visitors deemed irrelevant

Conklin’s complete testimony is at

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hirono (D,HI) v. Kavanaugh re Hawaiian racial entitlement programs and converting a racial group into a federally recognized tribe.

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

On Wednesday September 5, 2018 Senator Mazie Hirono (D, HI) was scheduled to have a half hour late in the afternoon (she has low seniority) to question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the Judiciary committee confirmation hearing. Reporter Nick Grube was given information from Senator Hirono regarding the topics she intended to raise, and Grube’s article leaking that information was published in Honolulu Civil Beat [online newspaper] very early in the morning. Hirono is up for re-election this November, so of course she is grandstanding and this left-leaning online newspaper is happy to help her. The article, entitled “Brett Kavanaugh No Friend Of Special Rights For Native Hawaiians — Trump’s Supreme Court nominee once called the Office of Hawaiian Affairs a “naked racial spoils system.” is at

Hirono’s entire 31 minute performance in the Wednesday committee hearing was later posted by her minions on YouTube at
The portion devoted to Hawaiian racial entitlements, tribalism, and Rice v. Cayetano is in minutes #9:05 to 17:30 (the first 9 minutes were spent trying to embarrass Kavanaugh by asking whether he had ever sexually harassed women, and blaming him for failing to report 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinsky for doing so).

Brett Kavanaugh’s Wall Street Journal commentary: “Are Hawaiians Indians? The Justice Department Thinks So.” Wall St. J., Sept. 27, 1999, page A35 as archived by the online daily Indian compilation at “Turtle Talk” is at

What’s this about “the justice department thinks so”? Remember that in 1999 Bill Clinton was at the end of his Presidency, and was sending high-level representatives from his Department of Justice and Department of Interior to hold “reconciliation” hearings in Hawaii, asking ethnic Hawaiians what goodies they would like from the federal government as part of the “reconciliation” called for in the apology resolution of 1993 (at the beginning of his Presidency). This was Clinton’s way of gearing up for the expected ruling in Rice v. Cayetano, which came in February 2000, and gearing up for introduction of the Akaka bill in the House and Senate in July 2000 as a way to overrule the Supreme Court.

Brett Kavanaugh, Robert Bork, and Roger Clegg jointly wrote an amicus brief in Rice v. Cayetano which was very influential in producing the 7-2 decision abolishing the portion of Hawaii’s Constitution that mandated racial segregation in Hawaii’s election of OHA trustees. Kavanaugh was the counsel of record. Everyone old enough will remember how Robert Bork got borked at his confirmation hearing for Supreme Court. Roger Clegg is now President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, where he worked for many years under the leadership of Linda Chavez; Clegg was helpful for many years in fighting the Akaka bill and Hawaii’s plethora of racial entitlement programs. The brief is very lengthy, filled with citations, and well-argued as you would expect from a nominee for Supreme Court. It’s available on findlaw, the free version of Lexis-Nexus, at

Both of Judge Kavanaugh’s essays should be read by all the people of Hawaii, because they are powerful arguments against “Native Hawaiian” racial entitlement programs and the now-20-year effort to create a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe whose size could potentially now be 600,000 (one drop of the magic blood is enough to belong). The whole purpose of converting a racial group into an Indian tribe is to provide a legal basis for about a thousand currently existing racial entitlement programs to survive legal challenges under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and to increase this racial group’s political power and give them ownership of lands and corporations. Judge Kavanaugh’s essays are strong medicine against dividing the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines. For a compilation of many Hawaiian racial entitlement programs, see

Here is a compilation of all major articles opposing the Akaka bill (to create a Hawaiian tribe) which I updated continuously from year 2000 through 2014: The front page is an index broken into time periods; full text of each article is available in the subpages for the several time periods.

Tags: , , , ,

Multimillion dollar renovation of Thomas Square in Honolulu has secessionist and racial supremacist motives.

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

July 31, 2018 was the 175th anniversary of a significant historical event in the Hawaiian Kingdom, when British Admiral Thomas landed at what is now called “Thomas Square” with a royal proclamation restoring sovereignty to King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III. To memorialize this anniversary a large portion of Thomas Square has undergone a major renovation which includes a huge floodlit statue of the King, an extremely tall flagpole where the Hawaiian Kingdom flag will fly 24 hours a day with no U.S. flag in sight, a very long 4-ft. tall wall with the King’s famous one-line comment etched in stone (sovereignty is preserved in righteousness), and a large cubical pile of lava rocks serving as an altar to the old Hawaiian gods.

Erecting the huge statue, flagpole, wall, and altar at Thomas Square has the same motives as erecting statues in Southern states decades after the Civil War to honor Confederate generals. The motives include resistance against U.S. military occupation, desire to restore status as a sovereign independent nation, and demands by one race for supremacy over the other races in a multiracial society.

