Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Major Articles Opposing the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) -- from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Jere Krischel; A series of audios and videos; Andrew Walden; Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. x4; Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell M.D. et. al.; H. William Burgess x2; Tom Macdonald x2; Robert R. Kessler, Michael K. Bates, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS LETTER TO CONGRESS; WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL; ZOGBY POLL; WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL; HUMAN EVENTS EDITORIAL; HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK BENNETT


Following is a table of contents of the articles in the order they appear lower on this webpage, for the period January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. To see full text of the actual articles, in chronological order, scroll down below the index.

January 23, 2009:
Open letter to President Obama
Akaka Bill Promises to Divide Our Homeland By Race
by Jere Krischel, Senior Fellow of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Published in Hawaii Reporter online newspaper
"As a fellow hapa haole, born and raised in Hawaii as you were, educated at Punahou as you were, I beg you to turn towards those who are still promoting the Akaka Bill, and with all the grand rhetoric at your disposal, demand they abandon their attempts to divide us as a people based on race. Insist to them that we are "One America," "One People," and we should all live under "One Law.""
Audios and videos opposing the Akaka bill
A series of hard-hitting one-minute audio messages oppose the Akaka bill, accompanied by corresponding YouTube videos and transcripts. Each item focuses on one historical figure who is of major importance in Hawaiian history or culture but would not be recognized as Hawaiian according to the Akaka bill; or one aspect of the Akaka bill that is contrary to the ideals of unity, equality, and aloha. The webpage offering the audios and videos was launched in February 2009 with 10 audios and 5 accompanying videos. More will be added from time to time. Please visit

February 22, 2009
The Akaka Bill: A Cash Cow for Democrats
by Andrew Walden
Published in The American Thinker magazine

February 24, 2009
Akaka Bill Deja Vu
New Akaka bill, same as the one from 2000, strips away all protections inserted since then
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Reporter online newspaper

March 15, 2009
Open letter to President Obama regarding the Akaka bill (Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill).
This letter appeals to President Obama based on his ideals expressed in his speech in Berlin (tear down the walls that separate people by race and tribe); his racial heritage and the struggle for integration vs. racial separatism; and his background as a professor of Constitutional law.
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Complete letter
Complete letter published in Hawaii Reporter, April 28, 2009
Short letter to editor in The Washington Times, March 15, 2009

April 15, 2009
An Urgent Open Letter to Barack Obama
by Kekuni Blaisdell, Lynette Cruz, George Flores, et. al.
Counterpunch magazine
Also republished April 21, 2009 in both Hawaii Reporter and Honolulu Star-Bulletin

June 11, 2009 (Kamehameha Day)
What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Akaka rip asunder
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Reporter

July 29, 2009
Hawaii's Most Important Civil Rights Issues
Open Letter to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
[Attorney H. William Burgess, a member of the Hawaii Advisory Committee, publishes his letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights describing the most important civil rights issues facing Hawaii. The Akaka bill is high on his list.]
By H. William Burgess
Hawaii Reporter

August 3, 2009
Outlining the Demands for Transfer of Lands and Money to New Hawaiian Government
[a list of demands for transfer of land, money, and jurisdiction to a Native Hawaiian government that was published by OHA in 1993 in relation to the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the monarchy and were included in draft legislation for a Native Hawaiian restoration bill to accompany the apology resolution, and compares that list with the actual list of negotiating topics contained in and empowered by the current Akaka bill]
By Tom Macdonald
Hawaii Reporter

August 3, 2009
Open Letter to US Senate: Please Oppose the Akaka Bill
[opposing Akaka bill on grounds it is racially divisive, would cause uncertainty and instability in the already-depressed business environment, and would encourage the secessionist movement.]
By Robert R. Kessler
Hawaii Reporter

August 18, 2009
Akaka bill clashes with Hawaii ideals
by H. William Burgess and Thomas Macdonald
Honolulu Advertiser

August 24, 2009
Akaka Bill is Racist Legislation, Will Divide People of Hawaii by Race
Open Letter to the US Senate
By Michael K. Bates
Hawaii Reporter

August 24, 2009
Anti-American Rage in Hawaii
Hawaii golden jubilee includes ripping the 50th star off the U.S. flag and burning it. [so why would Congress want to pass the Akaka bill to empower radical anti-Americans?]
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Reporter

August 28, 2009: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights letter to Congressional leaders once again blasting the Akaka bill: calling it unconstitutional, racially divisive, setting a bad precedent, and contrary to the multiracial polity of the Hawaiian Kingdom. On official stationery signed by Commissioners.

September 8, 2009:
Shakedown at the luau
Congress tries to carve up Hawaii
The Washington Times, EDITORIAL

December 15, 2009
Article in Hawaii Reporter summarizes the results
Official report from Zogby includes text of questions and percentages for all responses

December 17, 2009
Aloha, Segregation
The Akaka bill would create a race-based state in Hawaii.

December 18, 2009
HUMAN EVENTS describes all sides in the Akaka bill debate. including the stealth tactics involved in pushing the radical new amended version through Congress
"Only 34 Percent of Hawaiians Support Akaka Bill"

December 20, 2009
Commentary opposing the radical new version of the Akaka bill, published in Honolulu Advertiser.


Hawaii Reporter, January 23, 2009

Akaka Bill Promises to Divide Our Homeland By Race
Open Letter to President Obama

By Jere Krischel

Dear President Obama,

With your inauguration behind us, I would like to share with you one very specific hope (and a corollary fear) I have. Although I did not support your candidacy, throughout the Presidential campaign, I greatly admired your rhetoric on race and race relations.

As the first "hapa" U.S. President, you and I share the experience of struggling with the idea of whether or not we were "half" this or "half" that, or a "whole" something else. I believe the answer we both arrived at is that we are "whole" people. beyond "black" and "white." We are both simply "human."

One of the primary reasons I opposed your candidacy was your support for the Akaka Bill, aka the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. You spoke on the floor before a cloture vote on the Akaka Bill put forth by both Senators Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka, and acting as the "third Hawaiian Senator," you spoke in strong support of their bill.

This, despite the fact the Akaka Bill promises to divide our homeland, the State of Hawaii, into two governments solely on the basis of race. I imagine your support of the Akaka Bill was politically expedient, and I hope it was not based on a thoughtful contemplation of the issue.

I would like for you to imagine for a moment that your mother was Native Hawaiian, and had ancestors in the Hawaiian Islands going back before 1778. Also imagine if your father had never left your mother, and lived with you in Hawaii during your entire time there. Now imagine telling your father he wasn't allowed to vote in an election, but you and your mom could. Imagine telling your father he wasn't allowed to serve in an elected office, but you and your mom could. Imagine telling your father you and your mother had "rights" he was not allowed to have.

This is the exact scenario that promises to play out if the Akaka Bill becomes law. A group of "experts" will decide who is and who is not "Hawaiian" by race, and this group will be asked to institute a government to negotiate rights and resources away from the rest of the public of the State of Hawaii.

The State of Hawaii legislature might resist attempts to take over public lands and put them into the hands of a single race-based government. Then again, the legislature could be co-opted by the unregulated donations available to them from members of this new race-based government, and thus become a willing participant in the reallocation of land and resources based solely on race.

As a fellow hapa haole, born and raised in Hawaii as you were, educated at Punahou as you were, I beg you to turn towards those who are still promoting the Akaka Bill, and with all the grand rhetoric at your disposal, demand they abandon their attempts to divide us as a people based on race. Insist to them that we are "One America," "One People," and we should all live under "One Law."

Make a note of the first constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which nobly declared that all people were "of one blood." Let them know that as a hapa haole, born and raised in Hawaii, you have just as much, if not more, right to claim the Islands as your homeland as some toe-nail native Hawaiian who was born and raised on the Mainland.

Quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech, and demand that we should be judged on the content of our character, not the color of our skin. Move them with your sincere belief we are all human, first and foremost, and that arbitrary racial distinctions do NOT make the man.

I know your first days in office will be tumultuous ones, with the Middle East burning, the economy tanking, and various special interests groups pounding on your door for their pound of flesh.

But if you could please take the time to make a strong stand against racial division as one of the first acts of your office, you could help heal the wounds in the State of Hawaii that have festered for the past 30 years of the race-based experiment called OHA.

You have the background, the charisma, and the credibility to demand that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race. You could change the face of Hawaii politics, and move us away from division and towards conciliation with a single, moving speech.

Please, Mr. Obama, give us the hope you promised.


Jere Krischel is a native Hawaiian who now resides in California. Reach him at

Grassroot Institute member Jere Krischel is a volunteer historian and civil rights activist who has been discussing and studying the Akaka Bill and its historical basis online and in print since 2004. Born and raised in Hawaii, he attended Punahou and later graduated from the University of Southern California. His commitment to the ideals of equality, and the rejection of the use of racial categories to separate out people for disparate treatment is inspired by his diverse heritage and conviction that first and foremost we are all humans, indigenous to this earth. Please visit


Audios and videos opposing the Akaka bill

A series of hard-hitting one-minute audio messages oppose the Akaka bill, accompanied by corresponding YouTube videos and transcripts. Each item focuses on one historical figure who is of major importance in Hawaiian history or culture but would not be recognized as Hawaiian according to the Akaka bill; or one aspect of the Akaka bill that is contrary to the ideals of unity, equality, and aloha. The webpage offering the audios and videos was launched in February 2009 with 10 audios and 5 accompanying videos. More will be added from time to time. Please visit

The American Thinker, February 22, 2009

The Akaka Bill: A Cash Cow for Democrats

By Andrew Walden

Eat your heart out Jack Abramoff. President Obama looks forward to a guaranteed supply of Democrat campaign money which will make the imprisoned Republican fundraiser look like the small time operator he was. And better yet, Obama's multi-billion dollar nationwide scheme to circumvent campaign spending laws comes neatly disguised as a Hawaii-only deal for "reconciliation" and "justice". "Campaign finance" isn't even in the bill's description. It is called the Akaka Bill.

Reintroduced February 4 for the 2009 Congressional session as S381 and HR862, the Akaka Bill creates a process to establish a Native Hawaiian Tribal Government. If it reaches his desk, America's first black president has pledged to sign a bill which is justified in Hawaii as protection of the private multi-billion dollar Kamehameha Schools' right to exclude African-American and other non-Hawaiian students. That pledge launched Obama's climb to the Presidency at a series of meetings with Hawaii Democrats in December, 2004 -- immediately after he won his Illinois Senate seat.

