Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Major Articles Opposing the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) -- from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. Jere Krischel vs. OHA Trustee Rowena Akana (dialog); Ken Conklin (testimony opposing a clone of the Akaka bill in state legislature); Bill Burgess (testimony); Jerry Coffee; HAWAII STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY RESOLUTION; Professor J. Kehaulani Kauanui; Ken Conklin (regarding Inouye stealth maneuver); JOHN S. CARROLL (candidate for Republican nomination for U.S. Senate from Hawaii); Ken Conklin (summary and links to polls and surveys showing most Hawaii people oppose Akaka bill and racial entitlements); Ken Conklin (13 news reports from around the mainland illustrate terrible conflicts between Indian tribes vs. states and counties)


Following is a table of contents of the articles in the order they appear lower on this webpage, for the period January 1, 2011 through the present. To see full text of the actual articles, in chronological order, scroll down below the index.

January 24, 2011: Hawaii Reporter publishes analysis and full text of e-mail dialog between OHA Trustee Rowena Akana and Grassroot Institute member Jere Krischel regarding the Akaka bill, which began with Akana's published diatribe in OHA monthly newspaper (circulation 60,000) in which Akana accuses Krischel of being a racist. Krischel then engaged in an e-mail dialog with Akana for several rounds and demanded an apology (which he never got). See "Office of Hawaiian Affairs: Rant vs. Reason on Race (A Debate)" at

February 3, 2011: A bill in the Hawaii legislature proposes to create a state-recognized tribe, using much of the same language from the Akaka bill. Ken Conklin's article in Hawaii Reporter provides links to the bill itself, the hearing notice, and Conklin's own testimony in opposition. These are very important points in opposition to both the Akaka bill and its clone in the state legislature. See "House Bill 1627 Would Create a State-Recognized Hawaiian Tribe" at

February 5, 2011: Testimony of H. William Burgess in the Legislature of the State of Hawaii in opposition to House Bill 1627

March 16, 2011
OHA’s End-run Bad For All Hawaii
[bad practical consequences if Akaka-bill clones are passed by state legislature]
By Jerry Coffee
Midweek (Oahu weekly newspaper)

May 14, 2011 the annual convention of the Hawaii Republican Party passed a resolution strongly opposing the Akaka bill as a violation of its party platform. News report by eyewitness includes full text of the resolution.
May 15, 2011
Hawaii Republicans Pass first-ever Resolution Against Akaka Bill
by Andrew Walden
Hawaii Free Press

July 6-7, 2011
The stolen sovereignty of Hawaii's indigenous people
"The 'Akaka bill' is a US colonial device to ratify the robbery of the Kanaka Maoli people's rights by the 1893 coup. We do not assent"
by J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Associate Professor of Anthropology and American Studies, Wesleyan University, Connecticut
The Guardian (London)

October 30, 2011
New Akaka Bill Stealth Strategy is Actually Old
Hawaii Reporter, October 30, 2011

December 16, 2011
Akaka Bill by “Addendum” was the wrong thing to attempt in the first place.
by John S. Carroll, candidate for Republican nomination for U.S. Senate
Carroll4Senate [Carroll campaign webpage]

December 20, 2011
Hawaii Public Opinion About Racial Entitlements and the Akaka Bill (summary and links to polls and surveys showing most Hawaii people oppose Akaka bill and racial entitlements)
By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Reporter, December 20, 2011

December 30, 2011
Bringing Mainland Tribal Troubles to Hawaii
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Reporter, December 30, 2011


Hawaii Reporter, January 24, 2011

Office of Hawaiian Affairs: Rant vs. Reason on Race (A Debate)

by Malia Blom Hill

Hawaii’s splendid isolation has contributed so much to the character of the islands.

Our island paradise owes much to it, as does our culture of family and “aloha spirit.”

On the other hand, those on the mainland have only the slightest acquaintance with the political and social issues we struggle with, and it’s easy for the most complicated and contentious issue to be reduced to static and soundbites by the time they reach Washington, DC.

And that’s how the Akaka Bill, a socially divisive, culturally transformative piece of legislation, gets reduced to “a nice little thing for Native Hawaiians” by the time it hits the beltway.

Few people outside of the Islands know much of our history, and even fewer know much about the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Bishop Estate Trust, Kamehameha Schools, or any of the ways that the fight over the Akaka Bill is affecting Hawaii.

And for a perfect moment that really crystallizes the harm that the Akaka mentality is causing in our Islands, one need go no further than the recent exchange between Jere Krischel, an activist and member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and Rowena Akana, a Trustee-at-Large for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The interchange began when Ms. Akana used the bully pulpit of her column in OHA’s monthly newspaper to attack the Grassroot Institute and Mr. Krischel for their opposition to the Akaka Bill—specifically for Mr. Krischel’s statement that the Akaka Bill, “racially segregate families and communities into groups with different rights based on whether or not they have Hawaiian blood.”

Though Akana called this “ridiculous,” she made no effort to defend her position, instead devolving into ad hominem attacks and invective. She makes the absurd claim that the Grassroot Institute has no roots in Hawaii, and goes on to make the outrageous statement that, “Krischel and his ilk are the foreigners and they are the racists! They need to go back to where they came from and take with them their racist attitude. We don’t need them to spoil our Hawaii.” As Mr. Krischel is from Hawaii, it leaves one to wonder where she would like him to go “back to.”

It should be unnecessary to treat such obvious slander seriously, but for the record, Grassroot Institute is a member of a national policy network, but has been active in Hawaii, on Hawaii’s issues, since it was founded here in 2001.

Mr. Krischel was born in Hawaii, went to Punahou, had a paper route in Wahiawa, and picked pineapple for Del Monte as a summer and weekend job. What’s truly outrageous is that Ms. Akana takes the position from the outset that a.)

One must pass some sort of “Hawaiian-enough” litmus test before one even dares to express an opinion on the Akaka Bill—a Bill that (let’s not forget) affects all of Hawaii and not only Native Hawaiians); and that b.) Anyone expressing a negative opinion of the Akaka Bill is a racist who needs to get out of Hawaii.

No wonder those who oppose the Akaka Bill state that it will result in a destructive level of racial division in the Islands. It seems to have a head start on that even without being passed.

In response to Ms. Akana’s column, Mr. Krischel wrote a letter taking exception to her insults, asking for an apology for her accusations of racism, and explaining his motives for his opposition to the Akaka Bill. Krischel writes:

First and foremost, as a human of many ethnicities and nationalities, I have a strong aversion to any racial categorization. The thought of being defined by one’s ancestry is anathema to me. Although some may wish to label themselves “indigenous” to one area or another, it is my firm belief that ultimately we are all descendants of immigrants and indigenous to the planet earth, and we should treat one another with equality and respect no matter where the bones of our ancestors are interred.