On July 31, 1843 British Admiral Thomas landed at what is now called “Thomas Square” in Honolulu. He delivered to King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III a British royal proclamation returning sovereignty to the King. 5 months previously a rogue British warship had trained its guns on Honolulu to demand payment of overdue bills owed by native chiefs to British merchants. When the King was unable to pay, the British commander foreclosed on the debts by collecting the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom as payment. The Hawaiian King suffered alcoholic depression. A petition to the British crown was secretly written by the King’s closest advisor, an American missionary medical doctor Gerrit Judd, who made the King sign it and who recruited an American sailor to deliver it. The restoration of sovereignty on July 31 produced a huge celebration, and the date became a Hawaiian Kingdom holiday.

Today’s Hawaiian secessionists want to rip the 50th star off the U.S. flag. They believe the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy on January 17, 1893 was caused by the landing of 162 U.S. peacekeepers sent ashore to protect American lives and property and prevent expected rioting and arson as royalists and revolutionaries clashed. 5 years after the “illegal overthrow” there was an “illegal annexation” of Hawaii to the U.S., and then in 1959 there was an “illegal plebiscite” whereby Hawaii agreed to become the 50th State.

Hawaiian sovereignty activists want to undo all that history. So today’s Hawaiian secessionists look to Sovereignty Restoration Day not only as the name of a historical event 175 years ago but also as the future they expect when United Nations enforcement of “international law” combines with U.S. military and economic weakness to once again restore Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation. Hawaiian racial supremacists cherish the thought of sovereignty restoration day in the same way as Southern white nationalists cherish their memories of Robert E. Lee. A statue went up in Honolulu for the same reasons the Confederate statues were erected in Charlottesville Virginia and other Southern towns.

For a deeper analysis, and compilation of news reports about Thomas Square, see this webpage:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hawaiian names for Honolulu train stations — weaponizing Hawaiian language to assert racial dominance

Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205
Kane’ohe, HI 96744-6083
tel (808) 247-7942

Re: Hawaiian names for train stations

Date: November 28, 2017

Responding to the mission statement of the Hawaiian Station Naming Program
and the media news release of November 22, 2017

Those documents try to make it appear that it has already been decided that the train stations must have Hawaiian-language names, and that the only question remaining is what particular name each station should have.

But no! There are good reasons why Hawaiian names should not be the primary names displayed or announced; and even more good reasons why Hawaiian names should not be given any official role at all.

Mayor Mufi Hannemann said we must keep in mind the difference between “need to have” and “nice to have.” And I am adding here: considering how Hawaiian language is being used as a political weapon, Hawaiian station names might not be nice to have at all.

Here are 5 points which the HART board of directors should consider before proceeding to adopt Hawaiian-language names:



Resolution 09-158, calling for Hawaiian-language station names, was adopted on April 29, 2009 — nearly 9 years ago! There was hardly any publicity back then despite its potentially controversial nature.

The membership of City Council has turned over many times between then and now. Council Member Ann Kobayashi might be the only current member who was on the Council when the resolution was adopted. Perhaps she will recall the large controversy that erupted in 2009, at the same time when this resolution was adopted — Hawaiian activists were trying to get the Council to take away all the existing street names in the former Barbers Point military base (which had recently been turned over to Honolulu as surplus federal lands) and replace them with Hawaiian names. Old-time residents of the area, including military veterans, sent written testimony and appeared at several hearings to demand that the military heritage names be kept; and the Council decided to keep the names. It seems plausible that Resolution 09-158 was adopted merely as a ploy to mollify or calm the activists in view of the rejection of their demands to abolish military/English-language heritage names. One of the Hawaiian activists in that controversy, Shad Kane, is now a member of the current Station Naming Working Group, thus showing that his primary motivation is probably related to the politics of Hawaiian sovereignty. Furthermore, one of the proposed station names now (Kualakai) is the same as one of the proposed replacement street names from 2009, despite being a considerable distance away; which raises doubts about cultural/historical authenticity of a name that should be uniquely specific to the station’s location. See topics #4 and #5 below for more information about the old street name controversy and how it illustrates the use of Hawaiian language as a political weapon — naming something is an assertion of power or ownership.

It is inappropriate to expect today’s members to feel bound by such an old stealth or “sleeper” resolution. We’ve all seen science fiction horror movies where a long-dormant mummy, zombie, or vampire is awakened and wreaks chaos upon a hapless community. We would do well to let it remain asleep — or better yet drive a stake through its hart (pun — intentional misspelling!)



People must be told the easily recognizable English name of a currently-existing building or shopping center or neighborhood — not the ancient Hawaiian name of a long-forgotten chief who lived there once upon a time — not the ancient Hawaiian name of a geological feature which is no longer visible because of large buildings now in the way.

