HB118 enacting racial restriction on running for office, and Ken Conklin’s testimony which committee chairman Kaniela Ing disappeared.

On Friday February 10, 2017 a notice was published by the legislature of the State of Hawaii announcing that a hearing would be held on Tuesday February 14 on the bill HB118-HD1. Text of the bill is copied below. On that same Friday February 10 Ken Conklin submitted testimony through the Legislature’s website, long ahead of the requirement that testimony must be submitted at least 24 hours before a hearing; and Conklin immediately received the robot-generated confirmation that the testimony had been received. Conklin’s testimony is copied below.

However, after the hearing was held and the public file of written testimony was posted on the Legislature’s “status” webpage for this bill, Conklin’s testimony was not included. Might the omission have been an accident? No! It was clearly not an accident, because exactly the same thing happened with Conklin’s testimony on a different bill, HB1297, whose hearing was announced and held on the same dates, and in the same committee.

The committee is the House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs. The chairman of the committee is Kaniela Ing, a youthful far-left Hawaiian sovereignty activist whose views might be described as supporting race-based political sovereignty and racial entitlement programs at taxpayer expense. Ing despises Conklin’s views, and the feeling is mutual. Conklin’s testimony was by far the strongest submitted, so it’s no surprise that Ing censored it.

The bill HB118-HD1 has two main purposes corresponding to the committee chairman’s personal vendetta against an honorable man and the chairman’s racialist viewpoint. (1) The primary purpose is to single out a newly elected board member of the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs and make it illegal for him to serve on or be a candidate for the board. The bill has the appearance of being a good-government bill intended to prohibit the election of anyone who is a registered lobbyist. But in fact there is only one person now serving on the OHA board or who was recently a candidate for the board who is a registered lobbyist. He just happens to be the head of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a genuine good-government think tank; and in that capacity he occasionally lobbies the legislature seeking government transparency and accountability, offering libertarian analysis of economic issues, etc. He is an opponent of race-based political sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians — a policy which OHA has spent tens of millions of dollars and seventeen years supporting — a policy which the chairman of the legislature’s committee on Hawaiian Affairs also supports. The committee chairman, in cahoots with a group of Hawaiian racialist institutions, therefore launched a vendetta to oust the newly elected OHA board member, and is using the issue of being a “lobbyist” as a way to pursue their vendetta. (2) The committee chairman also inserted into the bill another provision, in line with his racialist views, which would impose a racial requirement that candidates for election or appointment to the board must be racially Hawaiian. But that requirement, which was formerly a part of the Hawaii state Constitution, was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts in year 2000. Either the committee chairman is too young to know the history of that event and has no advisor to tell him about it; or else he does know the racial restriction on candidacy is unconstitutional but nevertheless he recklessly wants to enact it.

Nearly all the testimony was in support of the bill. Conklin’s was the ONLY testimony that made any mention of the unconstitutionality of the bill’s racial restriction on candidacy for the OHA board; so by disappearing Conklin’s testimony the chairman and the entire committee could safely claim to be unaware of it. Nearly all the testimonies were very brief and merely supported the fake purpose of getting rid of lobbyists as though that was the real purpose of the bill; but the two testimonies placed all the way at the bottom of a very long file of testimonies make it clear that the bill’s primary purpose is a vendetta against the newly elected OHA board member who opposes racialism and seeks an audit of the board’s corrupt contracting and expenditures.

Upon seeing that his testimony had been disappeared from the public files on two bills before the same committee, Conklin sent an email on Tuesday evening to Speaker of the House Joe Souki, and to all House members, providing copies of both of the disappeared testimonies; asking that they be inserted in the public files where they should have been all along; and asking that whoever was responsible for their censoring should be reprimanded. By Wednesday afternoon the public files of testimonies had been updated for both of the bills to include Conklin’s testimony, near the top, in the rightful place where it probably belonged in the order of when the testimonies were submitted.

The “status file” for this bill, posted on the Legislature’s website, shows that on Tuesday February 14, with Conklin’s testimony still missing from the public file and perhaps therefore also not being seen by the committee members, the committee “recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 7 Ayes: Representative(s) Ing, Gates, Creagan, DeCoite, LoPresti, Takayama, Thielen; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and Excused: none.”