As an American, from a country with a history born of the rejection of hereditary title and monarchy, I strongly believe in the ideals of human equality. Although the United States has not always been perfect in implementing the 14th amendment, it is an ideal to which I believe we should all aspire

. . . .

As a scholar, I also have a strong interest in Hawaiian history, which has been further sparked by my recent participation in the debate over the issues of the 1893 overthrow, race-based government programs in Hawai`i, and the impending Akaka Bill. My father, Walter Benavitz, was a member of the Polynesian Voyaging Society, and participated in the 1987 tour of the Hokule`a. My school, Punahou, was a place of history drawing back to 1841 with a strong Hawaiian studies component.

All of these motivations brought me to the decision that I could no longer remain silent, and allow the racial supremists to dominate the dialogue. Witnessing the current tone and tenor of particular extremists on the issue, those activists inspired the “activist” within me.

It is my sincere hope that with enough constructive discussion, we can overcome our frailties, realize the complexity of “historical truth”, and move beyond the politics of identity. We can and should live in a world that tackles humanitarian issues in a needs-based, race-blind manner.

Ms. Akana’s response to Mr. Krischel’s letter did not do much to continue an open dialogue, rather instructing him to read a number of books meant to open his eyes to the innate racism of his background and the Islands.

She points out that racist attitudes existed in the Islands far into the 20th century (an issue that was not up for debate), and suggests (no doubt to the surprise of Punahou grads everywhere, including—one might think—our current President) that Punahou is an example of that tradition of racism and privilege by pointing out that, “Punahou School was started by the missionaries who did not want to have their children go to school with any Hawaiian or any other minority.”

In her short instruction of Mr. Krischel in her reply, she states that, “You obviously are oblivious not only to Hawaiian History but also to the history of the Japanese and other immigrants who came to Hawaii to work and live. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be so pie in the sky pious with your attitudes.”

In his response, Mr. Krischel deals with the issues of race and historical examples presented by Akana, pointing out that they further emphasize his belief that any race-based policy would be a mistake. Krischel writes:

For example, the fact that Japanese and Chinese immigrants, who were the only ones ever treated like second class citizens under law (see the 1887 Constitution of Hawaii which took away the right to vote from Asians), would be excluded from Hawaiian programs and race-based governments seems like adding insult to injury. My clear understanding of the history of immigration and institutionalized racial discrimination in the past (including race-based pay which put haoles and native Hawaiians on top, Portuguese second, and chinese, japanese and filipino at the bottom), makes me ever more adamant that we should avoid such racial qualifications in the future.

. . . .

if at some point in history someone was racially discriminated against, we don’t achieve justice by racially discriminating against others today. The answer is to remove *all* racial qualifications from *all* laws and government regulations, and to treat people as equals in both blood and spirit now and forevermore. The fact that you could somehow interpret my demand for racial equality as some sort of hidden racism just doesn’t seem rational at all, and is why I must insist on an apology from you.

I hope you understand very clearly that the Akaka Bill, and any government program which decides a person’s worth based upon their racial heritage rather than on their individuality, is poisonous, and just as bad, if not worse, than all of the injustices you listed in your reply to me. While indulging in a spirit of revenge against others may offer some cynical satisfaction, it’s destructive both to the self, and to society. I clearly understand that the world has not always been a kind place to everyone, and that even in Hawaii, we’ve had many injustices in the past (even before western contact in 1778, when the ali’i ruled supreme and the kauwa served as a permanent slave class). But the evils of the past do not justify more evil in the present.

I believe Hawaii is a model for the world because as far back as 1840, our constitution declared that all people were “of one blood”. I believe Hawaii is a model for the world because the Kamehameha Dynasty turned a stone age society into a modern Kingdom in less than a generation by embracing Western ideals, technology and society. I believe Hawaii is a model for the world because despite the rough patches of our history, we are more kapakahi than anywhere else, and in choosing who we will love and have children with, we ignore race with a passion unmatched anywhere else that I know of.

I also believe that what you currently support in the Akaka Bill, and in the preservation of existing race-based programs in Hawaii, including many OHA programs, threatens very deeply what makes Hawaii so special.

Ms. Akana’s next (and final) letter is very short. She states that, “When no reparations or any compensation is given for taking or the stealing of Native lands, Natives have every right to seek justice.” She does not explain how this position fits into the existence of the Bishop Estate Trust or Hawaiian Homelands. Ms. Akana then declines to continue the conversation. At no point does she apologize for calling Mr. Krischel a racist.

Mr. Krischel’s reply to Ms. Akana’s final letter are an eloquent examination of the problem with the language of grievance that Ms. Akana employs as her primary argument:

I’ll respectfully remind you that like many others without any ancestors in Hawaii before 1778, I was born in Hawaii, and didn’t migrate here from *anywhere* else. If you want to point out that my ancestors migrated here from somewhere else over a hundred years ago, I’ll point out that the same is true of the few Marquesans and/or Tahitians in your ancestry who migrated here before Captain Cook arrived in 1778. The “a small fraction of my ancestors were here before yours were” argument is hardly the basis for any form of government, or appropriate for deciding how to apportion resources between people.

Furthermore, your argument regarding Native Alaskans and Native Americans is fatally flawed and based on a terrible, yet apparently very common, misunderstanding of Indian Law by Akaka Bill supporters. Native Alaskans and Native Americans do not have any sort of claim on the US based on their bloodline, and my non-tribal part-Cherokee son can attest to that. There may be federally recognized *tribes* (including the Cherokee Freedmen, who have African American ancestors, and often don’t have any Native American ones), but there is no recognition for someone simply because their ancestors lived somewhere before western contact, which is what the Akaka Bill proposes. Most Native Alaskans and Native Americans, including my son, aren’t part of any tribe at all, and are treated the same way as other non-tribal citizens are. Particularly for Hawaii, where the Kingdom nobly declared in 1840 that all people were “of one blood”, and made no distinction between natives and non-natives, creating a new political relationship based on blood is simply racism, pure and simple.

Lastly, there was no “taking or stealing” of Native lands. You may despise the ali’i for giving away vast tracts of land to their European supporters during the Kingdom Period, and you may despise those native Hawaiians who sold their kuleana lands to non-natives after the Great Mahele, but nothing was taken, and nothing was stolen. Your pursuit of “justice” here, specifically on the basis of bloodline, is terribly misinformed and ignores the true history of the land.