99% of local residents, and 100% of visitors from the mainland, will have no clue whether to get off when they see or hear some of the Hawaiian-language place-names under consideration.

Some of the names actually proposed by the Committee are extremely confusing even to local residents, because the names are contrary to actual place names already in use. One anonymous commenter to a newspaper report said the following: “So the “placeholder names” that future riders can actually associate with locations they know “now will be replaced” with these new names. Hence there will be no Pearlridge Center Station but instead there will be a Pu’uloa station that is next to Pearlridge Center but miles away from Pu’uloa Road. Really? And the station smack dab in the center of the new Ho’opili subdivision will no longer be called the Ho’opili station but instead will be called the Honouliuli station, even though the Honouliuli neighborhood is actually more directly accessible from the West Loch station, which itself will be renamed the Ho’ae’ae station. Hmmm…”

Consider how The Bus currently announces each stop. Suppose you change Puakea Nogelmeier’s recorded announcement “Kane’ohe Library and Kane’ohe Police Station” to “Hale Waihona Puke o Kane’ohe a me Hale Maka’i o Kane’ohe”? Huh? Wat dat? Wah choo sane?

Recently a half-mile-long object from outside our solar system passed by at high speed — the first such interstellar visitor known to humans. News media reported that a committee of Hawaiian language experts held meetings to figure out what name to give it, because the right to name it belongs to the astronomical observatory on Mauna Kea that discovered it. The committee dredged up the word “‘Oumuamua” which, they tell us, means leader or scout. Does that word have kaona (hidden meaning) intended to imply that creatures from outer space will soon be invading and have sent an advance party to scout our defenses? How many people, even in the community of Hawaiian-language experts, ever heard that word before now? Why not choose the somewhat more commonly heard name “‘Elele” (messenger), as in the ‘olelo no’eau “He ‘elele ka moe na ke kanaka.” (A dream is a messenger to a person) Or choose even the very commonly heard name “malihini” (visitor or guest), which also does not carry any of the hopohopo-inducing ominous kaona associated with “scout” or “messenger.” What we had with “‘Oumuamua” was a gang of language experts dredging an obscure word out of the same abyss from whence came the interstellar object. That process resembles what is being done by the transit station naming committee. Neither local residents nor tourists will have a clue what the name means when the initial publicity fades away after a few weeks. Eventually those names would make good questions in the game “Trivial Pursuit” or perhaps a Hawaiian version of “Jeapordy.”

Consider how transit stations should be (re)named in other parts of America to evoke their Native American heritages, following the lead of the committee in Honolulu:

The transit station at the bottom of Manhattan, and/or the embarkation point for the ferry boat, should be (re)named “Kioshk” which was the Indian name of what is now called Ellis Island.

The bus stop nearest to Lake Superior in Duluth Minnesota should be (re)named GitcheGumee which is the Indian name for the lake, as we know from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s famous poem “Song of Hiawatha” (“By the shores of Gitche Gumee, By the shining Big-Sea-Water, Stood the wigwam of Nokomis, Daughter of the Moon, Nokomis. …”)

In Chicago, “Navy Pier” juts out into Lake Michigan; therefore the transit station serving it should be (re)named “Mishigami” from that lake’s Indian name (Ojibwa or Algonquin).



The primary purpose should be to give people practical information quickly and accurately in terms they can understand to get to their destination; but it is only a secondary purpose to educate them about historical or cultural factors which are not immediately necessary and might be of little interest to them.

If you have cancer and go to a doctor for treatment, you need to know where to go for surgery or radiation; or get a prescription for drugs. You do not need a lecture on the history of improvement in the design of scalpels, or how Marie Curie extracted radium from pitchblende, or how tamoxifen gets processed by the liver; although you should certainly be helped to get that information if you want it.



It is a political act — an assertion of power or dominance — to impose a name upon a person, place, creature, or object. According to the Bible, God gave man dominion over all the creatures of the Earth, including the right to name them as a sign of man’s dominion over them. Parents who adopt a baby have a right to (re)name the baby and to get a new birth certificate reflecting the chosen name. Owners have the right to impose a name on any property they own; conversely, imposing a name is an assertion of ownership, authority, and power.

Black activists Malcolm Little, Cassius Clay, and Lou Alcindor discarded their “slave names” to become Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar; while Hawaiian activist Lily Dorton gave herself the heroic name Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa. The boy Collin Kwai Kong Wong who graduated from Kamehameha School in 1990 gave himself the powerful female name Hinaleimoana when transitioning to the woman Hinaleimoana Kwai Kong Wong-Kalu, chairperson of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group.