Then on Friday February 17 the status file says “Reported from OMH (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 510) as amended in HD 2, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to JUD.”

Putting together the status reports for Tuesday February 14 and Friday February 17, it’s clear that the bill was amended and the amended bill HD2 was approved by the committee on Tuesday. At that time Conklin’s testimony was not included in the public file and probably had not been made available to the members of the committee because the chairman had disappeared it. But Conklin’s was the only testimony pointing out that the racial restriction on OHA candidacy had been ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts in year 2000. So there are two possibilities:

(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.

OR

(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.

The public file of testimony on this bill HB118-HD1 is 128 pages long, occupying 55 Megabytes, takes a couple minutes to download even with high-speed internet, and is available at
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2017/Testimony/HB118_HD1_TESTIMONY_OMH_02-14-17_.PDF

—————

Here is full text of the first version of the bill HB118-HD1 (first version other than the short-form content-free placeholder bill which this version HD1 filled with content) on which testimony was submitted:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

SECTION 1. Section 13D-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended to read as follows:

Ҥ13D-2 Qualifications of board members. No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the board unless the person is Hawaiian and is:
(1) [qualified] Qualified and registered to vote under the provisions of section 13D-3[, and];
(2) [where residency on a particular island is a requirement, a] A resident on the island for which seat the person is seeking election or appointment[.], if residency on a particular island is a requirement; and
(3) Not registered as a lobbyist within one year of filing nomination papers.
No member of the board shall hold or be a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments in accordance with Article II, section 7 of the Constitution of the State; nor shall a person be eligible for election or appointment to the board if that person is also a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments. The term “public office”, for purposes of this section, shall not include notaries public, reserve police officers, or officers of emergency organizations for civilian defense or disaster, or disaster relief.”

SECTION 2. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

————–

Here is full text of the amended version HB118-HD2 approved by the committee on Tuesday February 14, 2017 — very tiny changes not affecting either the personal vendetta or the unconstitutional racial restriction on candidacy.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

SECTION 1. Section 13D-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended to read as follows:
Ҥ13D-2 Qualifications of board members. No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the board unless the person is Hawaiian and is:
(1) [qualified] Qualified and registered to vote under the provisions of section 13D-3[, and];
(2) [where residency on a particular island is a requirement, a] A resident on the island for which seat the person is seeking election or appointment[.], if residency on a particular island is a requirement; and
(3) Not currently registered as a lobbyist with the state ethics commission.
No member of the board shall hold or be a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments in accordance with Article II, section 7 of the Constitution of the State; nor shall a person be eligible for election or appointment to the board if that person is also a candidate for any other public office under the state or county governments. The term “public office”, for purposes of this section, shall not include notaries public, reserve police officers, or officers of emergency organizations for civilian defense or disaster, or disaster relief.”

SECTION 2. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

————–

Here is full text of Ken Conklin’s testimony on the first version of the bill, HB118-HD1. This testimony was either hidden from committee members by chairman Kaniela Ing, or else committee members had access to it and chose to ignore it when they approved a bill whose racial restriction on candidacy was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts in year 2000:

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

I’ll begin my testimony to a committee on Hawaiian affairs with a sentence in Hawaiian language.

Hupo loa ke kanaka po’o o keia komike, i ho’okomo i keia pila HB 118 HD1.

Although this hearing is set for Valentines Day, I have no love for this bill nor for its sponsor. Who is to blame for this bad bill?

The chairman of this committee is, shall we say, badly misguided for introducing this bill, whose contents display an astounding level of ignorance about the history of litigation regarding candidacy for OHA trustees.

One of the major provisions in this bill is flat-out unconstitutional — a fact litigated and ruled by two federal courts. The other major provision might also be unconstitutional, although it has not yet been litigated; but it is certainly immoral if not illegal.