Now, if you’ve got any sort of specific information about a specific acre of land, that was stolen from a specific person, by a specific person, at any specific time in the history of the Kingdom, Republic, Territory or State of Hawaii, please, share with me – I would love to learn if you have something to teach, and with specifics we can work towards rectifying things without any appeal to race.

But simply waving one’s hands and declaring that you, based simply on your bloodline, deserve some sort of reparation or compensation from me, for some unspecified piece of land supposedly stolen from a native Hawaiian by some unspecified person at some unspecified time, is not a rational argument, especially considering that my non-native ancestors in Hawaii, by your own citations in your first reply, were terribly discriminated against and exploited. The children of ali’i asking for reparation and compensation from the children of plantation laborers seems distasteful on every level imaginable.

It is no coincidence that the more people learn about the Akaka Bill, the less comfortable they are with it. Initially swayed by the praiseworthy desire to do something good for Native Hawaiians, the public has been mislead by the Rowena Akanas of this world into thinking that this is a simple “reparations” issue. But as Jere’s examination of Hawaiian history and the philosophical problems with race-based policies demonstrate, the Akaka Bill actually takes Hawaii in the wrong direction.

And the attempts of Ms. Akana to shut down all argument through invective, accusations of racism, and faulty history are an example of just how far the Akaka Bill can take us away from Hawaii’s spirit of aloha and ohana.

To read the full exchange between Jere Krischel and Rowena Akana, click here.

Short URL:

Hawaii Reporter, February 3, 2011

House Bill 1627 Would Create a State-Recognized Hawaiian Tribe

BY KENNETH R. CONKLIN, PH.D. – HB1627 is a bill in the Hawaii legislature to create a state-recognized ethnic Hawaiian tribe. In view of the failure of the Akaka bill in Congress, HB1627 contains much of the worst language from that bill but brought over from the federal to the state level. The bill’s text is 37 pages long and can be downloaded from

The hearing notice became available only Thursday morning February 3, with written testimony due by 9:45 AM Friday, for a hearing to be held at 9:45 AM Saturday February 5. How’s that for short notice! Do they really want to hear from us? The notice says decision-making will follow the hearing. But sometimes decisions are postponed. Testimony can be submitted “late” in case the committee does not make a decision immediately. See the hearing notice for details on time and place of the hearing, and how to submit testimony by way of the internet.

Here is the testimony I submitted on Thursday. Feel free to expand on any portions you like, or make your own points.

To the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs:

HB1627 is fundamentally the same as the federal Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, also known as the Akaka bill; except that instead of having the federal government recognize the Akaka tribe, this bill would have only the State of Hawaii recognizing that tribe.

The clear purpose of the bill is to authorize the creation of an entity with governmental powers, but restricted to people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood.

That racist concept is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Since all legislators have taken an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, any legislator who votes in favor of this bill has thereby violated that oath and must resign from office.

The concept of this bill also violates the first sentence of the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, sometimes called the “kokokahi” (one blood) sentence, which proclaimed “Ua hana mai ke Akua i na lahuikanaka a pau i ke koko hookahi, e noho like lakou ma ka honua nei me ke kuikahi, a me ka pomaikai.” In English, it can be translated into modern usage as follows: “God has made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness.” What a beautiful and eloquently expressed concept! HB1627 is an ugly and disgusting violation of that kokokahi sentence. King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III wrote the kokokahi sentence as the first sentence of his Declaration of Rights in 1839, which was then incorporated in its entirety to become the preamble of the Constitution of 1840. In making that proclamation the King exercised sovereignty and self-determination on behalf of his native people, and on behalf of all people of all races who were subjects and residents of his Kingdom.

Today’s Hawaiians are ethically bound to respect the wisdom of their ancestors. They are also legally and morally bound to respect the full partnership between natives and non-natives which enabled the Kingdom to be established and to thrive. All subjects of the Kingdom were fully equal under Kingdom laws, regardless of race, including voting rights and property rights. When partners work together in full equality to create and sustain a business or nation, it is morally and legally wrong for one partner to toss out or set aside or segregate other partners.

A zealous minority within the ethnic Hawaiian minority demands racial separatism. Should we allow that? Will you legislators be accomplices to such evil?

Consider the historical struggle for identity within the African-American community. Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam, and the early Malcolm X, advocated racial separatism and portrayed the white man as a devil. Some radicals called for setting aside several southern states for a Nation of New Africa. Fortunately Martin Luther King used Gandhi’s spiritual tool of non-violence to appeal to people’s inner goodness, which led to full integration. After his pilgrimage to Mecca Malcolm X understood the universal brotherhood of people of all races, but was gunned down by the separatists when he tried to persuade them to pursue integration.

In Hawaii we see a similar struggle now unfolding. Some demagogues use racial grievances to stir up hatred, and leaders use victimhood statistics to build wealthy and powerful institutions on the backs of needy people who end up getting very little help.

The Akaka bill, and HB1627, would empower the demagogues and racial separatists. These bills are supported primarily by large, wealthy institutions; not by the actual people they claim to represent. Institutions like the $400 Million Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the $9 Billion Kamehameha Schools, seek to entrench their political power. They want an exemption from the 14th Amendment requirement that all persons be given the equal protection of the laws regardless of race.

But Hawaiians are voting with their feet against the Akaka bill. After seven years and untold millions of dollars in state government money for advertising (and free T-shirts!), fewer than one-fourth of those eligible have signed up for the Kau Inoa racial registry likely to be used as a membership roll for the Akaka tribe. Sadly, if either the Akaka bill or HB1627 passes then the separatists will be able to create their tribe even though the majority of ethnic Hawaiians oppose the idea. And 80% of Hawaii’s people, having no native blood, will see our beautiful Hawaii carved up without even asking us. Do the racial separatists have a right to go off in a corner and create their own private club for members only? Perhaps. But should the rest of us give them our encouragement and our resources to enable them to do that? Absolutely not.

It’s time for this legislature to stop encouraging racial separatism. It’s time to stand up in support of unity and equality. Just say no to HB1627 and all other bills motivated by the same mentality.


Testimony in the Legislature of the State of Hawaii, collected from

TO: Legislature State of Hawaii
House Committees on Hawaiian Affairs

Hearing: Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:45 a.m.
Conference Room 329, State Capitol

HB 1627 relating to government.
Establishes procedures for state recognition of a first nation government.

Testimony in opposition by H. William Burgess, attorney at law and chairman of Aloha for All, Inc. [Footnote: Aloha for All, is a multi-ethnic group of men and women, all residents, taxpayers and property owners in Hawaii who believe that Aloha is for everyone and every citizen is entitled to the equal protection of the laws without regard to her or his ancestry.]