This week, on February 25, the US Supreme Court will be hearing Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Community Dev. Corp. of Hawaii, which will decide whether the Hawaii Supreme Court was correct to rule that a 1993 Congressional Resolution apologizing for the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom gives native Hawaiians a claim on 1.2 million acres of Hawaii real estate known as the ‘ceded lands.' These lands, so named because the US ‘ceded' them back to the State upon admission in 1959, comprise 29% of the State's total land mass and almost all of the land owned by the State of Hawaii.

But this is not the story of a one-state political deal. Hawaiians have never been a tribe. The Hawaiian nationality was created by the Hawaiian Kingdom -- a national state. Based on the Akaka Bill model, symbolic Congressional resolutions such as the 1993 Apology Resolution become the legal basis for the creation of Tribal Governments where no tribe has ever existed. If the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling is upheld, states could find themselves besieged by self-professed "tribes" with grievances, demanding reconciliation in the form of land and money.

All federally-recognized tribes, including the proposed Akaka Tribe, are exempt from campaign spending limits, disclosure requirements, and many other campaign spending laws. The reach of most Indian Tribes is limited by their poverty. But the Akaka Tribe would likely provide a tribal jurisdiction for the $9 billion Kamehameha Schools -- Hawaii's largest private landowner. Billions of dollars worth of Hawaii real estate would likely be transferred to the Akaka tribe from the State of Hawaii's ‘ceded lands'. All of these resources would be under the control of a well-known Hawaii-based political gang which played a key early-money role in advancing both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton to the Presidency.

With Hawaii as the model, the apology machine is already in motion. House Resolution 194 passed July 29, 2008 apologizing for slavery and segregation, in spite of the fact that Americans paid the highest price for the abolition of slavery of any nation -- expending 600,000 lives to defeat the Democrats' Confederacy. The resolution, passed only by the House, "expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow...." Bills introduced in 2004 and 2008 would have apologized to American Indians and "encourage(ed) all State governments similarly to work toward reconciling relationships with Indian tribes." Hawaii Democrat Senators Dan Akaka and Dan Inouye were both co-sponsors of the 2004 proposed Senate Indian Apology. Hawaii Democrat Reps Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono both cosponsored the House Apology for Slavery.

Bill Clinton rewarded Hawaii Democrats' early-money primary campaign support with the 1993 passage of the original "Apology Bill" (PL 103-150). After Clinton was safely reelected, the multi-part PBS documentary Frontline: The Fixers in 1997 exposed the central role played by Clinton's early-money Hawaii Democrat operatives in the Asian money scandals swirling around the Clinton administration.

While public debate on the Akaka Bill focuses on claims of past injustice, Rep Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) explained to the House Natural Resources Committee May 2, 2007: "The bottom line here is that this is a bill about the control of assets. This is about land, this is about money, and this is about who has the administrative authority and responsibility over it."

Hawaii's ‘ceded lands' appeal to the Supreme Court is backed by an Amicus Brief signed by Democrat and Republican Attorneys General of 32 other States. The states' brief underlines the national land grab potential if the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court were upheld. Hawaiian ethnicity is tied to the formation of a national state-the Hawaiian Kingdom-not a tribe. Since the Akaka Bill seeks to create a tribe where none has ever existed, the potential is that Congress could be imposing all manner of legal and financial obligations on the states and on the federal government by passing such symbolic resolutions of apology. The states argue that the Hawaii State Supreme Court decision elevates these types of symbolic resolutions above the Admission Acts of the various states, writing:

"If...through a post-statehood resolution like the Apology Resolution the United States recognized claims that cloud title and eliminate authority to sell lands granted at statehood -- then the legal force of state admission acts becomes doubtful and state sovereignty can be fundamentally undermined. The practical harm to the amici states would be significant, because the states rely on state lands to fund schools, institutions, and vital state programs.... An apology, such as the Apology Resolution, should not be held to undermine the grant of lands that formed a sovereign state of the Union....Congress should not be viewed as wielding power in a manner that would destroy a state."

Barack Obama has indicated his support for further apologies. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported on Obama speaking to hundreds of cheering journalists at the Unity '08 conference in Chicago last July:

The Hawaii-born senator, who has told local reporters that he supports the federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians drafted by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, noted other ethnic groups but did not mention native Hawaiians when answering a question about his thoughts on a formal U.S. apology to American Indians.

"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said. "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

The Amicus brief reflects debate on the Apology Resolution in 1993. Senator Dan Inouye (D-HI) in 1993 claimed the Apology Resolution was "a simple apology" with no further effect. The same lies are being told today regarding the Slavery Apology and the Indian Apology.

But Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) didn't buy the pitch, voting against the Apology Resolution and correctly pointing out: "The logical consequences of this resolution would be independence." In 2005 Sen. Dan Akaka (D-HI) had this exchange with NPR:

Akaka: It creates a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

NPR: Democratic Senator Dan Akaka, himself a native, wants Congress to let Hawaiians re-establish their national identity. He says his bill would give them a kind of legal parity with tribal governments on the mainland, but he says this sovereignty could eventually go further, perhaps even leading to outright independence.

Akaka: That could be. As far as what's going to happen at the other end, I'm leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

In 2005 tough negotiations with the Department of Justice under the Bush administration forced Akaka to insert four changes into his namesake bill. But with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and Obama in the White House, Akaka's 2009 bill is the pre-Bush version. The items reinstated in the text of the Akaka Bill allow creation of a tribal legal jurisdiction, allow the tribe to claim US military bases and other federal assets in Hawaii, allow gaming if agreed by the State, and leave the door open to what Bush's Assistant Attorney General William J. Moschella in 2005 called "a flood of litigation."

US military bases in Hawaii are federal property located almost entirely on lands once owned by the Hawaiian Kingdom and then the Republic which were not ‘ceded' back to the State of Hawaii upon Statehood. In addition to the language of the Akaka Bill, a failure of the US Supreme Court to overturn the Hawaii Supreme Court decision would open up the possibility of the Akaka Tribe claiming ownership of federal military bases. The 1993 Apology Resolution puts Congress in the position of claiming the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was "illegal" and claims "indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands...." (emphasis added) Note the two issues: national sovereignty and ownership of the government lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom-exactly the issues posed by the Akaka Bill and the ‘ceded lands' case.

Did Hawaiians "relinquish their claims"? On January 24, 1895, after hapa-Hawaiian rebel Robert Wilcox failed in the only attempt at forcible restoration of the monarchy, the deposed and then-imprisoned Queen Liliuokalani formally abdicated her throne without any of the conditions contained in her earlier and today highly-publicized 1893 abdication. Signing a document recognizing the sovereignty of the Hawaii Republic, she wrote: "the Government of the Republic of Hawaii is the only lawful Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and that the late Hawaiian monarchy is finally and forever ended, and no longer of any legal or actual validity, force or effect whatsoever...."

In the same document, Queen Liliuokalani renounced: "...all claims or pretensions whatsoever to the late throne of Hawaii, or to the late monarchy of Hawaii...whether the same consist of pecuniary or property considerations, or of personal status, hereby forever renouncing, disowning and disclaiming all rights... save and excepting only such rights and privileges as belong to me in common with all private citizens of, or residents in the Republic of Hawaii." (emphasis added)

After the Republic was annexed to the United States, citizen Liliuokalani Dominis filed the 1909 lawsuit Liliuokalani v. United States, (45 Ct. Cl. 418 (1910)). In it the former Queen claimed personal ownership of the former government lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom and demanded payment for the lands. The Court ruled against her on May 16, 1910 finding that an 1865 Act agreed to by King Kamehameha III had transferred the lands from ownership by Kamehameha III as an individual to ownership by the Hawaiian Kingdom government. This had been done in exchange for the government assuming the Kamehameha III's underlying mortgages.

These facts show that the chain of title of the ‘ceded' lands is completely unbroken and unclouded and that the claims contained within the 1993 Apology Resolution had been adjudicated 83 years earlier by a US court which had been accepted as legitimate by private citizen Liliuokalani Dominis. Queen Liliuokalani's separate personal properties were never seized by the Republic nor by the United States and are preserved today for the benefit of Hawaiian orphans as the 6,362 acre Liliuokalani Trust.

Oral arguments on the ceded lands case are scheduled for February 25, 2009. This modern rework of Liliuokalani v United States stems from a dispute between the State of Hawaii and the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) over a 1990 Waihee administration plan to sell ceded lands for affordable housing projects at Lahaina, Maui and Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. OHA's suit blocking the project was filed in 1995 under another Democrat Governor, Ben Cayetano. The final appeal is being pursued by the Republican Linda Lingle administration. Lack of affordable housing is a primary reason why nearly 10,000 residents left Hawaii in 2007-a rate of exodus proportionally greater than that of communist Cuba. This is but one example of how OHA/Akaka policy directly harms native Hawaiians.

US Solicitor General Edwin S Kneedler, a highly-respected Bush Administration holdover, has joined the State in its appeal and will be presenting oral arguments alongside Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett. Knowing that its defeat is imminent before the Court, OHA-organized demonstrators have demanded that the State abandon its right to access the courts. Failing that, the Hawaii legislature is advancing legislation abandoning its right to sell ceded lands-in violation of its obligations under the 1959 Admission Act. Governor Lingle has indicated she would likely sign the legislation depending on its details. She argues that Hawaiians have a moral claim on the ceded lands, but not a legal one.

If a reservation with its own legal jurisdiction is formed, the few Hawaiians who actually join the Akaka Tribe will be second class citizens lacking the protection of the US Constitution, because the Bill of Rights does not automatically apply on sovereign Indian Reservations. Future "Broken Trust" trustees will not be under the jurisdiction of future State Attorneys General. Not only will they be able to buy politicians nationwide because campaign spending laws do not apply but they will be able to strip the $9 billion Kamehameha Schools trust clean and nobody outside their Akaka Tribe will have legal authority stop them.

This all has a precedent. In 1995 the corrupt "Broken Trust" Kamehameha Schools trustees commissioned ex-Governor Waihee to consider re-location of Kamehameha Schools' legal domicile out of Hawaii in order to shield their illegal activities from State and federal investigators. His choice? The Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation--the most 'sovereign' reservation in the US.