The following members of this committee also deserve blame for rubber-stamping this bill when they voted on February 3 and February 7 to pass this bill as amended: Ing, Gates, Creagan, DeCoite, LoPresti, Takayama, Thielen; no Noes and no reservations. You committee members really must exercise greater vigilance in monitoring the work of your very youthful and reckless chairman. He might be excused because the massively publicized litigation on this issue happened when he was a mere prepubescent boy; but if he’s going to be a committee chairman then he should compensate by having a knowledgeable advisor. Most committee members have no such excuse — if you’re older than 40 and have lived in Hawaii for at least 18 years then you will surely remember the tumultuous events of year 2000.

What’s one major bad thing about this bill?

Lines 3,4,5 on page 1 say “No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the board unless the person is Hawaiian and …”

That racial restriction on candidacy has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court in Honolulu and by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Of course this committee could rescue that provision by redefining the word “Hawaiian” to mean “citizen of Hawaii” rather than the racially exclusionary meaning requiring at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood.

I would welcome such a redefinition. Please do it! But of course you won’t; so let me continue. Here’s the story.

In year 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court by vote of 7-2 ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that there can be no racial restriction on who can vote in the election for OHA trustees.
Later in year 2000 the U.S. District Court in Honolulu, Judge Helen Gillmor presiding, ruled that there can be no racial restriction on who can run as a candidate for OHA trustee. The case was CV 00-00514 HG-BMK Arakaki et. al. vs. State of Hawaii et. al, and OHA as intervenor. I was honored to be among the multiracial group of 13 plaintiffs including 3 Native Hawaiians. We won.

Governor Cayetano ousted all nine OHA trustees on grounds they had been illegally elected. In the election of November 2000 I ran as a candidate for OHA trustee, along with 95 other candidates for the 9 seats. There were at least a dozen so-called “non-Hawaiians” [Hawaii citizens with no native blood] among the 96 candidates; and one of them, Charles Ota, won the Maui seat.

Judge Gillmor’s civil rights racial desegregation decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was upheld by the three-judge panel, with the final judgment filed on July 1, 2003 by Honolulu clerk Walter Chinn.

The judgment concludes: “… The State is ordered to permit otherwise qualified non-Hawaiians to run for office and to serve, if elected, as trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Section 5 of Article XII of the State Constitution and HRS § 13D-2 violate the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act, to the extent that they require persons running for OHA trustee positions and serving, if elected, to be Hawaiian.”
What’s the other thing wrong with this bill?

The other major new provision of this bill might very well also be unconstitutional. It says “No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the [OHA] board unless the person is … Not registered as a lobbyist within one year of filing nomination papers.”
To the best of my knowledge there is only one person serving as an OHA trustee or who was recently a candidate for OHA trustee who would be no longer eligible to be OHA trustee under provisions of this bill. I guess your committee chairman has a vendetta against him, and is (ab)using his power as a committee chairman to pursue that vendetta.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution says “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution says “The Constitution prohibits both the federal government (in this clause) and the states (in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The Framers considered freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws so important that these are the only two individual liberties that the original Constitution protects from both federal and state intrusion. As James Madison said in The Federalist No. 44, “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

So even if this bill might somehow escape being ruled unconstitutional as a bill of attainder, it would clearly not be able to oust the victim of your chairman’s vendetta from his OHA trustee position where he will serve for nearly four more years; because passing this bill after the victim has already been elected and is serving would be an “ex-post- facto” law.

My dear committee members: Does this testimony seem disrespectful? Then consider where the disrespect originated. Introducing this bill, with a major provision already ruled unconstitutional, is disrespectful to the judiciary. Advancing this bill is disrespectful to the oath all legislators take to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Using the power of a legislature’s committee chairman or member to press a vendetta attempting to oust an elected official without impeachment and trial on charges of misbehavior, or denying voters the right to decide whether a candidate should be elected despite what some might regard as flaws, is disrespectful to the will of the public who elected him and disrespectful to the whole concept of democracy and due process.

Trash this bill. It has already tarnished your reputations, but you can mitigate the damage.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Republic of Hawaii — letters of formal diplomatic recognition

Following the Hawaiian revolution of January 17, 1893 that overthrew Hawaii’s monarchial system of government, foreign nations that had diplomatic relations with Hawaii’s Kingdom government gave the appropriate level of diplomatic recognition to each of the two successor governments of the continuing sovereign independent nation of Hawaii. No nation filed a protest.