HB 1627 goes beyond recognition of something that now exists. There is not now and never has been a separate government of the unified Hawaiian Islands exclusively of, by and for Native Hawaiians. Rather, the process called for by HB 1627 would create a “first nation government” of, by and for “qualified Native Hawaiian constituents.”

Even the Federal government has no power to create a tribe “out of thin air” where none now exists.

For Native Americans, ancestry alone confers no special status. Membership in a tribe that has existed continuously is required. According to Census 2000 there are over 4 million people with some Native American ancestry. But less than 2 million of them are members of recognized tribes and only those recognized tribes can have a government-to-government relationship with the United States. 

Congress may "acknowledge" or "recognize" groups which have existed as tribes, i.e., autonomous quasi-sovereign governing entities, continuously from historic times to the present (25 C.F.R. 83.7) but it has no power to create a tribe arbitrarily. (U.S. v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913)). One D.O.J. attorney put it succinctly, "We don't create tribes out of thin air."  

In 1790 (20 years before 1810 when he unified the Hawaiian islands) Kamehameha the Great brought John Young and Isaac Davis on to join his forces and welcomed them into his family. Non-natives thereafter continued to intermarry, assimilate and contribute to the governance under the great King and under every subsequent government of Hawaii since then, both in high governmental positions as cabinet members, judges, elected legislators, and as ordinary citizens.

The attached map from the KSBE website showing “Hawaiians in the USA: US Census 2000” refutes the claim made on page 2 and repeatedly in HB 1627 that, “the Native Hawaiian people are a distinctly native community.”

For Native Americans, ancestry alone confers no special status. Membership in a tribe that has existed continuously is required. According to Census 2000 there are over 4 million people with some Native American ancestry. But less than 2 million of them are members of recognized tribes and only those recognized tribes can have a government-to-government relationship with the United States.  

 Congress may "acknowledge" or "recognize" groups which have existed as tribes, i.e., autonomous quasi-sovereign governing entities, continuously from historic times to the present (25 C.F.R. 83.7) but it has no power to create a tribe arbitrarily. (U.S. v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913)). One D.O.J. attorney put it succinctly, "We don't create tribes out of thin air."  

 In 1790 (20 years before 1810 when he unified the Hawaiian islands) Kamehameha the Great brought John Young and Isaac Davis on to join his forces and welcomed them into his family. Non-natives thereafter continued to intermarry, assimilate and contribute to the governance under the great King and under every subsequent government of Hawaii since then, both in high governmental positions as cabinet members, judges, elected legislators, and as ordinary citizens.  

 Unlike the history of Native Americans, there has never been in Hawaii, even during the years of the Kingdom, any "tribe" or government of any kind for Native Hawaiians separate from the government of the rest of Hawaii's citizens. The Hawaiians-only nation the Akaka bill proposes to "reorganize" has never existed. See Patrick W. Hanifin's To Dwell on the Earth in Unity: Rice, Arakaki, and the Growth of Citizenship and Voting Rights in

 Our friends, neighbors, fellow professionals, judges, political leaders. aunties, uncles, nieces, nephews, calabash cousins, spouses and loved ones of Hawaiian ancestry are governed by the same federal, state and local governments as the rest of us. That is why neither Congress nor the Hawaii legislature can use laws applicable to Indian tribes to create a new government in Hawaii. 

 Sen. Inouye, in his remarks on introduction of S. 147/H.R.309 at 151 Congressional Record 450 (Senate, Tuesday, January 25, 2005) concedes that federal Indian law does not provide the authority for Congress to create a Native Hawaiian governing entity.  

Because the Native Hawaiian government is not an Indian tribe, the body of Federal Indian law that would otherwise customarily apply when the United States extends Federal recognition to an Indian tribal group does not apply.

That is why concerns which are premised on the manner in which Federal Indian law provides for the respective governmental authorities of the state governments and Indian tribal governments simply don't apply in Hawaii.

Moreover, HB 1627 excludes from participation in the process all citizens who lack the favored ancestry. That racial restriction from eligibility to vote in the elections and referenda called for by HB 1627 violates the 15th Amendment. The special status, privileges and immunities which the bill gives to Native Hawaiians, but denies to other citizens, violates the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the Constitution of the United States, contemplates an indestructible union composed of indestructible states. The negotiations contemplated by HB 1627 would divide and diminish the State of Hawaii but still leave Native Hawaiians with their full rights and benefits in what is left of the State of Hawaii.

Thomas Sowell’s Affirmative Action Around the World describes in chilling detail the consequences of “indigenous” movements in many countries strikingly similar to the events unfolding now in Hawaii. Sri Lanka, for example, is an island state that in 1948 was spoken of as an oasis of stability, peace and order. Within a decade, as a result of politicizing intergroup differences and instituting preferential policies, there were race riots, and ultimately civil war and horrible atrocities. The January 17, 2011 New Yorker “Death of the Tiger” shows the horror Hawaii may be facing if the legislature does not restore equal justice under the law.

Please reject HB 1627. Mahalo. Honolulu, Hawaii February 4, 2011.

H. William Burgess
Tel.: (808) 947-3234
Fax: (808) 947-5822
Honolulu, HI 96822

Midweek (Oahu weekly newspaper), Wednesday March 16, 2011

OHA’s End-run Bad For All Hawaii

By Jerry Coffee

In an article currently on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs website, Clyde Namu’o writes: “OHA believes Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act will benefit all of Hawaii.”

Namu’o concludes, “Most important, the NHGRA will enable Native Hawaiians to create a better future for themselves and their families. It will benefit all of Hawaii by bringing closure to this issue that has prevented our state from realizing its full potential for decades.”

First and foremost, the only thing that has prevented our state from “realizing its full potential for decades” is our state Legislature. And taking it one step further, since we elect the Legislature, it is we who continue to keep our state from realizing its full potential. When are we going to wise up? And it is this same dysfunctional (it’s function is to represent us) Legislature that will be negotiating the terms and structure of this new “Hawaiian governing entity.”

And as for bringing closure, how will the NHGRA achieve that for the percent of residents who are non-Hawaiian? In my 36-year Hawaii residency, I have never met a non-Hawaiian with a guilt complex or who was fretting about lack of “closure” on Native Hawaiian issues. In fact, far from bringing closure, it will bring opening - as in opening a huge can of worms!

I have covered all the negatives for our state and people (there are no positives) of the Akaka Bill in previous columns, but now with OHA’s attempted end-run around congressional approval by going directly to the state Legislature, a short summary is in order.