Racial activists and transgenders, like those on this committee, understand very well that choosing a new name is an intensely political action, an exercise of power, and a way of converting an aspiration into an apparent reality. Owners have the right to impose a name on any property they own; conversely, imposing a name is an assertion of ownership, authority, and power. The race-nationalist political motive of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group is clear from their backgrounds.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Thus corporations pay megabucks for the naming rights to a sports stadium. Medical buildings and university buildings are named after the donors who endowed them. The many Billions of dollars for the Honolulu train system come from the taxpayers, not from an ethnic group claiming victimhood status reflected in allegedly low incomes and therefore low contributions to the taxes that finance the project. Seizing the naming rights to the buildings in the Honolulu rail project is a theft of the property rights of all the taxpayers in general.

According to a Hawaiian proverb: “I ka ‘olelo no ke ola, i ka ‘olelo no ka make” which means: In language there is life, in language there is death. Thus naming streets or train stations is a way of asserting ownership and authority over them through an act of political power. Streets, places, or buildings with haole or Hawaiian names mark the territory as being haole or Hawaiian in the same way as an animal urinates on a place to leave a scent mark asserting control of it, or a graffiti artist paints his indecipherable tag on a wall.



Black activists Malcolm Little, Cassius Clay, and Lou Alcindor discarded their “slave names” to become Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. A Hawaiian activist whose name on her Ph.D. dissertation was Lily Dorton gave herself the heroic name Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa — she speaks with pride about her Hawaiian mother but never her haole father.

The boy Collin Kwai Kong Wong who graduated from Kamehameha School in 1990 gave himself the powerful female name Hinaleimoana when transitioning to the woman Hinaleimoana Kwai Kong Wong-Kalu, who has been head of the O’ahu Island Burial Council and culture director at a Hawaiian-focus charter school noted for the aggressive involvement of its students in lobbying or disrupting city and state government agencies.

Mahealani Cypher (aka Denise DaCosta) has been President of the O’ahu Council of Hawaiian Civic Clubs writing testimony on all sorts of state and federal legislation related to Hawaiian sovereignty. For example, she repeatedly wrote bills introduced in several legislative sessions that would have turned over Ha’iku Valley (Kane’ohe) to a race-based consortium under the jurisdiction of OHA to be then automatically transferred to the Native Hawaiian tribe anticipated to achieve federal recognition. And now here she is, continuing her political activism as chairperson of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group.

It’s interesting that at least two of the five members of the Working Group — Chairperson Mahealani Cypher and Francine Gora — are residents of Ko’olaupoko and have served as Presidents of the politically aggressive Ko’olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club, despite the fact that the train will never serve the Ko’olaupoko area and these two women probably have very little knowledge of historical names or cultural usages of the areas where the train stations will be located. Their participation on the station-naming committee is purely political as they do not have cultural or historical expertise on the station areas.

Racial activists and transgenders, like those on this committee, understand very well that choosing a new name is an intensely political action, an exercise of power, and a way of converting an aspiration into an apparent reality. The race-nationalist political motive of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group is clear from their backgrounds.

City Council, and also some neighborhood boards, have previously considered and rejected efforts to remove English-language street names and replace them with “politically correct” Hawaiian names. There might be one or two Council members who lived through some of those struggles. See details of five case studies: Thurston Ave.(Kamakaeha), Barbers Point (Kalaeloa), Dillingham Military Reservation (Kawaihapai), Fort Barrette Road (Kualakai), Dole St. (Kapaakea Street). Those case studies are on a webpage at

Note that the name proposed for one of the train stations (Kualakai) is the same name unsuccessfully demanded in 2009, in a bitter battle before City Council, to replace the name of Fort Barrette Road, and was (and still is) the name of another street in that area. Note that Working Group member Shad Kane was one of the activists back then who appears to now be seeking to re-fight that old issue. Interestingly, resolution 09-158, calling for the use of Hawaiian language in naming the train stations, was adopted by City Council on April 29, 2009, at the same time when the battle was underway before the Council to change Fort Barrette Road to Kualaka’i.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments on Linda Zhang, “Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation.”

Letter to editor by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. in response to
Linda Zhang, “Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation: Base Rolls, Membership, and Land in an Effective Self-Determination Movement,” Asian Pacific American Law Journal, Vol 22, No. 1, 2017, pp. 69-93.

I would like to set the record straight regarding a few errors of fact and interpretation in Linda Zhang’s essay “Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation.”

1. Alleged invasion of Iolani Palace by U.S. troops during the Hawaiian revolution of 1893

At the bottom of page 70 Ms. Zhang states the following falsehood: “Then, in 1893, American troops seized I’olani Palace, the home of Queen Lili’uokalani and the center of the Hawaiian monarchy …” Her only citation for that assertion is an internet link from 2005 which is now dead, where the underlying blogsite continues to publish only highly one-sided propaganda pushing the concept of Hawaiian independence.