In The Cheating of America Cayetano's Attorney General Margery Bronster explains the corrupt Trustees' motivations: "Their main motivation was to avoid oversight from the state attorney general and the IRS." Senator Akaka's only comment on the years-long scandal? He complained the corrupt Trustees' $1-million-per-year salaries were not high enough. The move to Cheyenne River was never made and the trustees were finally forced to resign in 1999 when the IRS threatened to revoke Kamehameha Schools' tax-exempt status. Six months after the IRS ousted the trustees, the first version of the Akaka Bill was introduced in Congress. Instead of moving to the reservation, they would build a reservation around themselves.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has for years funded a so-called ‘sovereignty movement' comprised largely of convicted criminals who intimidate other native Hawaiians. These OHA goons pretend to oppose the Akaka Bill by creating the illusion of a movement for independence. In reality, their function is to serve as enforcers among Hawaiians now and under the future tribe. Within the tribal electorate set up by the Akaka Bill, the sovereignty activists will demand formation of the most ‘sovereign' type of tribal government--just like the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian reservation.

Kamehameha Schools' ability to serve native Hawaiian children could be not only protected, but expanded with a statewide school voucher system. The schools would then be able to end their discriminatory admission policy without excluding any Hawaiian children. But vouchers are not on the political agenda in a state where the largest and wealthiest single private landowner is a private school. Why? A voucher system cannot exempt the political and economic machinations of Kamehameha Schools trustees from State or Federal legal jurisdiction.

Just as it is in Indian Country, poverty, corruption, and petty dictatorship will be the legacy of the Akaka Tribe and any other Apology Tribe. In that sense the establishment of tribes out of political interest groups is only an extension of the already atrocious conditions created in Democrat-run minority communities such as Barack Obama's South Chicago, Illinois Senate District. Because of the Tribal exemption from campaign finance laws, and the billions of dollars of real estate at question, the apology movement threatens to place American politics under the financial control of the suddenly-wealthy petty-dictatorial political bosses who run such communities. This scam is a dagger pointed at the very heart of the American political system.

From Hell, Saul Alinsky looks up in awe.

RELATED: Akaka Bill Reading List

Andrew Walden edits

Hawaii Reporter, February 24, 2009

Akaka Bill Deja Vu
New Akaka bill, same as the one from 2000, strips away all protections inserted since then

By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

SUMMARY: The Akaka bill is S.381 and H.R.862 in the 111th Congress, 2009-2010. The "new" version is exactly the same as the old version which was nearly enacted in 2000. During that nine year history, numerous changes were made because of objections from the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, the President, and civil rights groups. The changes were to protect the people of America and Hawaii against racial balkanization, permanent jurisdictional disputes, seizure of public and private lands, gambling, and other evils. The stripping away of all such protections in the new bill shows that our politicians will knowingly sacrifice the good of all our people for the (alleged) benefit of some of our people by promoting creation of a racially exclusionary government to carve up Hawaii along racial lines. But even if all the protections were restored, the bill is so unconstitutional and morally repugnant that it must be stopped.

For more information and a detailed essay on this issue, log onto

Dr. Conklin's book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is available at




Here's the portion of S.310 from 2008 that provided strong protection against gambling (at least apparently)

"(1) The Native Hawaiian governing entity and Native Hawaiians may not conduct gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary or the National Indian Gaming Commission. (2) The foregoing prohibition in section 9(a)(1) on the use of Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and inherent authority to game apply regardless of whether gaming by Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian governing entity would be located on land within the State of Hawaii or within any other State or Territory of the United States."

None of that language is contained in the new Akaka bill. Zero. The Akaka tribe will be free to open casinos in other states competing against tribal and private casinos there; and experts say the tribe will probably be able to open casinos in Hawaii even though Hawaii currently does not allow gambling.



S.310 from 2008 included this provision protecting Hawaii's people, now stripped out of the new Akaka bill:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not limited to part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary shall not take land into trust on behalf of individuals or groups claiming to be Native Hawaiian or on behalf of the native Hawaiian governing entity."

None of that language is contained in the new Akaka bill. Zero. There is no protection against having "Indian country" in Hawaii.



Here is the entire text of the only portion of the new Akaka bill dealing with negotiations. It is astoundingly short and weak. "Upon the Federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian government pursuant to section 7(d)(2) of this Act, the United States is authorized to negotiate and enter into an agreement with the State of Hawaii and the Native Hawaiian government regarding the transfer of lands, resources, and assets dedicated to Native Hawaiian use under existing law as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to the Native Hawaiian government."



The non-intercourse law cited below refers to federal legislation from two centuries ago that protected Indian tribes against sharp businessmen by prohibiting tribes from selling or giving away lands without specific Congressional approval, and nullifying any such sales. This law has been used successfully in recent years by tribes who claimed that huge pieces of land were illegally bought from them long ago and must now be given back (including about 1/3 of the entire State of Maine). Could such a thing happen in Hawaii regarding the ceded lands?

S.310 protected the State of Hawaii against such claims by the Akaka tribe. It said: "The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act (25 U.S.C. 177), does not, has never, and will not apply after enactment to lands or lands transfers present, past, or future, in the State of Hawaii. If despite the expression of this intent herein, a court were to construe the Trade and Intercourse Act to apply to lands or land transfers in Hawaii before the date of enactment of this Act, then any transfer of land or natural resources located within the State of Hawaii prior to the date of enactment of this Act, by or on behalf of the Native Hawaiian people, or individual Native Hawaiians, shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act and any other provision of Federal law that specifically applies to transfers of land or natural resources from, by, or on behalf of an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiians, or Native Hawaiian entities."

None of that language is in the new Akaka bill.



The previous Akaka bill in 2008 included this provision: "Nothing in this Act alters the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the United States or the State of Hawaii over lands and persons within the State of Hawaii. The status quo of Federal and State jurisdiction can change only as a result of further legislation, if any, enacted after the conclusion, in relevant part, of the negotiation process established in section 8(b)."

Additional protections in old versions of the Akaka bill, now also stripped away:

"Any governmental authority or power to be exercised by the Native Hawaiian governing entity which is currently exercised by the State or Federal Governments shall be exercised by the Native Hawaiian governing entity only as agreed to in negotiations pursuant to section 8(b)(1) of this Act and beginning on the date on which legislation to implement such agreement has been enacted by the United States Congress, when applicable, and by the State of Hawaii, when applicable. This includes any required modifications to the Hawaii State Constitution in accordance with the Hawaii Revised Statutes."

None of that language is contained in the new Akaka bill. Zero.

S.310 in 2008 said: "Nothing in this Act-- (A) creates a cause of action against the United States or any other entity or person; (B) alters existing law, including existing case law, regarding obligations on the part of the United States or the State of Hawaii with regard to Native Hawaiians or any Native Hawaiian entity; (C) creates obligations that did not exist in any source of Federal law prior to the date of enactment of this Act; or (D) establishes authority for the recognition of Native Hawaiian groups other than the single Native Hawaiian Governing Entity."

That's important because without it the Akaka tribe, under federal Indian policy, can claim all sorts of special rights and privileges which only Congress could stop but which federal administrative agencies and the State of Hawaii will be powerless to stop.



According to the new Akaka bill, the tribal Constitution is required to specify "The proposed civil rights and protection of such rights of the citizens of a Native Hawaiian government and all persons subject to the authority of a Native Hawaiian government."

Note that the second half of that sentence envisions that there will be "persons subject to the authority of a Native Hawaiian government" who are not citizens of that government.

In other words, it is envisioned that members of the tribe will make laws governing all ethnic Hawaiians including those who choose not to join the tribe, and perhaps even governing people with no Hawaiian blood who live in or travel through any of the hundreds of parcels of Akaka tribal lands scattered throughout all neighborhoods and islands.



The Akaka bill previously had extremely lengthy protections in this area; now all such protections have been removed. See the webpage for details.



On April 7, 2004 Senator Akaka introduced major amendments to the Akaka bill, then known as S.344. Section 8(c)(2) provided a time limit of 20 years after enactment of the bill for any claims to be filed regarding things that happened at any time before enactment of the bill. Thus all claims related to the revolution of 1893, annexation of 1898, ceded lands, etc. would need to be filed by the tribe in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu within that time limit.

There is no time limit in the new Akaka bill.

Many Hawaiian activists expressed outrage that there should be any time limit at all, prompting OHA Administrator Clyde Namu'o to issue a statement saying "this 20-year statute of limitation is considered by experts in the field of Indian Law to be extremely generous. In other federal recognition legislation, the statute of limitations has ranged from one year to six years." The new Akaka bill in 2009 has no time limit whatsoever, thereby allowing the Akaka tribe to keep coming back for more "reparations" forever.

This ensures permanent racial strife and the constant drumbeat of "Gimme gimme gimme" which we have all seen in recent years.



Many versions of the Akaka bill over the years have included this sentence, now stripped away: "Nothing contained in this Act provides an authorization for eligibility to participate in any programs and services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for any persons not otherwise eligible for the programs or services." See information later, providing Census data showing the Akaka tribe would be by far the largest in America, and thus would hog the resources that should go to the real tribes.



One provision re-inserted into the new Akaka bill that has been missing from most versions since 2001 is the second clause of Section 10: "Nothing in this Act is intended ... to affect the rights of the Native Hawaiian people under international law."

There are at least two very dangerous consequences of enacting this provision.

(1) It encourages Hawaiian independence activists to pursue secession of Hawaii under the auspices of the United Nations or the World Court. Hawaiian activists have repeatedly and vigorously approached both of those institutions.

(2) It would seem to import into U.S. jurisprudence the recently passed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by placing Congress on record as adopting that Declaration and authorizing its applicability to ethnic Hawaiians. The United States explicitly refused to sign the U.N. Declaration because of its potential for balkanization and secession, but this provision of the Akaka bill could serve as a subterfuge to commit the U.S. to that Declaration and to apply it to all the Indian tribes under a theory that the 14th Amendment requires that all federally recognized Indian tribes should be treated equally under the law.




1. The Akaka bill is based on a BRAND NEW THEORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, claiming that Congress has the power to single out any racial or "indigenous" group and give it a racially exclusionary tribal government, regardless whether that group ever previously existed as a political entity.

There never was a unified nation of Hawaii that included all the islands and had only ethnic Hawaiians as members and high-ranking leaders. Beginning with Englishman John Young who was Governor of Hawaii Island under Kamehameha The Great, Caucasians had voting rights, comprised most cabinet ministers throughout the Kingdom, nearly all department heads and judges, and sometimes 1/4 to 1/3 of the Legislature.