First, it is unconstitutional to have two classes of citizens based upon race. NHGRA is race-based no matter how you slice it. This was the basis for the courts finding OHA’s policy of Hawaiians-only voting for OHA trustees unconstitutional. As George Orwell put it in his book Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some are just more equal.”

Under the NHGRA, Hawaiians and nonHawaiians living next door to each other could be subject to different taxation laws, zoning laws and law enforcement. This has manifested on the Mainland on and around Native American reservations, a model held up by Sen. Akaka as one to be desired for Hawaii.

Imagine two gas stations across the street from each other, one Hawaiian-owned possibly paying no taxes and charging none on gasoline and cigarettes, and the other non-Hawaiian-owned charging and paying state and local taxes.

Fair competition?

Or consider profits from gambling casinos on Hawaiian home lands used to buy real estate in the center of Waikiki, which could then be deemed by the Hawaiian “governing entity” as an extension of the Hawaiian home lands zoned to accommodate gambling so that a “Waikiki casino” could then be built.

Sound far-fetched? These things have actually happened on the Mainland.

The Star-Advertiser editorial “Our View” (3/9/11), in discussing the two NHGRA bills moving through the state Capitol, outlines the process, “creating a voter roll (of Native Hawaiians), drawing up the documents of a government, having the electorate ratify it.” By the “electorate” they should mean, but don’t, all the voters of Hawaii, not just Hawaiians. This bill will significantly affect every citizen of the state and should not be passed without a plebiscite, a vote by all the people. We must not settle for less.

Hawaii Free Press, Sunday May 15, 2011

Hawaii Republicans Pass first-ever Resolution Against Akaka Bill

By Andrew Walden

By an overwhelming voice vote, Hawaii Republicans meeting at the GOP State Convention on Kauai Saturday approved a resolution opposing the Akaka Bill.

Although numerous polls show wide opposition to the Akaka Bill, very few elected officials openly speak up against it. In the eleven years since Sen. Akaka first introduced the so-called Native Hawaii Government Reorganization Bill in the wake of the ouster of his beloved Broken Trustees from Bishop Estate, this is the first time that either Hawaii political party has approved a resolution against it.

The silence is over.

Here is the full text:


Whereas the Akaka Bill violates the fundamental values inherent in the Hawai'i Republican party’s LLIFE Platform;

Whereas the Akaka Bill imposes an entirely new level of governance upon the Hawaiian people;

Whereas the Akaka Bill trades away individual Liberty in exchange for government grants and favors;

Whereas the Akaka Bill denigrates the principles of Individual Responsibility;

Whereas the Akaka Bill creates unequal opportunities, fiefdoms of favoritism, and artificial barriers to our citizens;

Therefore be it resolved, that the Hawai'i Republican Party in convention at Lihue, Hawai'i, May 14, 2011, hereby expresses its unalterable opposition to the Akaka Bill and to any iteration of it that robs Hawaiians of Liberty and Equal Opportunity or imposes more government and the fiscal and moral calamities such a course inevitably brings;

Therefore be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be posted on the Hawaii Republican Party website, distributed to Hawai'i elected officials and media for public dissemination.

** Note from Website editor Ken Conklin:

The following URL allows direct access to the Hawaii Republican Party individual resolution opposing the Akaka bill:
The path to finding it on the Republican Party website is:
Go to Hawaii Republican Party website at
Then hover the cursor over "About us"
And use the pull-down menu to click on "2011 Resolutions."

The Guardian (London), July 6-7, 2011

The stolen sovereignty of Hawaii's indigenous people
"The 'Akaka bill' is a US colonial device to ratify the robbery of the Kanaka Maoli people's rights by the 1893 coup. We do not assent"

by J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Associate Professor of Anthropology and American Studies, Wesleyan University, Connecticut

On Wednesday 6 July 2011 at 2pm HST, Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie will sign SB1520 – a scam built to undercut the restoration of the Hawaiian Nation under international law – into law. This recently passed state legislation by the name of the "First Nation Government Bill" will authorise a process for the creation of a "Native Hawaiian governing entity". Adding insult to great injury, this disgrace will take place at Washington Place in Honolulu, the residence of former Hawaiian monarch, Queen Lili'uokalani, who was overthrown by a US-backed coup in 1893.

This legislation is the state version of federal legislation, which had been repeatedly proposed and defeated in U.S Congress throughout the last decade, known as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganisation Act, and dubbed "the Akaka bill" (named after Democratic US Senator Daniel Akaka). The Akaka bill, and the new state version of it, was pushed by a powerful Hawaiian organisation, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and two key Hawaii state agencies, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. It is supposed to represent self-determination for Native Hawaiians, but nothing could be further from the truth.

From the start, Hawaii's congressional delegation attempted to ram through the bill despite massive opposition to it among the Kanaka Maoli (indigenous Hawaiian) people whom it affects first and foremost. The delegation held just one five-day hearing, back in 2000, on the bill since its inception, and only on the single island of O'ahu. Although there was overwhelming opposition to the bill, the delegation reported quite the opposite to Congress. The federal version of the legislation proposed that the US government recognise a "Native Hawaiian governing entity" that was to be certified by the US Department of the Interior in conformity with US federal law and practice regarding Native American tribal nations.

For independence activists who advocate for the restoration of a Hawaiian nation under international law, the entire bill was a farce since the historical harm the United States first committed in Hawai'i in 1893 – by backing an illegal coup – brought down not a Native Hawaiian governing entity, but the Hawaiian Kingdom government, an independent state comprising Kanaka Maoli and non-indigenous subjects. Consequently, the Kanaka Maoli people and other descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom citizens have, since that time, accumulated fundamental political and other claims against the United States under international law. These the United States must recognise rather than hope to dispel via the enactment of state-driven proposals.

While the state version does not authorise a "nation to nation" relationship between the US federal government and a Native Hawaiian governing entity, the First Nation government legislation (like the federal version) is a bogus trap. The new law sets up a commission to produce a "Native Hawaiian roll", where Kanaka Maoli sign on to take part in the formation of the First Nation within the state process – the first time there would be any documented evidence of acquiescence to the US government or its subsidiaries.

Protesters will be there today to protest the supposed surrender of the Hawaiian Nation to the United States of America, as the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other state agents take position to transition into the new First Nation. Those Kanaka Maoli and other Hawaiian nationals will be holding signs with declarations such as "Hell no, we won't enroll" – punctuated by "and neither would the Queen".