The truth is that on January 16, 1893 there were 162 U.S. sailors who landed in Honolulu as a peacekeeping force because of anticipated violence between an armed militia of local men seeking to overthrow the government, and the government’s forces. Their orders were to protect American lives and property and to prevent rioting and arson. 808 pages of sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs in February 1894, in open session and under severe cross-examination, shows that the peacekeepers never invaded the Palace grounds and, indeed, did not take over any buildings nor in any way provide help to the rebels. See the Morgan Report at
Even the Blount Report, much ballyhooed by Hawaiian sovereignty activists, makes no claim of any invasion of Palace grounds by U.S. troops.

Unfortunately the 2009 movie “Princess Kaiulani” (originally titled “The Barbarian Princess”) falsely shows such a scene. The webpage for a future film “The Islands” by Tim Chey [See endnote of 12/12/17] indicates that there will be a similar scene. Both films, of course, are produced with story lines intended to sell lots of tickets by spectacularly distorting historical fact in ways that will appeal to current sentiments. Portraying U.S. troops invading the Palace is pure propaganda which only serves to incite racial strife and anti-Americanism.

2. Alleged statistical evidence of Native Hawaiian victimhood in poverty, incarceration, and health

Page 71, near the top, says “Since then, studies have shown that Kanaka Maoli, or Native Hawaiians, continue to have some of the highest rates of poverty, incarceration, school drop-out rates, and display several negative indicators of health.”

This assertion has been repeated so many times, both in the popular media and in academic “studies”, that people now believe it. This victimhood claim is cited by tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry who benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in government and philanthropic grants; and also cited by politicians seeking to arouse public sympathy for efforts to create a Hawaiian tribe. The assertion arises from statistical malpractice, whose perpetrators must surely be aware that they are engaging in a scam. Two of the main points debunking the assertion are as follows:

(a) According to Census 2010 the median age of ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii is 26 while the median age of everyone else in Hawaii is 42. That 16 year age gap explains why incomes of Native Hawaiians are significantly lower than incomes of other ethnic groups. It also explains why Native Hawaiians have higher rates of incarceration and longer sentences than other ethnicities — not because of their ethnicity but because of the huge age gap. Drug abuse, spouse abuse, and crime — especially violent crime — are the sins of young people far more than middle-age people.

(b) Virtually all so-called Native Hawaiians have mixed ancestry. Perhaps 3/4 of them each have at least 3/4 of their heritage being Asian or Caucasian rather than Hawaiian. But when someone is a victim of poverty, incarceration, disease, etc. and is asked “What are you?” they are classified as “Native Hawaiian” AND ONLY AS NATIVE HAWAIIAN even if their native blood quantum is only a small fraction of their ancestry. Someone who is mostly Caucasian or Asian should have his victimhood attributed to one of those racial groups rather than to Native Hawaiian. The most accurate way to award victimhood tally marks to ethnic groups would be to give a fraction of a tally mark to each ethnicity in a victim’s heritage equal to the fraction of that ethnicity in his genealogy. But social scientists apparently consider it politically incorrect to ask victims for ethnic percentages; and tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry do not want to be robbed of the victimhood claims they use in grant applications; and researchers excuse their malpractice by saying that if they award victimhood tally marks to the highest percentage in a victim’s heritage then there would be too few Native Hawaiians to be statistically significant.

For a detailed analysis and examples of both points (a) and (b) see “Native Hawaiian victimhood — malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction.” at

3. The proposed Native Hawaiian constitution is both racist and fascist

Linda Zhang’s article tries to portray the Hawaiian sovereignty movement as benign. For example, she says on page 77 “Part A(i) of the membership criteria is based on the lineage model. The criterion is broad enough to include ‘non-Hawaiians who were citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom and therefore have a rightful place in the citizenry,’ thereby avoiding a potential constitutional challenge under Rice v. Cayetano.” But the actual wording of Part A(i) says “An individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal peoples who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands” — which clearly would NOT include people with no native blood who were subjects (citizens) of the Kingdom; and thus it is clearly a racial requirement and cannot avoid running afoul of Rice v. Cayetano.