Local consulates in Honolulu immediately sent letters granting de facto recognition to Hawaii’s temporary, revolutionary Provisional Government. See the contents of those letters as published in the Morgan Report (808-page official report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) at
http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=DIPLOMATIC_RECOGNITION_OF_THE_PROVISIONAL_GOVERNMENT

Then in July 1894, after a permanent government of the Republic of Hawaii was established, copies of the Republic’s Constitution were sent to the heads of state of foreign governments with a request for formal diplomatic recognition.

At least 19 Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents on 4 continents personally signed letters in 11 languages which arrived in Honolulu in Fall 1894, giving full-fledged diplomatic recognition to the Republic government of President Sanford B. Dole. Photos of those letters were taken in the Hawaii state archives, along with accompanying English translations, some accompanying introductory letters from diplomats, and some envelopes; and for each nation, an explanation of the special significance of its documents in light of that nation’s previous diplomatic history with the Kingdom of Hawaii and today’s Hawaiian sovereignty controversies. Every photograph can be magnified for good readability by clicking the photo once; or a second click will yield a super-magnification. See all those things at
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/

A 23-page booklet can be downloaded in pdf format suitable for printing. It includes a one-page montage of photographs of the documents for each of 20 nations plus the Queen’s letter of abdication and oath of loyalty to the Republic. Click here:
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/roh.recognition.pdf

Tags: , , , , , ,

Native Hawaiians Study Commission majority report 1983

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to “conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians.” The Commission released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The 747-page majority report of the NHSC begins with an executive summary and list of conclusions and recommendations, followed by 14 major chapters written by experts, focused on Hawaii’s ancient and modern history, demographics, culture, religion, and reports about responses to the unique needs of Native Hawaiians by federal and state governments, and private institutions. At the end are glossaries explaining Hawaiian-language words, a list of references, and an appendix. For each of the 747 pages of the majority report a photo of the page (click to magnify for easy readability) is next to a simple text version of its contents that is digitized and searchable. See the entire 747-page report, beautifully formatted, at
http://grihwiki.kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Native_Hawaiians_Study_Commission_Report

Ken Conklin’s webpage about the report describes how it was created, how political differences resulted in majority report vs. minority report, and how the majority report found a home on the internet. The webpage also summarizes the conclusions reached by the Commission, and explains the importance of the NHSC report in current controversies regarding Hawaiian sovereignty and racial entitlement programs. Conklin’s webpage about the report is at
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/NHSC.html

Tags: , , , , , ,

For Hawaiians Only

A valuable webpage providing information about 856 government funded racial entitlement programs for the exclusive benefit of “Native Hawaiians” was disrupted but has now been partially restored. Several other webpages on the same topic are also available.

All these programs, valued into the Billions of dollars, are paid for by tax dollars from the governments of the United States and the State of Hawaii. It is likely that these programs are unconstitutional. Some have been challenged in state and federal courts. Thus far the lawsuits to dismantle them have been dismissed on technical procedural issues including “standing” and the “political question” doctrine. However, those dismissals never reached the merits of these cases. Thus all these programs remain available as targets for future civil rights lawsuits based on the 14th Amendment equal protection clause and other arguments.

Keep in mind that this compilation pertains only to government programs funded by taxpayers, and does not include enormous privately funded programs such as Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) which alone is worth $10-15 Billion, Lili’uokalani Childrens Trust, and many others.

The collection of webpages listing and describing Hawaiian racial entitlement programs is at
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html

Tags: , , , ,

Aloha Spirit defeats Hawaiian religious fascism

Two essays by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., are being published on May 1, 2016 in honor of Law Day which is celebrated throughout the U.S., and also Lei Day celebrated in Hawaii.

1. The Aloha Spirit. How aloha for all, manifested in the twin pillars of unity and equality, can overcome Hawaiian religious fascism which is the theological basis for a claim to racial supremacy.
http://tinyurl.com/jtl7w4d

2. Hawaiian religious fascism. A twisted version of a beautiful creation legend provides the theological basis for a claim that ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in the governance and cultural life of the Hawaiian islands.
http://tinyurl.com/j4o2cdj

Holding the State of Hawaii Department of Education accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned.