Hawaii Reporter, October 30, 2011

New Akaka Bill Stealth Strategy is Actually Old

BY KENNETH R. CONKLIN, PH.D. -- On October 24, 2011 Malia Zimmerman, editor of Hawaii Reporter, described a new stealth maneuver by Senator Dan Inouye (D, HI) to pass the Akaka bill. She reported that the Senate Appropriations Committee (which Inouye chairs) is considering a bill to appropriate billions of dollars for the Department of Interior. She described how, on October 14, Inouye quietly exercised his prerogative as Chair to insert a new Section 420, consisting of a single sentence, which says that the group of people being assembled under Hawaii Act 195 of 2011 (the state-recognized ethnic Hawaiian group) is now to be placed on the list of federally recognized tribes. For details, including the exact language, see

For information about Act 195, see

On October 26, Malia Hill wrote that Inouye's stealth maneuver is "backdoor dealing and 'hidden' legislation" which is unethical and needs sunlight. She says the Akaka bill "would have a significant and transformative effect on Hawaii. Nor can we ignore the fact that there is far from a public consensus on the bill -- which is why so many support the idea of a public referendum"

This particular manner of passing the Akaka bill is even more dangerous than previous attempts because the newly created tribe would have none of the limitations which all previous versions of the bill have placed on it. Even Governor Lingle, who had aggressively lobbied for the bill many times, refused in 2009 to support the most recent radical version introduced again in 2011 by the Congressional delegation until they agreed to restore some protections for the people of Hawaii.

The tribe created by Inouye's stealth maneuver would now be free to play the state and federal governments against each other. The very compliant state legislature would be free to hand over half the lands of Hawaii to the tribe, along with hundreds of millions of dollars and astonishing levels of jurisdictional authority. Meanwhile existing federal law and future acts of Congress would grant the same powers to the Hawaii tribe that all federally recognized tribes possess, whether the state legislature likes it or not.

Some commentators are saying the Congressional delegation plans to break up the Akaka bill into pieces, with each piece to be inserted as a rider into various must-pass bills (much like a shotgun sends pellets of shrapnel into several different bodies). But that's not necessary. This single rider would get the entire job done (like a rifle bullet to the heart). A likely strategy might be to insert the same rider into several different bills (several rifle shots) in hopes one might get through unnoticed, or might be successfully negotiated with opponents in some obscure "you help me, I help you" conference committee at the end of the session. We might recall that at the end of 2010 there was a huge omnibus appropriations bill with several thousand earmarks, which died from embarrassment. This time around there's a "super committee" of 6 House and 6 Senate members who must reduce the budget deficit by more than a trillion dollars to avoid massive rescissions.

In December 2009 there was a loud public protest against the Akaka bill spurred by credible reports that Inouye was planning to sneak it into a Defense Department appropriations bill. On December 14 2009 numerous news media quoted Senator Inouye responding as follows:

"I have never suggested that the Akaka Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill be passed and adopted as part of the defense appropriations process. I don't know where this nonsensical suggestion originated. The Akaka Bill for the past many years has been considered under what we call the regular order. It has had hours upon hours of hearings, many, many revisions and amendments and has gone through the scrutiny of three administrations. We have had hearings in Washington and in Hawaii. It is not a measure that has been shepherded in the dark of the night. It has been fully transparent."

Well, Senator Inouye, what you called "nonsensical" then should still be nonsensical now. Why are you going back on your word?

Perhaps one reason he is going back on his word is that he was actually lying when he said in 2009 that "I have never suggested that the Akaka Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill be passed and adopted as part of the defense appropriations process" and "It is not a measure that has been shepherded in the dark of the night. It has been fully transparent."

As a matter of fact, Inouye has repeatedly used stealth tactics for 11 years, including one especially outrageous event in December 2001 when he secretly inserted a one-sentence rider into a Defense Department appropriations bill!!! Here is that sentence in December 2001, buried in the massive Defense Appropriations bill HR.3338: "SEC. 8132. The provisions of S. 746 of the 107th Congress, as reported to the Senate on September 21, 2001, are hereby enacted into law." That bill actually passed with the rider unnoticed inside, until the rider was surgically removed by a special resolution passed on the last day of that session. Inouye's fellow Senators warned him that it violates Senate rules to insert controversial policy legislation into an appropriations bill as though it's merely an "earmark" for some local project to benefit a constituent. For all the gory details see

Inouye's stealth maneuver in 2001 was a very dishonorable thing, violating Senate rules and the trust of his colleagues. More recently Inouye has told falsehoods about Hawaiian history on the floor of the U.S. Senate while pushing the Akaka bill, including the claim that U.S. troops invaded Iolani palace during the Hawaiian revolution, arrested the Queen, and imprisoned her there. For proof from the Congressional Record of what he said, and an explanation of what really happened, see

Inouye has told other lies about Hawaiian history, saying on several different occasions (including on the Senate floor) that the Hawaiian flag hauled down from the Palace at the time of annexation was publicly torn into pieces given as souvenirs to the haoles, in order to humiliate the Hawaiians. See

Senator Inouye now wears the Medal of Honor he certainly deserves, awarded to him by a bill to upgrade WW2 medals for Japanese Americans (authored by Senator Akaka). Yet he's doing the very same dishonorable thing all over again in 2011 that he did ten years previously. The Akaka bill itself is a dirty, disgusting thing, totally lacking in pono. And so are the methods Inouye has repeatedly used for trying to push it through Congress. It's a shame that a man who served his nation with great bravery, and has done many important things to benefit Hawaii's people, is sullying his legacy as he approaches the end of his career.

Carroll4Senate [John Carroll campaign for U.S. Senate Republican nomination]
December 16, 2011

Akaka Bill by “Addendum” was the wrong thing to attempt in the first place.

By John S. Carroll

Senator Akaka is one of the most kind and compassionate men I have ever known. He has served Hawaii well in the US House and Senate. This letter is written with respect for all he and Senator Inouye have done, not only for Native Hawaiians, but also for all the people of Hawaii.

To withhold my comments out of respect for these gentlemen would violate my pursuit of justice for Native Hawaiians. (I have children, grandchildren and eight great grandchildren, each of whom is Native Hawaiian.)

Senator Inouye just recently abandoned his plan to piggy-back the Akaka Bill to an Interior Department spending bill in an attempt to get over the procedural hurdle which has blocked its passage for the past eleven years.

This bill should have never been contemplated in the first place.

The Bill seeks RECOGNITION OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS. Given the history of Hawaii, to suggest that Hawaiians need recognition is absurd. It is ironic, indeed, that these Senators are seeking something that the “Native Hawaiians” achieved as early as 1840 when the first Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom was issued by King Kamehameha the Third. It clearly declares “God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth in unity and blessedness.” The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized internationally by the execution of more than twenty treaties and by international tribunals in dealing with the British attempt to colonize Hawaii.