The percentage of Hawaii's native-born or naturalized subjects (citizens) of the Hawaiian Kingdom who were Caucasian was higher than the percentage of Americans today who are black. At some future date, would it be proper to re-create the "ancient" nation of the United States but allowing only Caucasians to be citizens?

If this theory of the Constitution is enacted and withstands court challenge, then other groups will make similar demands. First would be all persons of Mexican ancestry living in the U.S. in those states that were formerly part of Mexico -- they can all claim to have a drop of Mayan or Aztec blood, and thus they are "indigenous" people whose lands were engulfed by the U.S. without their consent and without compensation (exactly what the apology resolution says happened to ethnic Hawaiians). Once the Nation of Aztlan gets established and carves out huge pieces of America, then what about a Nation of Amish, a Nation of Cajun, and even a Nation of New Africa? All people with a drop of Hawaiian native blood, no matter where they live in the world, would be eligible to join the Akaka tribe and move to Hawaii. By analogy, all Mexicans with a drop of Mayan or Aztec blood, including those now living in Mexico, would be eligible to join the Nation of Aztlan and move to its hundreds of millions of acres of tribal land in the American Southwest.


2. The Akaka tribe would be THE LARGEST TRIBE IN AMERICA. In Census 2000 there were more than 401,000 people who checked the box as having Hawaiian ancestry. By contrast, in 2005-2007 Census ACS, the three largest tribal groups are Cherokee tribal grouping (including several different tribes) at 298,510, Navajo tribal grouping 288,682, Chippewa tribal grouping 108,880. In the Bureau of Indian Affairs the phony Akaka tribe will be the elephant in the room, grabbing federal money that formerly went to the real tribes. Local branches of the Akaka tribe would be formed in every state and might buy land, put it into federal trust, operate tax exempt businesses, and build casinos competing against local gambling operations. California's 65,000 ethnic Hawaiians would probably be that state's largest Indian tribe.



No other state has 20% of its population who are racially Indian, let alone 20% eligible to join a single tribe.

According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey for the most recent 3-year period (2005-2007), 13.1% of all the people of America are at least partly African-American.

Would it be good for America, and for African-Americans, to create for them a government empowered to negotiate for land and jurisdictional authority; and to have them voting both for tribal leaders and also for the political leaders of the national and state governments they will be negotiating with?

Would it be helpful to harmonious race relations to have 40 million African-Americans belonging to a single "tribe" demanding money, land, and different laws for themselves to live by?

The impact the Akaka tribe would have on Hawaii is 50% more devastating and divisive than the impact on America of creating an African-American tribe, because the percentage of Hawaii's people who are ethnic Hawaiian is 50% larger than the percentage the U.S. population who are African-Americans, all according to the same one-drop rule that defines who is "Native Hawaiian" in the Akaka bill.



When an Indian tribe has only a small percentage of a state's population and has its tribal lands in one or two remote areas, it does not impose much jurisdictional conflict on the rest of the state. However, in Hawaii the tribal membership could be 20% of the state's entire population and the tribal lands (including ceded lands and Kamehameha lands) would comprise perhaps half of all the state's land distributed in hundreds of widely scattered enclaves, some of which would be in densely populated urban areas. The state's tax base would be drastically reduced, and there would be horrendous jurisdictional disputes over taxation, zoning, civil and criminal law, etc. There are reasons why nearly all people eligible to join the Akaka tribe would be likely to do so (see below).


5. There is NO QUORUM REQUIRED for ethnic Hawaiians to establish the Akaka tribe or ratify its governing document. Those ethnic Hawaiians who choose to enroll in the tribe can then participate in choosing their leaders, writing a governing document, and ratifying it. Those who reject the idea are simply left out of membership even though the tribal government might have legal jurisdiction over them and will certainly appear to speak on their behalf in the eyes of everyone else.

After 5 years and millions of dollars in advertising and nationwide outreach, fewer than 25% of those eligible have signed up for the "Kau Inoa" racial registry. It appears 75% of ethnic Hawaiians are "voting with their feet" to reject the whole process.



The Akaka tribe is not required to make its decisions by democratic processes required by law for federal and state governments. The tribal "organic governing document" (i.e., Constitution) must be "adopted by a majority vote of the adult members listed on the roll."

However, there is no requirement for that vote to be conducted by secret ballot. Many leaders of the ethnic Hawaiian community have claimed that it is culturally appropriate for ethnic Hawaiians to make decisions by "consensus" (i.e., informal agreement in a group setting where everyone feels intimidated to go along with the leaders). Several of those leaders have actually conducted decision-making sessions known as "puwalu" where all interested Hawaiians are invited to attend a mass meeting in a huge tent in a public park.

And of course the decision whether to create an Akaka tribe is not being made democratically. The 25% of ethnic Hawaiians who have joined Kau Inoa will decide on behalf of the 75% of ethnic Hawaiians who refuse to join. The people of Hawaii are not being allowed to vote on whether to carve up our people and resources along racial lines.



Let's remember that Senators Akaka and Inouye have spent decades serving on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs where they became experts on tribal recognition bills and the technical and legal issues involved. When writing the Akaka bill they clearly knew the effect of including, or not including, important phrases and protections in the bill. The fact that Inouye and Akaka initially chose not to include any of these protections, later reluctantly put them in under pressure, and have now stripped them out, clearly shows that they don't care at all about protecting us. Akaka and Inouye are arrogantly hell-bent on creating a racially exclusionary government to carve up our lands, resources, and people, regardless of the damage they clearly know they are inflicting on us.

The same can be said about Governor Linda Lingle and her personally appointed Attorney General Mark Bennett.

Lingle has pushed the Akaka bill for 6 years and will probably continue, because of her belief that self-determination or sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians is somehow comparable to the struggles of Jewish people to create a nation of Israel (Lingle is Jewish and has been a very active member of Hadassah. Immediately after her election as Governor, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz called her "Hawaii's Jewish Queen" partly because she was Hawaii's first female head of government since Queen Liliuokalani).

Governor Lingle has probably used that concept to sell the Akaka bill to the substantial number of Senators who are Jewish. But the "moral equivalence" of Jewish self-determination and ethnic Hawaiian self-determination has been analyzed and found not valid. See


March 15, 2009
Open letter to President Obama regarding the Akaka bill (Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill).
This letter appeals to President Obama based on his ideals expressed in his speech in Berlin (tear down the walls that separate people by race and tribe); his racial heritage and the struggle for integration vs. racial separatism; and his background as a professor of Constitutional law.
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Complete letter
Short letter to editor in The Washington Times, March 15, 2009

The Washington Times, Sunday, March 15, 2009

Supporting racial separatism?

Would it be good to round up all 40 million African-Americans, defined by the one-drop rule, and declare that they are a tribe with the power to create a racially exclusionary government and negotiate for money, land and legal jurisdiction? Would that be consistent with the dream of Martin Luther King? Or does it sound more like a nightmare?

There is a bill in Congress whose racial divisiveness would be 50 percent worse for Hawaii than creation of an African-American tribe would be for all of America: the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, S.381 and H.R.862. The percentage of Hawaii's people who are ethnic Hawaiian (20 percent) is 50 percent larger than the percentage of the U.S. population who are African-American (13 percent), all according to the same one-drop rule used in the Hawaiian bill.

President Obama said during his campaign that he supports the Hawaiian bill. For details about what's wrong with the bill, please see an open letter to President Obama asking him to oppose it, at

Kane'ohe, Hawaii


** Full-length letter on website:
Complete letter published in Hawaii Reporter, April 28, 2009

President Barack Obama

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

Aloha Mr. President, from Hawai'i, the place of your birth.

You have said you want to hear all opinions and you are willing to change your mind based on ideas newly brought to your attention.

I'm writing to ask you to oppose the Akaka bill: the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, S.381 and H.R.862 in the 111th Congress.

There are many reasons why anybody should oppose it. But in this message I'm appealing to you based on three things that uniquely define who is Barack Obama: ideals you have publicly espoused; your personal and racial background; and your expertise from being a professor of Constitutional law.


In your Berlin speech in July 2008 you gave a ringing endorsement of the ideal of inter-racial unity, making clear that divisiveness and tribalsim must come to an end. Here's what you said in the shadow of the Berlin wall: "... the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. ... The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. ... Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid."

The whole purpose of the Akaka bill is to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines. To declare that the descendants of natives should be a hereditary elite with a racially exclusionary government walling out all who lack a drop of the magic blood.

Why should such an abomination be inflicted on us in the very place where King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III proclaimed racial unity and equality as law? In the first sentence of the first Constitution (1840) of the multiracial Kingdom of Hawaii, the King wrote: "God hath made of one blood all races of people to dwell on this Earth in unity and blessedness." Why should we now erect a wall of racial separatism in the land of aloha? Please, Mr. President, help bring us together instead of ripping us apart.


Sir, I'm going to accept the challenge recently posed by your Attorney General, Eric Holder, to speak openly and honestly about race.

You have a deep personal understanding of the quest for racial identity because of your own black/white heritage You know 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 your extensive work as a community organizer you saw how 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. During your campaign for the Presidency the whole nation saw your heart-rending decision to reject the outrageously divisive black liberation theology in the rhetoric of the pastor whose church you had belonged to for 20 years.


Sir, the same struggles go on within the ethnic Hawaiian community. The Akaka bill would empower the demagogues and racial separatists. The Akaka bill is 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 five years and untold millions of dollars in advertising, 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 the bill 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.


Mr. President, please bear with me while I ask a very strange question about race, and then explain its relevance.

Would it be good to round up all 40 million African-Americans, defined by the one-drop rule, and declare that they are a tribe with the power to create a racially exclusionary government and negotiate for money, land, and legal jurisdiction? Would that be good for America? Would it be good for African-Americans? Would it be consistent with the dream of Martin Luther King? Or does it sound more like a nightmare?

The racial divisiveness of the Akaka bill would be 50% more devastating for Hawaii than the creation of the African-American tribe would be for all of America. Here's why. According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey for the most recent 3-year period (2005-2007), 13.1% of all the people of America are at least partly African-American. And about 20% of the people of Hawaii are at least partly native Hawaiian. Thus the impact the Akaka tribe would have on Hawaii is 50% more devastating and divisive than the impact on America of creating an African-American tribe, because the percentage of Hawaii's people who are ethnic Hawaiian is 50% larger than the percentage of the U.S. population who are African-Americans, all according to the same one-drop rule used in the Akaka bill.