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

The State of Hawaii Department of Education must be held accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned. Dawn Kau’ilani Sang, Director of Hawaiian Studies, is responsible for a two-page webpage entitled “History of Hawaiian Education” which prominently proclaims the lie in three places, and which is cited as authority by news media when they repeat the lie and refuse to correct their publication of it. Thousands of children in the Hawaii Public Schools are undoubtedly being taught this racially inflammatory lie in the Hawaiian Studies curriculum that is compulsory in all grades K-12. Ms. Sang acknowledged receiving a lengthy email in mid-February 2016 filled with proof that the statements are false. The email explained the importance of correcting the falsehoods. But Ms. Sang stonewalled, replying only “The Department appreciates your attention to the information provided on our website. We will review the website and make changes as deemed necessary.” She has not indicated that any progress is being made. Followup inquiries are being pursued. Meanwhile, in mid-March 2016, Director Sang has engineered a resolution in the state legislature authorizing an expansion of her growing Hawaiian Studies empire; and the first “whereas” clause is the assertion that Hawaiian language was banned in the schools after the overthrow of the monarchy. Text of the resolution is provided along with Conklin’s testimony in opposition.

This webpage provides the details of what is summarized above:
http://tinyurl.com/z77ogbq

Table of contents for Conklin’s webpage:

1. Honolulu Star-Advertiser article of Thursday February 18, 2016 whose first sentence mentioned in passing, as an established fact, that Hawaiian language was “… once banned in the public schools …”

2. Thursday February 18 (early morning) email from Ken Conklin to newspaper reporter and editor requesting correction and providing proof of falsehood.

3. Reporter’s very brief Thursday February 18 (late afternoon) reply citing the Department of Education webpage as authority.

4. Full text of detailed email from Ken Conklin to Dawn Kau’ilani Sang, Department of Education Director of Hawaiian Studies on Monday morning February 22, 2016 with copies to DOE Superintendent, DOE Assistant Superintendent, newspaper editor and reporter. This email provided irrefutable proof that it is false to say that Hawaiian language was banned in the schools after the monarchy was overthrown. The proof includes quotations from historical documents and citations to scholarly books published by UH Press.

5. 2-sentence acknowledgment from Dawn Kau’ilani Sang, Department of Education Director of Hawaiian Studies emailed Wednesday night February 24, promising “We will review the website and make changes as deemed necessary.”

6. Followup email from Ken Conklin to Dawn Kau’ilani Sang, on Monday morning March 14, 2016 with copies to DOE Superintendent, DOE Assistant Superintendent, newspaper editor and reporter. The email noted that it is 3 weeks after Ken Conklin’s initial email to her, and 12 working days after her promise to “review the website and make changes as deemed necessary.” The email asked to know what progress has been made, and asked for contact information for any subordinate who might have been assigned the task of reviewing the webpage and making changes.

7. On Thursday March 17 the Hawaii House committee that facilitates legislation focused on ethnic Hawaiian affairs held a hearing on a resolution engineered by DOE Director Sang that would expand her growing Hawaiian Studies empire. Other committees in both House and Senate will hold more hearings if the resolution moves forward. The resolution begins with a “whereas” clause stating as fact that Hawaiian language was banned following the overthrow of the monarchy and was not heard in the schools for 4 generations. Full text of the resolution is provided along with Ken Conklin’s testimony in opposition, and a link to the legislature’s webpage tracking the resolution including files of all testimony in each committee, how each member of each committee voted, and the committee report.

Tags: , , , ,

Testimony submitted to U.S. Department of Interior on Thanksgiving Day 2015 in opposition to proposed regulation for granting federal recognition to a phony Hawaiian tribe

Testimony opposing RIN 1090–AB05
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
November 26, 2015, Thanksgiving Day
Giving thanks there is no Hawaiian tribe

Website: “Hawaiian Sovereignty”
http://tinyurl.com/6gkzk
Book: “Hawaiian Apartheid”
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

Full text of testimony in attached file,
and at http://tinyurl.com/o58qdhs

Summary

1. Aloha from Ken Conklin, civil rights activist supporting unity and equality

2. Why quorum in NPRM for credible participation in election and ratification is too low

3. Don’t abandon question 8 from ANPRM “What should constitute adequate evidence or verification that a person has a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community?”