Creating a race based, sovereign nation within the eleven thousand square miles of these islands, quite frankly, is ludicrous! Republican leadership, under Chairman Kaauwai in this State has finally gotten a resolution against passage of the Akaka Bill, a resolution Mrs. Lingle stifled while Governor and titular head of the Party.

The Kingdom had a bi-cameral legislature, Houses of Commons and Alii, both Houses dominated by “Native Hawaiians”. The Kingdom not only assimilated persons of all races, but actively promoted bringing them to Hawaii, giving them citizenship or denizenship and integrating them into the racial fabric of this land.

No Indian tribe that I know of has ever received recognition at this level. To compare “Native Hawaiians” to Maoris, Cherokee, Arapahoe, Aleut nations borders on absurdity.

Everyone interested in Native Hawaiian history with respect to “racial issues” should read the dicta in Rex v. Booth, and see what justices appointed by the Alii had to say about the intrinsic equality of man. This was written prior to the end of the US Civil War.

However well intended, the Akaka Bill seeks to reinstate the concept of division by race that our constitution and decades of the civil rights movement have sought to erase. By drawing false parallels to Native Americans the bill distorts the true and unique history of Hawaii’s people. Further, the tactical expediency of attaching this bill to an expenditure bill so as to avoid open and honest debate would have honored neither Hawaiians nor other citizens of this state and country.

Note: John Carroll believes that all Hawaiians who qualify for homestead lands should be awarded those properties in fee. The system of term leases “administrated” by a governmental bureaucracy is inefficient, prone to fraud and ultimately unfair to individual Hawaiians. Ruby Johnson advises Mr. Carroll on Hawaiian cultural and legal matters.

Hawaii Reporter, December 20, 2011

Hawaii Public Opinion About Racial Entitlements and the Akaka Bill


Recently news reports and commentaries have been published about the Akaka bill and about a lawsuit against racial discrimination in property tax rates which has reached the Supreme Court. With the state Legislature gearing up for a big 2012 session and Senators Inouye/Akaka up to their old tricks in Congress again, it's time to review Hawaii public opinion on these topics.

On December 14, 2011 the Honolulu Star-Advertiser ran an informal online poll asking "Do you think providing state government benefits to Native Hawaiians is valid under the U.S. Constitution?" 67% of more than a thousand respondents answered "No." The poll archive is at

That was a resounding public rejection of the newspaper's editorial that had been published on the same day. Readers had the editorial right in front of them when they voted on the poll. The editorial urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal of a Hawaii state Supreme Court decision which had unanimously rejected a taxpayer lawsuit (Corboy) against racial discrimination on property tax rates by Hawaii counties. The counties grant zero or extremely low property tax bills to all "homestead" lessees, who are required to have a minimum percentage of Hawaiian native blood in order to get a lease. A webpage provides details and analysis by lawyers about the Corboy lawsuit, plus text of the newspaper editorial and a letter to editor deploring the editorial.

In 2003 the newspaper's predecessor, Honolulu Advertiser, paid for a more scientific survey by Ward Research, and separately reported results of another survey paid for by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and conducted by SMS Research. Those surveys asked people to rank the relative importance of various priorities when the state government spends money. Both surveys produced remarkably similar results. Peoples' top priorities are education, healthcare, housing, the environment, and traffic. The lowest priorities are Native Hawaiian rights, race-based handouts -- and, lowest of all -- ethnic Hawaiian "nationhood" (i.e., the federal Akaka bill or state Act 195). Furthermore, the results were nearly the same for ethnic Hawaiians as for the general public, showing that most ethnic Hawaiians have the same priorities as everyone else and don't want to rip apart the State of Hawaii in order to get government handouts. See a detailed report and analysis at

Government services such as police, fire department, roads, schools, water and sewage must be paid for from government revenues including property tax, income tax, land leases, etc. If one racial group gets free goods and services without paying taxes, that comes at the expense of higher taxes for everyone else who must make up the difference. Or else superior services for the favored group must be paid for by reducing services for everyone else. The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has identified more than 800 racial entitlement programs.

Since Summer of 2000 the Akaka bill has been sitting in Congress like an unexploded bomb. Its stated purpose is to create an Indian tribe for ethnic Hawaiians. It's real purpose is to insulate Hawaii's racial entitlement programs against lawsuits like Corboy which seek to dismantle them on grounds they are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. The Akaka bill's long-term consequences (and also state Act 195) will be to permanently divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines; to give land, money, and jurisdictional authority to ethnic Hawaiians collectively at everyone else's expense; and to empower a race-based government whose leaders spew rhetoric about the "illegal overthrow and annexation." That rhetoric clearly shows an intention to eventually rip the 50th star off the flag and make all of Hawaii an independent nation. Even Senator Akaka himself has confessed that secession is an option for his grandchildren to choose and that the Akaka bill does not stand in the way of that choice. Several years ago the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, at that time controlled by Charles Maxwell and other sovereignty activists, wrote a report supporting both the Akaka bill and secession. That report, along with secessionist statements by Senator Akaka and others can be found at

Several surveys and polls show that most of Hawaii's people, including probably most ethnic Hawaiians, oppose the Akaka bill. An even larger majority wants there to be a ballot referendum in Hawaii before the Akaka bill can be rammed down our throats by Congress as an unfunded federal mandate, without our permission.

75% of respondents opposed the Akaka bill in an on-line poll conducted by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin newspaper in March 2005. In response to "Would you like to see the Akaka bill become law?" the answers were "Yes" 436 and "No" 1301. This poll is especially significant because the Star-Bulletin repeatedly editorialized in favor of the Akaka bill for several years. See:

As noted earlier, on December 14, 2011 67% of respondents to a newspaper's unscientific online poll oppose Hawaii's racial entitlement programs. That result was matched in two surveys conducted by a professional mainland polling company in 2005 and 2006, which called all 290,000 publicly listed phone number in Hawaii. Both surveys found that 67% oppose the Akaka bill. 45% feel strongly enough about this issue that they are less likely to vote for any politician who supports the bill. Large majorities want a vote of all Hawaii's people before Congress considers the bill. Even a majority of the minority who support the Akaka bill want a vote in Hawaii first. Some questions asked about racial preferences (most people oppose them), and whether people would vote in favor of Statehood for Hawaii if it were on the ballot. Opponents of the Akaka bill are strongly in favor of Statehood, but supporters of the Akaka bill are far less supportive of Statehood (thus confirming the impression that the Akaka bill is a step toward secession). Details, including the survey questions and spreadsheets showing raw totals and percentages are at

The most important, most highly credible scientific survey on the Akaka bill was done by Zogby in November 2009. A press release and full report on Zogby stationery includes text of the questions along with statistical analysis and professional interpretation of the results. Once again it showed that a majority of Hawaii's people oppose the Akaka bill, and an even larger majority want a ballot referendum on the question.