The Akaka tribe would be the largest tribe in America. In Census 2000 there were more than 401,000 people who checked the box as having Hawaiian ancestry (Current estimates are much larger, but the Census Bureau groups ethnic Hawaiians with other Pacific islanders making it hard to separate them). By contrast, in 2005-2007 Census ACS, the three largest tribal groups are Cherokee tribal grouping (including several different tribes) at 298,510, Navajo tribal grouping 288,682, Chippewa tribal grouping 108,880. In the Bureau of Indian Affairs the phony Akaka tribe will be the elephant in the room, grabbing federal money that formerly went to the real tribes. That same "elephant" issue is also true for some of the states. According to Census 2000, more than 60,000 ethnic Hawaiians lived in California (recent estimates say 65,000). The Akaka tribe would probably be the largest tribe in California! An additional 100,000 were living in the other 48 states outside Hawaii. Local branches of the Akaka tribe would be formed in every state and might buy land, put it into federal trust, operate tax exempt businesses, and build casinos competing against gambling operations owned by states, local governments, private corporations, and Indian tribes.


There never was a unified nation of Hawaii that included all the islands and had only ethnic Hawaiians as members and high-ranking leaders.

At the beginning John Young, Englishman, was a leader in the forces of the conqueror Kamehameha The Great. He was appointed Governor of Kamehameha's home island, his son was second in rank to Kamehameha II, his granddaughter was Queen Emma, and he is buried with the kings in the Royal Mausoleum where his tomb is guarded by a pair of sacred taboo sticks. Caucasians and Asians were subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom when they were either native-born or naturalized.

Throughout the Kingdom's history most cabinet ministers, most judges, nearly all department heads, and sometimes 1/4 to 1/3 of the legislators were Caucasian. The majority of the population at the end of the Kingdom were Asians working on the sugar plantations or as owners of small businesses. Ethnic Hawaiians today are fully integrated and widely dispersed throughout the entire population in all neighborhoods. They are not separate and distinct from non-natives. Most of them have low native blood quantum. 40% of them live outside Hawaii.

Why then would you support a bill which claims to "reorganize" a racially exclusionary native government in a place that never had one? Why build a wall of racial separatism when you said in Berlin that your ideal is to tear down such walls?


Mr. President, you have a strong academic background in Constitutional law, and were a professor of that subject for several years at the University of Chicago. The Akaka bill is unconstitutional.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to recognize Indian tribes that already exist, but not to create new ones out of thin air. The Akaka bill is based on a whole new theory of the Constitution, that would say Congress has the power to single out any group of so-called "indigenous" people and create a racially exclusionary government for them, empowering that government to negotiate with state and federal governments for money, land, and jurisdictional authority. An "indigenous" person under the Akaka bill is defined as anyone with at least one drop of native blood from an ancestor who lived in Hawaii before Captain Cook came in 1778.

If such a theory were adopted, then all people of Mexican ancestry (who have a drop of indigenous Aztec or Mayan blood) would be eligible to create a Nation of Aztlan and demand jurisdiction over most of the lands of several Southwestern states that formerly belonged to Mexico. Just as the Akaka bill allows anyone with a drop of native Hawaiian blood, anywhere in the world, to join the tribe and come to Hawaii, so the theory of the bill would allow anyone with Mexican ancestry, living anywhere in the world, to join the Nation of Aztlan and come to America.

Supporters of the Akaka bill point out that tribes are defined by race. But they are also defined by their political history as separate and distinct groups living apart from surrounding populations and having a government that exercised substantial authority over them continuously from before Western contact right up to now. In the Akaka bill the ONLY requirement for membership is race.

Supporters of the Akaka bill say ethnic Hawaiians deserve the same federal recognition given to Native Americans and Native Alaskans. But if the racial theory of the Akaka bill were followed on the mainland and in Alaska, then all Native Americans would be grouped together as one single tribe because they all have the same race; and the same is true for all Native Alaskans.

The Constitution does not give Congress the power to turn a racial group into a tribe. It only gives Congress the power to recognize tribes that already exist as separate and distinct political groups. Supporters of the Akaka bill say the Supreme Court's decision in Lara gave Congress the power to create a tribe. But that's not true. It only gave the government the right to re-recognize a tribe that had been previously recognized and then decertified; but not to create a new tribe where none had existed before.


Mr. President, I have taken a lot of your time. But if this message prevents you from making a terrible mistake, it's been worthwhile. Thank you for thinking about this issue. Please let the word go out that you oppose the Akaka bill, and will veto it if it dares to soil your desk with its racism. If you or your advisors have more time to study the Akaka bill, please consider the following.


Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights -- Report Opposing the Akaka bill

Akaka bill hearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, in Washington D.C., on Tuesday July 19, 2005

What Does the United States Owe to Native Hawaiians? Two reports commissioned by Congress contain the answers, which are directly applicable to the Akaka bill. The Morgan Report (U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, 1894, 808 pages) concluded the U.S. did not conspire with the revolutionists to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy, and did not help them while it was underway. The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was delivered to Senate and House committees in 1983, and concluded there is no historical, legal, or moral obligation for the United States to provide race-based benefits, group rights, or political sovereignty to ethnic Hawaiians.

Bruce Fein, "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand"
Bruce Fein is a nationally known attorney specializing in Constitutional law. He publicly called for the impeachment of President Bush for violating the Constitution on matters related to the war in Iraq, separation of powers, Guantanamo detainees, and warrantless searches of private communications. This monograph includes an extensive point-by-point rebuttal of the 1993 apology resolution which the Akaka bill repeatedly cites as its primary justification.

A series of hard-hitting one-minute audio messages oppose the Akaka bill, accompanied by corresponding YouTube videos and transcripts. Each item focuses on one historical figure who is of major importance in Hawaiian history or culture but would not be recognized as Hawaiian according to the Akaka bill; or one aspect of the Akaka bill that is contrary to the ideals of unity, equality, and aloha.

Major Articles Opposing the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill), 2000-2009 -- index.

The Akaka Bill And Secession: The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) is seen by its supporters as a step toward total independence for all of Hawai'i

Counterpunch, April 15, 2009
Hawaii Reporter, April 21, 2009
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 21, 2009

An Urgent Open Letter to Barack Obama

Why the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act Must be Rejected


Mr. President:

We, the undersigned Kanaka Maoli (indigenous Hawaiians) kupuna (elders), kumu (educators), and representatives address this letter to you on behalf of our people and nation, as well as of other Hawaiian Kingdom heirs. At our invitation, a number of our kako‘o (supporters) have also added their names to this letter.

Our primary purpose for contacting you, Mr. President, is to solemnly inform you of our categorical opposition to the proposed legislation now before the U.S. Senate and House that is entitled The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which is commonly referred to as the “Akaka Bill.” This legislation, first introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2000—and now confusingly existing in four versions (S. 381; S. 708; H.R. 862; H.R. 1711)—proposes that the U.S. Government recognize a “Native Hawaiian Government” that is to be certified by the U.S. Department of the Interior in conformity with U.S. federal law and practice regarding Native American tribal nations.

We reject this Akaka Bill for weighty reasons. To begin with, the historical harm the United States first committed in Hawai’i in 1893 brought down, not a “Native Hawaiian Government”, but the independent Hawaiian Kingdom composed of Kanaka Maoli as well as non-Kanaka Maoli subjects. Consequently, the Kanaka Maoli people and other Hawaiian Kingdom heirs have, since that time, accumulated fundamental political and other claims against the United States under international law that the United States must recognize rather than hope to dispel via the enactment of this Bill. Indeed, in our view, the passage of this Bill would constitute nothing less than a second illegal denial of our Kanaka Maoli people’s right to self-determination and the Kingdom heirs’ right to sovereignty. The first outrage, we note, has already been formally admitted by the U.S. Congress in its Apology Resolution of 1993 which, furthermore, pledged to right that original wrong. Not only does the Akaka Bill not follow through on that pledge, it in fact attempts to sabotage the rightful return of our people to our status prior to 1893-98 by imposing on us a colonial U.S. “wardship” that is anchored in the U.S. judicial doctrine of the plenary power of Congress over Native American nations.

Moreover, we submit that, presuming on the good faith of your Administration, Hawai‘i’s Congressional delegation is now trying to ram through the Akaka Bill in the U.S. Congress before the latter can inform itself fully of the vehement and ever-growing opposition to the Bill in Hawai‘i among Kanaka Maoli, other Kingdom heirs, as well as kako‘o. We use the term “ram through” advisedly because, among other things, the delegation has held but ONE 5-day hearing, back in 2000, on the Bill since its inception, and only on the single island of O‘ahu. Moreover, while the video record of that lone hearing shows overwhelming opposition to the Bill, the delegation disingenuously reported the opposite to Congress.

In 1993, our Hawai‘i International People’s Tribunal—composed of world human rights leaders, including three eminent U.S. law professors—heard evidence on our main islands and found the following U.S. actions to be violations of international law: its intervention in the 1893 overthrow of our independent government; its 1898 annexation and military occupation of our homeland; its conduct of the fraudulent 1959 Hawai‘i statehood vote; and its ongoing seizure of our national lands with resulting ethnocidal effect on our people. These findings have been widely disseminated and embraced in our homeland.

That same year, the 1993 U.S. Apology Resolution (103d Congress Joint Resolution 19, P.L. 103-150, November 28, 1993) was signed by President William Clinton. The Apology acknowledges the role of U.S. Minister John Stevens and of the U.S. military in the overthrow of our Queen Lili‘uokalani in 1893 in direct contravention of bilateral treaties then binding on the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Resolution further recognizes that “the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.” Moreover, it pledges the United States to acknowledge the ramifications of the 1893 overthrow so as to identify a basis for reconciliation between the U.S. government and the Kanaka Maoli people. Shamefully, the Akaka Bill moves in a direction opposite to that pledge.

The Bill arrogantly attempts to unilaterally characterize the historical transgressions of the United States against our people and kingdom, and to unilaterally specify their remedy. We insist otherwise. U.S. crimes against our Kanaka Maoli people and other Kingdom heirs from 1893 on require, for their redress, that a mechanism composed of U.S. agents and wholly independent representatives of Kanaka Maoli and Kingdom heirs be bilaterally set up by your Administration and us to make findings of fact and conclusions of international law that could serve as a road-map for the resolution of the political and legal issues now outstanding between our two parties.