4. A unique rule for recognizing a Hawaiian tribe should acknowledge the uniquely high percentage of Native Hawaiians as 22% of the total population of Hawaii, making it uniquely traumatic to partition the State along racial lines. Therefore, a unique Hawaiian rule should require a vote by all Hawaii’s people to approve federal recognition.

5. Promises or predictions made in the NPRM that the rights of people will be protected cannot be delivered. Whatever requirements the DOI imposes upon a tribe’s initial governing document in order to grant recognition can later be changed by the tribe unilaterally — according to a Final Rule in Federal Register October 19. Any tribe can amend its governing document without DOI approval.

Because of #5:

6. There is no protection for special rights of HHCA-eligible native Hawaiians (50% blood quantum);
7. Hawaiian tribe can ignore DOI prohibition on gambling casinos in Hawaii or mainland;
8. Hawaiian tribe cannot be prohibited from participating automatically in all the benefit programs intended for the mainland tribes;
9. Hawaiian tribe would threaten sovereign immunity of federal and State lands, and also threaten private land titles, due to Indian Non-Intercourse Act;
10. Hawaiian tribe has jurisdiction over citizens with no native blood, and also over ethnic Hawaiians who choose not to join the tribe — Indian Child Welfare Act; Violence Against Women Act.

11. Remove the terms “reestablishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community” or “reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government” because there was never a Native Hawaiian government. All governments of a unified Hawaii had massive Caucasian participation in executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

12. The “special political and trust relationship” that Congress has allegedly established with Native Hawaiians does not exist — asserting it has been a political football punted between Republicans and Democrats.

13. Authoritative sources since 2001 warn that creating a race-based government for ethnic Hawaiians would be both unconstitutional and bad public policy: U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and others.

14. Authoritative sources confirm the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was legitimate and the U.S. owes nothing to ethnic Hawaiians beyond what is owed to all the citizens of the United States: 808-page report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs (1894); Native Hawaiians Study Commission report (jointly authorized by Senate and House, 1983); more

15. Evidence that “Native Hawaiians” and also the general citizenry of Hawaii do not want federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe. Zogby survey; two Grassroot Institute surveys; newspaper and OHA scientific surveys show ethnic Hawaiians and the general population place “nationbuilding” at bottom of priorities; more.

16. People of all races jointly own Hawaii as full partners. President Obama himself opposes tribalism and erecting walls between natives and immigrants. History of Black civil rights movement is instructive — Martin Luther King’s model of full integration won the hearts and minds of African Americans and of all Americans, defeating the racial separatism of the “Nation of Islam.”

17. Administrative rule-making should not be used to enact legislation explicitly rejected by Congress during 13 years when megabucks were spent pushing it. The executive branch can only implement laws Congress passed, not create laws Congress rejected. Two federal courts have now overruled Obama’s rule-making that tried to enact immigration laws rejected by Congress.

18. Federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe would herd into demographic and geographic racial ghettos people and lands that have long been fully assimilated, widely scattered, and governed by a multiracial society. Map shows public lands likely to be demanded by a Hawaiian tribe; Census 2010 table shows number of Native Hawaiians in every state; Census 2010 table showing number of Native Hawaiians in every census tract in Hawaii.

19. Six cartoons by Daryl Cagle illustrating the social divisiveness of racial entitlement programs, as seen in Midweek newspaper, Honolulu, probably late 1990s to mid 2000s.