A claim to racial supremacy is displayed in the proposed constitution for a future federally recognized Hawaiian tribe adopted on February 26, 2016. That constitution also demands race-based ownership and control of all the lands and waters of Hawaii, as though nobody else has rights. Up front the preamble says “we join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people” [i.e., of the race, by the race, and for the race], and “affirm our ancestral [i.e., race-based] rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas.” So what will become of the 80% of Hawaii’s people who have no native ancestry? The constitution asserts the same sort of “blood and land” concept as found in other fascist governments — Native Hawaiians are descendants of the gods and brothers to the land in a way nobody else can ever be who lacks a drop of Hawaiian native blood.
See “Hawaiian religious fascism” at
The proposed tribal constitution passed by the Na’i Aupuni convention on February 26, 2016 is available at

Note added by Ken Conklin on December 12, 2017:

Today I received a complaint that this blog entry of October 8 unfairly blames Tim Chey, the director/producer of the film “The Islands”, for a racially inflammatory and anti-American falsehood apparently portrayed in the film. According to its publicity webpage the film depicts U.S. troops invading Iolani Palace in 1893 and Queen Lili’uokalani surrendering to the U.S. troops. So who then should be blamed when a film portrays a historical falsehood which misleads viewers to think it is true and which inflames anti-white and anti-American passions? The person who hires the writers, approves the script, and assembles the financing and distribution must take the blame, as surely as the captain of a ship which runs aground or sinks because of dereliction by a navigator or other subordinate officers.

The film’s webpage is at On December 12, 2017 the webpage still states what it has stated for many months. Sentences near the end of the story’s narrative say: “Cut Forward to: 1893 We see the reporter and Liliuokalani discussing Kapiolani when the U.S. Marines now enter the palace of Liliuokalani. She surrenders as the reporter attempts to intervene.” The falsehood about U.S. troops invading Iolani Palace in 1893 and overthrowing the Queen is apparently only a minor detail in a film that is primarily focused earlier in the 19th Century, especially 1824 when High Chiefess Kapiolani challenged the power of the volcano goddess Pele and thereby persuaded Hawaiian natives to believe in the Christian God. But a small detail, like a few drops of poison, can make a glass of sweet fruit juice deadly.

The complainer also said that the film has not yet been completed, so no falsehood has yet been portrayed. Plenty of time to fix any problem. But that assertion about timing is also false. The movie’s webpage on December 12, 2017 clearly states “Production has wrapped on the high-profile movie, ‘The Islands’ set to hit theaters in November 2018.” Tim Chey’s tweet on November 24, 2017 says “So happy! We just wrapped filming on ‘The Islands’! God is good!”

In early 2017 I first became aware of the effort to produce this film, thanks to news reports in Honolulu. I found the film’s webpage, was horrified by the historical falsehood, wrote a comment seeking to correct the historical falsehood, and sent it through the film’s webpage. I also spoke with a friend of mine who has the ear of Mr. Chey; but my concern failed to elicit a response. When does the point of no return come in writing or producing a multimillion dollar film? When is the time to prevent a film from portraying a scurrilous falsehood which then gets viewed by a mass audience and inflames hatred? And once the film has finished production and gets scheduled for the theaters, and perhaps ends up getting viewed by millions on “The History Channel” or “Showtime”, how can the damage be mitigated? That problem is now in the hands of Tim Chey. I am ignorant about how films are made, and unable to recommend how to correct the problem. But surely a Christian with strong moral values, who is an expert on film production and responsible for this one, will find a way to obey the Commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

This falsehood about U.S. troops invading Iolani Palace in 1893 (sometimes also that the troops arrested the Queen and imprisoned her there) has been going around. Senators Inouye and Dorgan told that lie on the floor of the U.S. Senate on June 23, 2008 to portray Native Hawaiians as victims of the U.S. to whom we therefore owe restitution and federal recognition as an Indian tribe; and it was also portrayed in the 2009 film “Princess Kaiulani.” It’s time to put a stop to this falsehood before it pollutes the Aloha Spirit. I have also been working for years to discredit other scurrilous falsehoods inciting hatred, such as: The last Hawaiian flag atop Iolani Palace was torn into pieces distributed as souvenirs to the haoles who overthrew the Queen; President Grover Cleveland issued a proclamation naming April 30, 1894 as a national day of prayer and repentance for the U.S. overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom; Hawaiian language was made illegal after the overthrow; The Royal Mausoleum was exempted from the ceded lands at annexation and remains a piece of Hawaiian Kingdom sovereign land; Native Hawaiians have the worst statistics for all the major diseases, drug abuse, poverty, incarceration etc. For the debunking of these and other falsehoods, put keywords into the search window, or read the history section, on my website at
To understand the political struggle in Hawaii which falsehoods like these are worsening, see the book “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” at


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Census race and gender questions need fixing. Mixed race respondents should tell percentages.

On March 1, 2017 the U.S. Office of Management and Budget published a notice in the Federal Register entitled “Revision of Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity: Proposals From Federal Interagency Working Group”

The 6-page notice raised many issues and asked for comments before April 30, which can be viewed there.

Ken Conklin posted the following summary of his comments on April 7. The complete, detailed comments are at


My comments address two main issues: How the race (and gender) question(s) should be worded to avoid confusing emotional aspiration with fact; and why multiracial people (especially Native Hawaiians) should be asked for the percentage of each race in their ancestry.