We look forward to working as soon as possible with your Administration on such a mechanism. In the meantime, we respectfully request that, as head of the U.S. Democratic Party, you ask its Congressional leaders as well as Hawai‘i’s Congressional delegation to immediately withdraw the Akaka Bill from consideration. In the highly unfortunate event that they should not do so, and the Akaka Bill passes, we urge you — in the interest of future good relations between the United States and the Hawaiian nation, and also of sparing your Administration the embarrassment of having to execute a Bill that our people will roundly reject — to veto the Bill.

Me ka mana‘olana no ka huli me ka pono (With hope for change with justice),

Kekuni Blaisdell, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Medicine, Consultant, Department of Native Hawaiian Health, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai‘i; Convenor, Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike; Hawaiian Independence Alliance, Honolulu

Lynette Hi‘ilani Cruz, Ph.D., Kupuna of O‘ahu, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Hawai‘i Pacific University; President, Ka Lei Maile Ali‘i Hawaiian Civic Club; Hawaiian Independence Alliance, Honolulu

George Kahumoku Flores, Kupuna of O‘ahu; Hawaiian Independence Alliance, D.M.Z., Honolulu

Kukauakahi (Clarence Ku Ching) J.D., Huaka‘i i na ‘Aina Mauna, OHA trustee '86 - '90

Puhipau, Kupuna of Na‘alehu, Hawai‘i; Na Maka o ka ‘Aina (Film Production)

Pua Nani Rogers, Kupuna o Kaua‘i, Ahupua‘a o Kealia, Member of Na Kupuna o Manokalanipo, Founder of the Ho‘okipa Network, Kapa‘a, Kaua‘i

Maivan Clech Lam, M.A., M.Ph., , J.D., L.L.M., Professor of International Law (ret.), City University of New York Graduate Center, New York

J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D., Associate Professor of American Studies and Anthropology, Center for the Americas, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut

Jonathan Kamakawiwo‘ole Osorio, Ph.D., Professor, School of Hawaiian Knowledge, University of Hawai‘i Manoa, Honolulu

Terrilee Napua Kekoolani, Founder of ‘Ohana Koa, Hawai‘i. Chapter of Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific, Honolulu

Ikaika Hussey, Founder of MANA (The Movement for Aloha No Ka ‘Aina), Honolulu

Kyle Kajihiro, Program Director, American Friends Service Committee Hawai‘i Program (for title identification only), Honolulu

Donna Hewahewa Holt Burns, Artist, Hawaiian Independence Alliance, Honolulu

Noelani Goodyear-Ka‘opua, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Hawai‘i Manoa, Honolulu

Eiko Kosasa, Ph.D., Lecturer, Social Sciences Division, Leeward Community College, Pearl City; Hawaiian Independence Alliance, Honolulu

Dean Saranillio, Doctoral Candidate, Program in American Culture, University of Michigan; Hawaiian Independence Alliance, Honolulu

Al Kuahi Wong, Kupuna; Hui Anuenue of New England; Director, Koani Foundation, Anahola, Kaua‘i

Kai‘opua Fyfe, Kupuna, Delegate to Native Hawaiian Convention from Lihu‘e, Kaua‘i; Director, Koani Foundation; Intervenor, UN Human Rights Council, Treaty Bodies, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; Charter Appointee to Native Hawaiian and Kaua‘i Island Education Councils, Anahola, Kaua‘i

David Ingham, Director, Koani Foundation, Anahola, Kaua‘i

‘Ehu Kekahu Cardwell, Director, Koani Foundation, Anahola, Kaua‘i

Kunani Nihipali, Ekolu Wale No

E. A. Ho‘oipo K. Pa, Esq., Ekolu Wale No

Hans Peter Jensen, III, Maoli Media

Hanale Delovio, Hui Anuenue of New England

Hawaii Reporter, June 12, 2009
Website June 11, 2009 (Kamehameha Day)

What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Akaka rip asunder

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

June 11 is Kamehameha Day -- an official holiday of the State of Hawaii. On the weekend there will be parades featuring men, women, horses, and vehicles, all adorned with fresh flower leis. The Royal Hawaiian Band will play, hulas will be performed on decorated flatbed trucks rolling down the street; and people will enjoy poi, sushi, manapua, malasadas, shave ice, and all the foods of Hawaii's beautiful rainbow of races and cultures.

The greatest accomplishment of King Kamehameha The Great was to unify all the Hawaiian islands under a single government in 1810, putting an end to centuries of warfare and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of native Hawaiian men, women and children.

But now once again we are threatened with the Akaka bill in Congress, whose primary purpose is to rip us apart along racial lines. It would authorize creation of a racially exclusionary government empowered to negotiate with federal, state and local governments for money, land, and legal jurisdiction. It would spawn new wars in courtrooms throughout America, and especially in Hawaii, as lawyers get rich fighting over all the elements of sovereignty including land ownership, voting rights, labor laws, zoning regulations, child custody when one parent has Hawaiian blood and the other does not; etc. There's no simple way to divide Hawaii's lands racially, because ethnic Hawaiians are thoroughly intermarried and assimilated throughout all neighborhoods. In Hawaii there are rich neighborhoods and poor ones, professionals and laborers; but always there are "Hawaiians" and "non-Hawaiians" working, playing, and praying side by side. Separate governments by race in Hawaii would create great injustice and social upheaval, reminiscent of the splitting apart of India to create Pakistan and the subsequent exchange of populations, land, and houses. Today's relations between India and Pakistan might characterize how things would turn out in Hawaii.

The Kingdom founded by Kamehameha was multiracial in all aspects. The reason he succeeded when all previous warrior chiefs for 1500 years had failed, was because he used British-supplied ships, guns, and cannons; together with the expertise of English sailors John Young and Isaac Davis. A grateful Kamehameha gave Young and Davis chiefly rank. He appointed Davis as Governor of O'ahu. More importantly, Kamehameha appointed John Young (Hawaiian name Olohana) as Governor of Kamehameha's home island (Hawaii Island), gave him land and a house immediately next to the great Pu'ukohola Heiau, gave him a daughter to be his wife, and gave him a seat next to himself in the ruling council of chiefs. John Young II (Hawaiian name Keoni Ana) was Kuhina Nui under Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III -- the second-highest office in the nation. Every law was required to be signed by both the King and the Kuhina Nui, who in effect had veto power over the King. The granddaughter of John Young was Queen Emma, wife of Alexander Liholiho Kamehameha IV, and founder of Queen's Hospital and St. Andrews Cathedral.

John Young was so important to the founding of the Kingdom that his tomb is in Mauna Ala (the Royal Mausoleum on Nu'uanu Ave.), where it is the only tomb built to resemble a heiau, and is guarded by a pair of pulo'ulo'u (sacred taboo sticks). Yet the Akaka bill would deny John Young membership in the Akaka tribe.

For short videos and audios about John Young, Father Damien (soon to be Saint Damien), navigator Mau Piailug, and other Hawaiian cultural heroes who lack Hawaiian blood and would be excluded under the Akaka bill, see

The first Constitution of Hawaii was proclaimed by an all-powerful King in 1840 and bears two signatures: Kamehameha Rex (Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III) and Keoni Ana (John Young Jr.).

The first sentence of that first Constitution, known to historians as the kokokahi sentence, was written on advice of American missionary William Richards. It is perhaps the most beautiful expression of unity and equality ever spoken or written: "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." For further information see "The Aloha Spirit -- what it is, who possess it, and why it is important" at

The Akaka bill would do exactly the opposite of the one-blood concept, ripping us apart for no reason other than race, establishing a binary opposition of "us vs. them," dividing Hawaiian children from non-Hawaiian parents, spawning jealousies between members of the Akaka tribe and their cousins who are not allowed to belong. This is not aloha.

Instead of one Hawaii there would be two. A government composed exclusively of ethnic Hawaiians would constantly demand more and more money, land, and special rights to be taken away from the ever-diminishing government representing all Hawaii's people. Ethnic Hawaiians would vote for State Senators and Representatives at the same time they are voting for tribal leaders who will sit across the bargaining table from them. This dual voting is far more serious in Hawaii than in any other state, because ethnic Hawaiians comprise 20% of the State's population, and politicians generally kow-tow to them out of fear of racial bloc voting. For example, Clayton Hee was head of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for many years, and now sits as head of the state Senate committee that handles Hawaiian affairs. His thumb will weigh heavy on the scale when he decides how much of the State of Hawaii should be given to the Akaka tribe. 22 out of 51 members of the House belong to the "Hawaiian" caucus.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was founded by people of different races working together on the battlefield and in the government. That cooperation continued throughout the Kingdom's history. Every person born in the Kingdom, regardless of race, was thereby a subject of the Kingdom with all the same rights as ethnic Hawaiians. Immigrants could become naturalized subjects of the Kingdom, with full rights; and many Asians and Caucasians did so. From 1850 to 1893, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the members of the Legislature at various times were Caucasians appointed by the King to the House of Nobles and also elected to the House of Representatives (and later elected to the House of Nobles after a Constitutional change). Nearly all government department heads and judges were Caucasian. At the time the monarchy was overthrown in 1893 only 40% of Hawaii's people had a drop of Hawaiian native blood; and by the time of the first U.S. Census (1900) after Annexation, only 26% were full or part Hawaiian. The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) proposes a government of, by, and for ethnic Hawaiians alone. There has never been a unified government for all the Hawaiian islands that included only ethnic Hawaiians, either among the leaders or among the people.