Tags: , , , ,

Testimony in opposition to Department of Interior proposal to create a Hawaiian tribe by administrative rule change

August 19, 2014 was the final day to submit testimony regarding the Department of Interior Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition by an administrative procedure or executive order without Congressional action.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-20/pdf/2014-14430.pdf

At least 2069 written comments were submitted during the 60 day comment period. A large majority were opposed to the Department of Interior proposal. The following seven testimonies are especially valuable in opposition because they explicitly rely upon the fundamental principles of racial equality and the unity of all Hawaii’s people under the undivided sovereignty of the State of Hawaii:

(1) Kenneth R. Conklin of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOI-2014-0002-0887
and
http://big09.angelfire.com/ConklinTestmnyDOI081514RulesChangeHawnTribe.pdf

(2) Keli’i Akina, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeGRIHKeliiAkina.pdf

(3) Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM136.pdf
and
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeHeritageVonSpakovsky.pdf

(4) Paul M. Sullivan
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposePaulSullivan.pdf

(5) H.W. Burgess
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeHWBurgess.pdf

(6) Sandra Puanani Burgess
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeSandraPuananiBurgess.pdf

(7) Jack Miller
http://big09.angelfire.com/ANPRMopposeJackMiller.pdf

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

Why mainland Indian tribes and Hawaii opponents of gambling should oppose state or federal recognition of a “Native Hawaiian” tribe

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

On January 10, 2014 a letter was sent to more than 150 leaders of Indian tribes on the U.S. mainland. The letter describes how federal recognition of a phony “Native Hawaiian” tribe would have bad consequences for the genuine tribes, and asks them to express opposition to executive action when speaking to officials in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, and White House. Federal recognition of a phony Hawaiian tribe by means of rules changes in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or a Presidential Executive Order, would be far more dangerous to the genuine tribes than passage of the Akaka bill in Congress, because executive action would simply add the Hawaiian tribe to the list of federally recognized tribes with none of the restrictions in the Akaka bill that would have prohibited the Akaka tribe from having gambling casinos or from grabbing the lions share of entitlements intended for the mainland tribes.  See  http://tinyurl.com/ltjf5qy

Why businesses, labor unions, and community groups in Hawaii should oppose state and/or federal recognition of a phony “Native Hawaiian” tribe. An 11-page letter to Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, and commentary in Honolulu Star-Advertiser, provide detailed explanations.  See  http://tinyurl.com/mfozw6v

Tags: , , , , , ,

From fantasies to farces — How Keanu Sai’s Hawaiian history fantasies logically lead to his real-world farces

 

Disproving the alleged Liliuokalani Assignment, and the alleged Executive Agreement of Restoration

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

If pigs had wings, they could fly. Therefore pigs have aeronautical rights under international treaties. Porky Pua’a, the self-appointed President Pro-tem of the Porcine parliament, with help from his sweet-tempered Attorney General Dextrose Kapua’a, can file accusations of war crimes in the International Criminal Court against Hawaii judges who deny airport landing slots to pigs.

Of course pigs don’t really have wings. But when somebody with lots of time and money starts running around Hawaii and the world making absurd demands based on the claim that pigs have wings, it might be useful to inspect the pigs and show the world their winglessness.

Keanu Sai is an adventurer with a history of highly publicized scams that brought him fame and fortune, including:

☻ Perfect Title
☻ World Court
☻ New round of real estate title insurance claims based on bogus Lili’uokalani Assignment and Executive Agreement
☻ Lawsuit in U.S. federal court demanding fulfillment in 2010 of the alleged Executive Agreement of 1893
☻ Allegations of war crimes against Hawaii judges and prosecutors filed with International Criminal Court
☻ Application filed with International Court of Justice demanding that 45 nations comply with treaty obligations to the Kingdom of Hawaii and the normal ways nations interact in international commerce and law.

Like some other Hawaiian sovereignty activists, Sai has built a crowd of devoted followers who bask in the glow of his charismatic self-assurance. There is never a reality check, because nobody demands accountability or conducts cross-examination. He produces writings and lectures, including a Ph.D. dissertation and academic panel discussions, where nobody is allowed or has the courage to challenge his statements or to present opposing views.