Here is a summary to comply with the limit of 5000 characters. For the complete commentary see

Census questions about race should be written in a way which clarifies that respondents are being asked about the facts of their biological heritage (check the boxes for all the races you know are part of your biological ancestry) rather than their psychological/social affiliations or aspirations (check the box for the race you feel most closely affiliated with on account of upbringing or current lifestyle). Perhaps both questions should be asked. Mixed-race respondents should be asked to estimate the percentage of each race. Current single-question ambiguity between fact vs. aspiration skews statistical medians toward aspirational identities in geographic areas where mixed-race minorities have large numbers of individuals engaged in political activity to assert minority rights. People who are strongly committed to a race-based political agenda are likely to say they are solely of their favorite race. Such aspirational skewing causes inaccurate media reporting by statistically unsophisticated reporters relying on Census Bureau news releases having weak or non-existent plain-English disclaimers that data may be skewed by aspirational self-identification. Even mathematically sophisticated scholars might misinterpret aspirational identity as though it is biological fact unless they are reminded about the ambiguity.

Special attention is given to the “Native Hawaiian” category, because nearly all respondents are of mixed race and the great majority of individuals have most of their ancestry being Asian or European rather than Hawaiian. Politically-inspired aspirational responses by “Native Hawaiians” to the Census race question, marking only the “Native Hawaiian” box to assert racial pride, have produced absurd official results such as 80,000 “pure” Hawaiians are living in Hawaii. Researchers, seeking to bolster applications for government and philanthropic grants to study or provide treatment for alleged racial disparities, count anyone with any amount of Hawaiian native ancestry as being fully Native Hawaiian and do not count them also as being any of their other heritages, even when the percentage of native heritage is very small. Thus propagandists are able to make use of Census data whose aspirational answers to the race question are intentionally misinterpreted as though they are biologically factual. Political propagandists say Native Hawaiians need political autonomy to ensure that government resources are directed toward their special needs, citing Census data where there is no warning about the ambiguity between aspirational vs. factual identity. Powerful race-focused institutions say they need monetary grants to study or overcome alleged racial disparities. Nearly all Native Hawaiians are of mixed race. But every Native Hawaiian with a medical or social problem gets a full tally mark added to the Native Hawaiian category for that problem while not even a partial tally mark is awarded to any of the victim’s other races.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, the Census Bureau has become an accomplice to statistical malpractice or outright scams which are enabled by Census questions whose ambiguity allows researchers and news media to misinterpret aspirational responses as though they represent biological fact.

To achieve credibility and political neutrality the Census Bureau should make two improvements: (1) Write the race (and gender) question(s) to specify that responses should be based on biological fact; or better yet, bifurcate the question(s) into one factual and one aspirational question; and ask multiracial respondents for estimated percentage of each ancestry. If the Census Bureau decides the additional wording of the race question is too burdensome for the decennial, then the more-detailed American Community Survey could be used, or the topic could be addressed in a special supplement in the Current Population Survey for one month each year. (2) News releases for non-academic readers; as well as data tables, graphs, and verbal summaries for scholarly use; should have prominently-placed disclaimers, in plain English or technical language appropriate to the expected audience. The disclaimers should note the fact that responses arising from social/psychological aspiration might have caused skewing of the data in a way that does not accurately reflect biological fact, especially in the case of multiracial or transgender respondents.

Tags: , , , ,

Kaniela Ing, Hawaii legislature committee chairman, unethically disappeared written testimony by the same author on two different bills on the same day.

Kaniela Ing is chairman of the State of Hawaii Legislature’s House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs during the regular session of 2017. His committee held hearings on many bills.

On Friday February 10 a notice was published that a hearing would be held on Tuesday February 14 on several bills. Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., submitted written testimony on Friday regarding two of those bills, long before the deadline for submitting testimony 24 hours before a hearing. On Tuesday afternoon the public files of submitted testimony on those two bills were made available on the Legislature’s website. Dr. Conklin noticed that his testimony was missing from the files of testimony for both bills. Perhaps on rare occasions a clerk might make a mistake and inadvertently forget to include someone’s testimony. But what are the odds that two such mistakes might be made, on the same day, for two different bills, and in both cases the testimony was submitted by the same author!

Chairman Kaniela Ing’s motives are abundantly clear for disappearing Conklin’s written testimonies, because both of them were in strong opposition to Ing’s views.

One of those bills, whose sole introducer was Kaniela Ing, would enact into law a racial restriction on candidacy for election to a state government office. In year 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Rice v. Cayetano) that it is unconstitutional to have a racial restriction on who can VOTE for OHA trustees. Later in year 2000 there was a followup lawsuit (Arakaki v. State of Hawaii) regarding the racial restriction on who can RUN as a candidate for OHA trustee. The U.S. District Court in Honolulu ruled that racial restrictions on candidacy are also unconstitutional; and that ruling was later upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Conklin’s testimony in opposition to this bill pointed out that chairman Ing is too young to remember the court decisions from 2000, but that’s no excuse for a committee chairman who should have access to legal advice before introducing a truly stupid bill.