The Reform Constitution of 1887 (bayonet Constitution) had the primary purpose of fighting corruption by severely limiting the power of the King. It was actually a revolution, since a mob of 1500 armed men gave the King the choice of signing the Constitution or being ousted. One part of that Constitution denied voting rights to Asians. It was the first time in the history of Hawaii that voting rights were denied on the basis of race. But that evil in 1887 was embraced by Kalakaua and the natives just as much as it was embraced by the Caucasians, because both groups saw the rapidly rising Asian population as a threat to their joint hegemony. The number of Asian immigrants who gave up citizenship in the land of their birth to become naturalized subjects of the Kingdom was small. But Asians were rapidly becoming the majority race. All their babies born on Hawaiian soil were automatically subjects of the Kingdom and would become eligible to vote 20 years later unless something was done. That's why Kalakaua never protested the disenfranchisement of Asians, and signed the new Constitution to hang onto his crown at their expense. Today we once again have Hawaiian sovereignty activists telling Asians that they are merely settlers in an ethnic Hawaiian plantation even if their families have been here for seven generations. The activists demand that Asians know their place, which is to be subservient to anyone with a drop of Hawaiian blood; and to help ethnic Hawaiians overthrow the yoke of American occupation and oppression. See a book review of "Asian Settler Colonialism" (UH Press, 2008) at

Today, everyone born or naturalized in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. with full voting rights, full property rights, and equal protection under the law. We can keep it that way only by defeating the Akaka bill. Please see "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" at

A letter to President Obama asks him to consider the evils of the Akaka bill in light of African-American history and aspirations. Suppose we create a government exclusively for all 40 Million Americans who have at least one drop of African blood, and empower that Nation of New Africa to negotiate for money, land, and jurisdictional authority. Would that be good for America? Would it be good for African-Americans? The impact on Hawaii of passing the Akaka bill would be far worse than the impact on all of America of creating a New-Africa tribe. That's because only 13% of Americans have at least one drop of African blood, whereas 20% of Hawaii's people have at least a drop of Hawaiian blood. America had a racial separatist movement, just as the Akaka bill heads the list of Hawaiian separatist proposals. But the black separatists like Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X (before his pilgrimage to Mecca), fortunately lost the battle for hearts and minds to integrationists like Martin Luther King. The letter to President Obama can be seen at

On Wednesday, June 15, 2005 the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (a local think-tank) published an advertisement in the Honolulu Advertiser that took up almost the entirety of page 14. The ad featured a huge photo of the Kamehameha Statue at Ali'iolani Hale, together with text (below). The beautiful ad, in shades of gold, brown, red, and white, can be downloaded in pdf format at:

Here is the text of the ad: "Kamehameha united us all. Long before he unified the islands in 1810, Kamehameha the Great brought non-natives on to his team and into his family. Ever since then, non-natives have continued to intermarry, assimilate and contribute to the social, economic and political life of Hawaii. Most Native Hawaiians today are mostly of other ancestries and Hawaii's racial blending has become a model for the world. Akaka would divide us forever. The Akaka bill would impose on the people of Hawaii an unprecedented separate government to be created by Native Hawaiians only. It would require the U.S. to recognize the new government as the governing body of ALL of the Native Hawaiian people whether a majority of Hawaiians agreed or not---no vote, no referendum, no chance to debate. On his deathbed, King Kamehameha the Great said, "I have given you -- the greatest good: peace. And a kingdom which -- is all one -- a kingdom of all the islands." The Akaka Bill would divide the people of Hawaii forever and undo the unification which made Kamehameha not only the greatest of the Hawaiian chiefs, but one of the great men of world history."

We've all heard the closing line spoken by ministers presiding over weddings: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." Today, in honor of Kamehameha Day, let's say: What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Akaka rip asunder.

** An earlier webpage on this topic provides more information including photos of the Kamehameha statue, Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, and the famous painting by Herb Kane showing the Battle of Nu'uanu where Kamehameha pushed the army of O'ahu King Kalanikupule over a precipice to their deaths. See "Kamehameha vs. Akaka -- Kamehameha unified Hawai'i 200 years ago; Akaka bill's main purpose is to divide Hawai'i" at

Hawaii Reporter, July 29, 2009

Hawaii's Most Important Civil Rights Issues
Open Letter to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

By H. William Burgess

To: Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman, and members
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
624 Ninth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20425

Aloha Chairman Reynolds and members of the Commission.

As you may recall, I am a member of the Hawaii State Advisory Committee. This letter responds to the USCCR’s June 12, 2009 request to State Advisory Committee members to rank the most important civil rights issues in their states. Mr. Chris Byrne advised me by email that the deadline for response was extended to July 24, 2009.

In my opinion, the most pressing need for civil rights attention in Hawaii is the pervasive and escalating dominance by forces favoring supremacy for Native Hawaiians. Special privilege and political superiority for anyone with at least one drop of Hawaiian ancestry have become the accepted norm among those who hold the rule in Hawaii.

America’s largest charitable trust, Bishop Estate, with vast land holdings in Hawaii and subsidized by Federal, State and County tax exemptions worth a $ Billion or more annually, continues to discriminate in its admission policy against school age children in Hawaii on the basis of their race. How the IRS justifies allowing the exemption is a continuing civil rights scandal of major proportions. It should be looked into promptly by the Hawaii Advisory Committee.

The same charitable trust has compromised Hawaii’s government (See Broken Trust by Judge Sam King and Randy Roth) and supports the Akaka bill. (See the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement web site.) Each should be examined by our committee.

The State of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Hawaiian Homes Commission/Department of Hawaiian Home Lands have together just since 1990 spent and set aside value of well over $1 Billion exclusively for persons of Hawaiian ancestry. In addition they have spent over $2 million of public funds and continue to spend more to lobby for, advertise, and advocate enactment of the Akaka bill (the latest version, S. 1011/H.R. 2314 is now pending in Congress).

The Akaka bill would bring Apartheid to Hawaii; secession from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution; sponsor break up and giveaway of some, perhaps all of the domain, power, authority and jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii. The bill would thus usurp the unalienable political power and sovereignty of all the people of Hawaii, equally with those of Hawaiian ancestry, over the entire State of Hawaii promised by the United States in the valid terms of the 1959 Admission Act. The Hawaii Advisory Committee should promptly advise that Congress and the Administration reject the Akaka bill permanently. In addition the disproportionate spending and use of public lands for the benefit of Native Hawaiians should be examined.

In addition, the Federal Government, according to proponents of the Akaka bill, provides over $50 million per year annually exclusively for Native Hawaiians for health, education, housing and other entitlements for Native Hawaiians. This calls for civil rights analysis and recommended action.

Other specific projects which should be examined by the Hawaii State Advisory Committee include the following:

Repeal of the 1993 Apology Resolution. Without notice or opportunity to be heard by the public, the 1993 resolution ignored at least three thorough investigations: The Morgan Report, the 1980 Native Hawaiian Claims Commission and the Bellows Environmental Impact Statement.

On March 31, 2009 the Supreme Court of the United States in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs held that the 1993 Apology Resolution created no substantive rights; and that the 37 "whereas" clauses would "raise grave constitutional concerns" if they are read to retroactively "recognize" that the native Hawaiian people have unrelinquished claims over the ceded lands. The cloud created 16 years ago by the Apology resolution suggesting that one class of citizens has special claim to the State’s public lands, has been removed. Hawaii SAC should recommend to the USCCR that it be formally laid to rest.

Repeal of Sec. 4 of the 1959 Admission Act requiring the new State of Hawaii to adopt the explicitly racial Hawaiian Homes Commission Act which still continues to mandate that the State of Hawaii continue to discriminate. Both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush recommended that the United States role in forbidding amendment or termination of the HHCA be ended.

Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission. Sets aside exclusively for one race public lands equitably owned by all the citizens of Hawaii.

NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) and the related Hawai'i statutes. The law often interferes with and sometimes prevents individuals and families from pursuing their own rights to trace and prove their genealogies and from doing DNA testing.

Papahanaumokuakea -- the Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument. The law provides special rights for Native Hawaiians to have access to all parts of the 1200-mile-long archipelago for cultural and religious purposes even when such purposes are not related to cleaning or preserving the natural environment; whereas non-Native Hawaiians have no such rights. However, the bones of Caucasians and Japanese are scattered throughout the area (not just in the more openly accessible area around Midway), not only because of ships sinking and airplanes being shot down during WW2 battles, but also because even in ancient times there were seafarers transiting the area, Okinawan sailors for example. Why should ANYONE with a drop of native blood have special access rights not available to others; even when a particular ethnic Hawaiian has no known ancestors who visited those areas previously and no individual history of cultural or religious activity specifically related to those areas?

The right of Native Hawaiians to own their DHHL homeland lots in fee simple. An arrangement should be worked out to allow existing Hawaiian homesteaders to acquire the fee simple interest in their homestead lots at no or discounted price as part of a global settlement of all claims for entitlement/sovereignty/independence and termination of OHA, DHHL and all federal and state programs giving Hawaiians or native Hawaiians any benefit not given equally to other persons.

The City & County of Honolulu Ordnance granting tax exemption to any kuleana property where at least one of today's owners is a Native Hawaiian who can prove lineal descent from the original grantee of a Royal Patent Deed.

Hate crimes specifically directed against haoles are far more numerous and more vicious than hate crimes against any other races in Hawaii. The whole concept of extra punishment for hate crimes might be a bad idea, since it punishes thoughts rather than deeds. But IF there's going to be a hate crime enhancement for punishment, then all races including Caucasians should be equally eligible to be seen as victims of hate crimes.

H. William Burgess is an Attorney at Law in Honolulu. Reach him at

Hawaii Reporter, August 3, 2009

Outlining the Demands for Transfer of Lands and Money to New Hawaiian Government

By Tom Macdonald

*Payment of $10 Billion by U.S. as damages for the 1893 overthrow and 100 years of illegal land use.

*All lands taken by the U.S. government, with vital military lands leased back to the U.S. at market value.

*Joint management and leaseback to U.S. of national parks on formerly Hawaiian lands.

*All Hawaiian Home Lands and additional lands equal to 20% of 1893 Crown and Government lands.

*20% of revenues generated from the *80% of Crown and Government lands retained by the State.

*Demands for Grant of Government Powers to:

*Define who will be members (citizens) of the new native Hawaiian government.

*Regulate conduct of members through legislation.

*Adopt ordnances for health, safety and welfare.

*Regulate domestic relations and inheritance.

*Administer justice.

*Levy taxes, zone lands, produce income from, and regulate conduct on, Hawaiian lands.

*Hold and manage land or other resources and administer any trust.

*Issue allotments, assignments, leaseholds, or homesteads.

The above demands were listed in a tabloid publication issued by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on January 17, 1993, the one-hundredth anniversary of the 1893 revolution. The publication stated that OHA, in conjunction with other native Hawaiian groups and Hawaii’s Congressional delegation, prepared this list of demands for inclusion in a draft Hawaiian government restoration Bill to be introduced in Congress-the original “Akaka Bill.”

While the current Akaka Bill (HR 2314/S1011) does not specifically enumerate all these demands, Section 8 of the Bill does call for “negotiations” between “the U.S., the State of Hawaii, and the native Hawaiian governing entity” for an agreement on:

*the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets…

*the exercise of governmental authority over any transferred lands, natural resources, and other assets…

*the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction over the transferred lands

*the delegation of governmental powers and authorities to the native Hawaiian governing entity

*grievances regarding assertions of historical wrongs committed against native Hawaiians by the U.S. or the State

In other words, the demands in the current bill are essentially the same as in 1993, but cleverly phrased in general terms, so that the true consequences of the Akaka Bill cannot be known until after the Bill becomes law.