In September, Keanu Sai proudly announced that he was scheduled to make a presentation to a group of retired Swiss diplomats in Zurich on November 11, 2013. Since those diplomats are well-educated and familiar with issues involving diplomatic recognition and treaties, I sent them an essay providing detailed explanations and proof for the following five points, and asking them to cross-examine Mr. Sai:

1. The Hawaiian revolution of January 17, 1893 overthrew the monarchy and replaced it with a revolutionary Provisional Government which was promptly given de facto recognition within a day or two by the local consuls of every nation which had local consuls available in Honolulu at that time. Hawaii continued as an independent nation. Nearly all government officials kept their jobs except the ex-queen and her cabinet ministers. No nations filed protests or removed their diplomats.

2. There was no “Lili’uokalani Assignment” of Hawaii governmental authority to the U.S., contrary to the assertions of Keanu Sai. The ex-queen’s representative delivered her letter of surrender, including her protest about the presence of U.S. peacekeeper troops, directly to the Provisional Government in the Government Building. The surrender/protest was not delivered to any U.S. representative, nor to any local consuls of foreign nations. Regardless if Lili’uokalani thought she was assigning her powers to the U.S., the U.S. never acknowledged nor accepted any such assignment. No other nation conducted business with the U.S. instead of directly with the Provisional Government. The letters of de facto recognition from the other nations were also delivered directly to the Provisional Government and neither to the U.S. nor to Lili’uokalani, indicating that the foreign consuls never heard of the “Lili’uokalani Assignment” or else they rejected it. The “Lili’uokalani Assignment” is a figment of Keanu Sai’s imagination.

3. Contrary to the assertion of Keanu Sai, there was never an “Executive Agreement of Restoration” between President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili’uokalani whereby Cleveland promised to restore Lili’uokalani to the throne in return for her promise to give amnesty to the members of the Provisional Government. The Hawaiian revolution took place and Lili’uokalani was overthrown on January 17, but Grover Cleveland did not become U.S. President until March 4. They were never both head of state at the same time; thus there could not be any Executive Agreement between them that would be binding on both nations. U.S. Minister Willis made an offer to Lili’uokalani to serve as mediator between Lili’uokalani and President Dole of the Provisional Government, including the outlines of a possible settlement between Dole and Lili’uokalani. But Dole was never informed of the possible mediation, and the U.S. did not have any power or authority to actually force Dole to resign or to restore the monarchy. When Willis sent a letter to Dole essentially ordering Dole to step down, Dole replied with a letter vehemently rejecting that demand.

4. The revolutionary Provisional Government held a Constitutional Convention, which wrote a Constitution for a permanent Republic of Hawaii (incidentally, there are at least 5 native Hawaiian names on the list of con-con delegates, and native Hawaiian John Kaulukou, formerly a supporter of the monarchy, was elected as Speaker of the House for the Republic of Hawaii). During the Fall of 1894, letters were received granting de jure recognition to the Republic, personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages. One of those letters was signed by the Swiss federal counsel [Attorney General] on behalf of the President of the Swiss Confederation, and also countersigned by the Chancellor of the Swiss Confederation (photo provided). Switzerland (and the other nations) thereby formally recognized the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii. No foreign nation filed any protest or removed its diplomats. As the internationally recognized de jure government of Hawaii from 1894 to 1898, standing on its own despite initial U.S. efforts to destabilize it, the Republic had full authority to offer and ratify the Treaty of Annexation.

5. In 1897 diplomats for the Republic of Hawaii and the United States met in Washington D.C. and negotiated a Treaty of Annexation which was signed and sealed by the Secretaries of State of both nations. The Senate of the Republic of Hawaii unanimously passed a resolution later that year ratifying the Treaty. In 1898 the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution of the House and Senate ratifying the Treaty, which was signed by President McKinley. Article III, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Annexation makes clear that all treaties between the nation of Hawaii and other nations were thereby extinguished; and of course that includes the 1864 treaty between Hawaii and Switzerland. None of the nations that had treaties with Hawaii objected; all of them condoned annexation by their continuing relationship with the U.S, thereby continuously acknowledging U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii and condoning the extinguishment of previous international treaties with the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Please see a webpage containing my entire letter to the Swiss diplomat group in Zurich, including detailed explanations and proofs for the points mentioned above:
http://tinyurl.com/lm62n5l

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,