Left-leaning Hawaii newspapers keep up a steady drumbeat for race-based sovereignty. They try to create a sense of urgency for people to choose between two alternatives: an independent nation of Hawaii (with racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians) vs. racial separatism (such as the Akaka bill or Act 195). They fail to allow the choice most of Hawaii's people prefer, including probably most ethnic Hawaiians: the Aloha Choice.

The Aloha Choice for Hawaiian sovereignty is unity, equality and aloha for all. Hawaii remains united with the US, and our people and lands remain unified under the undivided sovereignty of the state of Hawaii. Everyone is equal in the eyes of God regardless of race and gets treated equally under the law. This concept that we have three choices for sovereignty, not just two, was first made clear in an article in Honolulu Advertiser on July 20, 2001: ;
then another in Hawaii Reporter on April 26, 2004: ;
and most recently in Honolulu Weekly on December 14, 2011: .
The fundamental principles of the Aloha Choice are explained at

Hawaii Reporter, Friday December 30, 2011

Bringing Mainland Tribal Troubles to Hawaii

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

The sovereignty possessed by Indian tribes is a source of frequent nasty disputes and lawsuits between tribal governments and state or local governments. In addition, tribal membership strips people of basic civil rights they would normally expect to have as Americans.

Below are headlines and links to 13 news reports illustrating such disputes, published in various states during the last three months of 2011. A new webpage provides excerpts from those reports that have clear relevance to Hawaii; see

A webpage compiled in 2000 has links to hundreds of these controversies; some links might now be dead after 12 years, but the widespread nature of the troubles is clearly exhibited.

Federal recognition of "Native Hawaiians" could come if Congress passes any version of the Akaka bill pending in Congress from 2000 to now; or in the form of the recent stealth maneuver (one sentence in a huge appropriations bill) to add "Native Hawaiians" to the list of federally recognized tribes. The Hawaii legislature has repeatedly passed resolutions supporting the Akaka bill, and only a single one of the 76 legislators has ever voted no (Senator Sam Slom). Meantime the legislature has passed Act 195 to begin creating a membership roll for a state-recognized tribe.

Hawaii legislators, and the people who vote for them, need to consider the horrendous troubles tribal recognition will bring to Hawaii (whether from the federal Akaka bill or implementation of the state Act 195).

Hawaii issue: Promises or contracts made by the Hawaiian tribe cannot be enforced on account of tribal sovereignty.
Article title: "There can be no ‘agreement’ with the tribe"
Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, October 13, 2011

Hawaii issue: Counties cannot assess taxes on tribal property nor use foreclosure to collect taxes.
Article title: "Madison County, Oneida Indian Nation claim foreclosure case victory"
Oneida Dispatch, Madison County NY, October 21, 2011

Hawaii issue: Counties cannot assess or collect taxes on gasoline purchased or used on Hawaiian tribe lands which is used or purchased on non-tribal lands.
Article title: "Seminoles Ask Supreme Court to Hear Gas Tax Dispute"
WCTV2 (Florida), October 22, 2011

Hawaii issue: A Hawaiian tribe could purchase land and have the Bureau of Indian Affairs put it into federal land trust, thereby removing all tribal businesses on that land from local taxation; and neither the state nor counties can stop the BIA from doing so.
(1) Article title: "Tribe seeks to shelter land holdings -- If OK'd, Agua Caliente wouldn't have to pay tax on future businesses there"
The Desert Sun (California), December 1, 2011
(2) Article title: "Tribal annexation would take huge financial toll"
Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, December 8, 2011

Hawaii issue: If a member of the Hawaiian tribe is raped or beaten up by a spouse or friend in a house on tribal land, should a tribal court have jurisdiction to put the spouse or friend on trial and send him to jail even though that spouse or friend has no Hawaiian native blood or is not a tribal member?
Article title: "Tribal courts lack power over non-Indian abusers" [but should have such power]
The Rapid City Journal [South Dakota], November 11, 2011

Hawaii issue: A Hawaiian tribe, either through neglect or intentional policy, could allow its lands to become a sanctuary for criminal activity which state and county governments would be powerless to stop.
Article title: "Deep divisions seen in Unkechaug tribe" [Suffolk County, NY] Newsday, December 11, 2011

Hawaii issue: Should the Hawaiian tribe be given a large tract of undeveloped land because the tribe claims to be the rightful owner and/or because it promises to be a good steward of the land?
Article title: "A Land Claim With Strings Attached -- Indian Group Vies for Control of California Wilderness by Agreeing to Restrictions"
Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2011

Hawaii issue: A state-recognized tribe might spend many years unsuccessfully seeking federal recognition, and is likely to break promises and engage in corrupt practices while seeking federal recognition or a casino.
Article title: "Lumbees to choose new leader in Tuesday's tribal election"
The Fayetteville Observer, Fayetteville, NC, Mon Nov 14, 2011

Hawaii issue: State recognition of a Hawaiian tribe could lead to federal recognition with unexpected consequences including casinos.
Article title: "Bill to recognize Indian tribes in New Jersey stalls amid fears of tribal casinos"

Hawaii issue: A Hawaiian tribe might have priority over non-tribal businesses when a casino is to be created; and such a priority if enacted by a state legislature might be unconstitutional.
Article title: "Developer cries foul on Native American casino carve-out"
The Boston Herald, November 17, 2011

Hawaii issue: Once the Hawaiian tribe has published its roll of members and has been recognized, the tribal council can enroll or disenroll people for no good reason; and sovereignty ensures no state or federal court can interfere.
Article title: "Ousted tribal members want Congress to help
North County Times (San Diego and Riverside Counties, California)

Hawaii issue: Members of the Hawaiian tribe have no right to freedom of speech.
Article title: "Resigning from reservation job"
The Bismarck Tribune [North Dakota], Saturday, October 15, 2011

Hawaii issue: The tribal council might kick out of the tribe dissident members who support a different slate of candidates for the next tribal election, thus "fixing" the election; and the dissidents have no way to appeal their disenrollment except in a tribal court controlled by the existing council.
Article title: Panel weighs sides in Little Shell Tribe leadership dispute
Great Falls Tribune [Montana], December 11, 2011


Send comments or questions to:

You may now