On Tuesday night, after seeing that his testimony had been disappeared from the files on both bills, Dr. Conklin sent an email to Speaker of the House Joe Souki and all the other members of the House. The email provided attachments of each of the two disappeared testimonies so that House members could read them; complained about the censorship and requested that the testimonies be placed into the published files where they should have been all along; and asked for the perpetrator to be reprimanded. On Wednesday the testimony files for both bills had been updated with Conklin’s testimonies included.

Full text of Conklin’s email to Speaker Souki and the other 51 Representatives is copied below.

But even though the testimony files were corrected on Wednesday, major damage was already done by the suppression of the testimony from Friday through Tuesday. That’s because on Tuesday the committee made its decisions on the bills in the absence of the missing testimonies. The committee voted unanimously to pass the bill with the unconstitutional racial restriction still in it; and Conklin’s disappeared testimony was the only one warning about its unconstitutionality.

So there are two different ways to deal with committee chairman Kaniela Ing and with the members of his committee, depending on how responsibility is apportioned:

(A) If committee chairman Kaniela Ing had in fact prevented committee members from seeing Conklin’s testimony and if the members were unaware of the bill’s unconstitutionality, then Ing’s deception is responsible for committee members violating their oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. In this case the committee has an obligation to (1) pass a motion of no-confidence in chairman Ing for deliberately misleading (i.e., lying to) them; and (2) ask the entire House to pass a resolution of censure against Ing for suppressing public testimony; and (3) to rescind the committee report and the referral advancing the bill to the next committee.


(B) If the committee actually did have access to Conklin’s testimony before passing the amended version of the bill, or if any committee members were aware of the unconstitutionality even without reading Conklin’s testimony, then the committee members are just as guilty as Kaniela Ing for knowingly and intentionally passing an unconstitutional bill, in violation of their oath of office.

Three items follow: Conklin’s email to Speaker Souki and all representatives in the House; a blog posting that provides full text of the unconstitutional bill and full text of Conklin’s disappeared testimony on it; a blog posting that provides full text of the other bill on which Conklin’s testimony was disappeared.


Email sent to Speaker Souki and all members of the State of Hawaii House of Representatives on Tuesday night, February 14, 2017:

Aloha Hawaii members of the House of Representatives,

Written testimony that I submitted on two different controversial bills has been suppressed. My testimony has been left out of the public files, probably because the committee chairman doesn’t like it. I don’t know whether the committee members were denied the chance to read my testimony, but for sure the public has not had a chance to see it. One of the bills actually contains a change to state law which would impose a racial restriction on candidacy in an election — a racial restriction which two federal courts previously ruled unconstitutional.

I have attached both testimonies to this email to be sure you can read them.

In both cases I submitted the testimony on Friday February 10, through the Legislature’s website, for a hearing to be held on Tuesday February 14. In both cases I immediately received the automated email confirmation that the testimony had been received. But on Tuesday February 14, when the files of testimony were posted on the bills’ status webpages, my testimonies were not included.

Censoring the record of public testimony should be regarded as a serious ethical offense, and should bring a reprimand to the person responsible for the censorship. The public files of testimony, for both bills, should be edited by inserting the disappeared testimony in the same place where it should have been originally published.

Perhaps a mistake or accident could account for one incident of disappeared testimony; but when there are two such disappeared testimonies, both by the same author and on the same day, it is clearly a matter of intentional censorship. If one of the testimonies might be suppressed because it could be regarded as disrespectful, there is no such excuse in relation to the other one.

The committee is the House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs.

The bills are:

HB1297 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY. Provides that the State shall support a model of sovereignty and self-governance chosen by the Hawaiian people that complies with federal and state law.


HB118, HD1 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS. Amends the qualifications for election or appointment as an OHA Trustee to include that a person is not registered as a lobbyist within one year of filing nomination papers.

My two testimonies are attached to this email.

Thank you for reading the testimonies and for demanding that they be included in the public files of testimony for the two bills.

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205
Kane’ohe, HI 96744-6083
tel/fax (808) 247-7942


Blog containing full text of the bill HR118 that would enact a fully litigated unconstitutional racial restriction on who can run as a candidate for state government office, and full text of Conklin’s disappeared testimony


Blog containing full text of the bill HB1297 which provides that the State shall support a model of sovereignty and self-governance chosen by the Hawaiian people that complies with federal and state law, and full text of Conklin’s disappeared testimony

Tags: , , ,