Tom Macdonald is with Aloha 4 All

Hawaii Reporter, August 3, 2009

Open Letter to US Senate: Please Oppose the Akaka Bill

By Robert R. Kessler

To: Senator Byron Dorgan, Chair, Committee on Indian Affairs
(Fax) 202-224-1193 and
Senator John Barrasso, Vice Chair, Committee on Indian Affairs
(Fax) 202-224-1724


I urge you to vote against S.1011, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 (the Akaka Bill).

The bill has several serious flaws and raises Constitutional issues about racial preferences. It’s passage would open the door to chaos in the state of Hawaii by imposing two distinctly different governing ‘entities’ – one State and one Native Hawaiian – divided along racial lines and with potentially different laws and tax structures. Besides creating racial tensions, the strong potential for claims against property would disrupt an already damaged business climate and create uncertainty among the non-Native Hawaiian citizens of our state.

Passage of this bill will further encourage those Native Hawaiian groups who advocate full Hawaiian sovereignty. There is serious concern that a Native Hawaiian government will initiate secession from the United States, in direct contradiction of the referendum that approved Statehood by an overwhelming majority.

You may have been told by Hawaii’s Congressional delegation and by Hawaii’s Governor that there is strong support in our state for this bill. That simply is not true. While there has been no published scientific polling on this issue, every straw poll and survey indicates very strong opposition to this bill in Hawaii, even among many Native Hawaiian groups. Our State government has carefully avoided public debate or public referenda on this subject so that claims of popular support cannot be refuted. I urge you to challenge Hawaii’s Senators concerning their claims that this bill is supported by Hawaii’s citizens.

Please kill this bill.

Robert R. Kessler, a Hawaii resident, can be reached at

Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Akaka bill clashes with Hawaii ideals

By H. William Burgess and Thomas Macdonald

It is widely known that the Akaka bill would enable federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a political entity. It is not so widely known that the bill defines "Native Hawaiian" as anyone, anywhere in the world with at least one ancestor indigenous to Hawai'i. And it defines "indigenous to Hawai'i" to mean anyone who lived in Hawai'i before 1778 when Captain Cook and westerners first arrived.

Duke professor Stuart Benjamin, formerly with the Clinton Justice Department, was the only impartial constitutional law expert called on to testify Aug. 6 before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee. He stated that the above definition of Native Hawaiian was too broad, with members having too little connection to a historic tribe, or to each other, to be considered a tribe. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Souter, concurring in Rice v. Cayetano, said that defining membership this broadly "created a vast and unknowable body of potential members that goes beyond any reasonable limit ... not like any actual membership classification created by any actual tribe."

The two justices and Professor Benjamin were not just addressing abstract legal issues. Using the spurious definition of Native Hawaiian, the Akaka bill would allow a vast and unknowable number of persons, many of whom have surely never been to Hawai'i, to participate in carving a separate government out of the state of Hawai'i while excluding from even participating in the process 80 percent of the citizens who now call Hawai'i home.

The Akaka bill does not set any limits on the extent of sovereignty that can be negotiated under Section 8 of the bill. For example, the state Legislature could grant the broad spectrum of powers that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs demanded in 1993, including powers to levy taxes, adopt ordinances, administer justice, share control of national parks and collect market rent for the military's use of ceded lands.

The bill would allow only Native Hawaiians to vote on the organic governing documents that define the powers and limitations of the new government. Implementation of the transfers of public lands, natural resources, governmental power and authority and civil and criminal jurisdiction to the new government only requires the approval of the political branches of the state and federal government.

The bill does not require the prior consent of the people of Hawai'i, or even their subsequent ratification of these potentially huge changes to the state and the lives, liberty and property of all its citizens.

Since the avowed purpose of the bill's promoters is to protect existing race-based entitlements from attack under the U.S. Constitution, it is not likely that the new government's charter will include due process or equal protection clauses. Without those, the Native Hawaiian government would be free to discriminate between persons, even its own citizens, as its leaders see fit. Native Hawaiians themselves would be wise to consider the examples of recognized Indian tribes who arbitrarily oust disfavored tribe members and confiscate their properties.

In 1959, after a 94 percent vote in favor of statehood, Congress promised in the Admission Act that the state of Hawai'i would consist of all the major islands and that its constitution would always be republican in form and not repugnant to the Constitution of the U.S. and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Congress now proposes to break up and give away much of the state, without the consent of the people of Hawai'i, and transfer it to a brand new government commissioned as the representative governing body of the Native Hawaiian people, a vast and unknowable body of potential members, without even any effort to obtain their consent. This whole enterprise is repugnant to the founding principles of both the United States and the Kingdom of Hawai'i, whose constitution began: "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on Earth in unity and blessedness."

Thomas J. Macdonald and H. William Burgess are with Aloha for All. Macdonald is the former president of Hawaiian Trust Co. and Burgess was the attorney for the plaintiff in Arakaki v. State of Hawai'i. They wrote this commentary The Advertiser.

Hawaii Reporter, August 24, 2009

Akaka Bill is Racist Legislation, Will Divide People of Hawaii by Race
Open Letter to the US Senate

By Michael K. Bates

This testimony was submitted to the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee in the United States Senate in Washington, DC on the Akaka Bill, S. 1011 by Michael Kirchner Bates in Kamuela, Hawaii,

Mr. Chairman:

My family has been resident of the Territory of Hawaii since 1905. My grandfather was a member of the United States Asiatic Fleet. He served aboard Admiral Dewey’s Battle Cruiser Olympia and fought in the Battle of Manila Harbor in the Philippines in 1898 and he settled in Hawaii after the war. My father was raised and educated in Honolulu.

He moved to the Island of Maui in 1938 and was employed by Maui Agricultural Company. I was born in Paia, Maui in 1940. The plantation is now part of Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company, the largest sugar plantation in the United States.

Growing up in the Territory of Hawaii in the 1940’s and 50’s was a wonderful experience. We plantation kids all grew up together, Hawaiians, Chinese, Japanese, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Portuguese, Koreans and Haole (Caucasians).

We were all treated equally in school and on the playing field, but one had to earn the respect of our peers. We had our differences, but learned respect for each other and were bound by honor for ones word and actions were paramount in our relationships.

Today, 60 years later many of these individuals are still my friends. This is what makes Hawaii so unique and such a wonderful place to live. This is Hawaii’s gift to America and possibly the world.

Now we have the Akaka bill. This bill is going to destroy all that I learned and valued as a child growing up in Hawaii. It simply is a racist bill that’s sole purpose is to enrich a few at the expense of the majority.

A Hawaii that will be a result of this ill conceived and dangerous bill will destroy 150 years of harmonious racial relations between our peoples. It will cause divisions between Hawaiians and all the others …. let's call them non Hawaiians and will change the whole fabric of our society.

I predict the results will bring ruin on all the people who live here, including fighting over the spoils of land and government. Hawaii’s government will cease to function as a viable entity serving all its citizens.

Akaka says the bill will correct the injustices of the past. It’s interesting, but living in these islands for 69 years I find it impossible to find what he is talking about. The whole bill really represents a simple taking of land, money and power by a small vocal minority, who are really anti American, at the expense of the silent majority.

SOLUTION: All the people of Hawaii deserve the opportunity to be heard. Establish the framework for a Plebisite. Let everyone have the right to vote for our future. That is the American way, rather then have this terrible racial Akaka bill be shoved down everyone’s throat. Please assist all of Hawaii’s citizens keep Hawaii the wonderful racially balanced and tolerant place we all call home.

Hawaii Reporter, August 24, 2009

Anti-American Rage in Hawaii
Hawaii golden jubilee includes ripping the 50th star off the U.S. flag and burning it.

By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

August 21, 2009 was the golden jubilee of Hawaii statehood -- 50 years since the 50th state had been admitted to the union of states. It was a day to be celebrated with parades and fireworks. Wasn't it? Well, in a manner of speaking it was.

The only people parading through the streets were anti-statehood protesters. They carried an effigy of Uncle Sam and beat him with sticks to knock his head off. From inside his head they took out an American flag, and used a knife to cut off the 50th star. Then they burned the star -- the only fireworks on this day.

* That desecration of Uncle Sam and Old Glory can be seen at the end of a video about the parade from KITV television:

* A 10-minute YouTube video was produced by the protesters themselves, proudly showing not only the cutting-off of the 50th star but also their yelling and screaming of anti-American sentiments INSIDE the Convention Center where the Statehood Day commemorative conference was in progress.

The Honolulu daily newspapers printed photos:

* The 50th star being cut off the U.S. flag. Photo from Honolulu Star-Bulletin August 22, 2009 with original URL*186/20090822_nws_stateLEDE.jpg

* The flag with a hole where 50th star had been and a protester grinning through the hole. Photo from Honolulu Advertiser August 21, 2009 with original URL

* The 50th star being burned. Photo from Honolulu Advertiser August 21, 2009 with original URL

Excerpts from newspaper reports are provided at the end of this article, describing not only the main protest in Honolulu but also other protests on Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii Island (the "Big island").

What motivated this outpouring of anti-American rage? The reasons are complex and dangerous not only for Hawaii but for all America.

The fact that militant secessionists were successful in preventing any celebration and then staging anti-statehood marches should serve as a warning that Congress must not pass the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (S.1011 and H.R.2314), also known as the Akaka bill. The main purpose of that bill is to authorize creation of a phony Indian tribe -- a racially exclusionary government which will then negotiate with the U.S. and State of Hawaii for money, land, and jurisdictional authority. Some ethnic Hawaiians favor that bill, while most probably oppose it. Some ethnic Hawaiians are secessionists or racists, while most (the silent majority) are proud to be American but too mild-mannered or intimidated to stand up in public.

Although the Akaka bill is not explicitly secessionist, it can be seen as a trojan horse for secession. If the bill passes it will end up sending money, land, and political power to be controlled by the most radical, racist, and anti-American members of this ethnic group. And the bill itself would establish a precedent for the creation of a Nation of Aztlan demanding the secession of several Southwestern states. See the book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" at
See also "Hawaiian Nationalism, Chicano Nationalism, Black Nationalism, Indian Tribes, and Reparations -- Akaka Bill Sets a Precedent for the Balkanization of America" at

Also "The Akaka Bill And Secession: The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) is seen by its supporters as a step toward total independence for all of Hawaii"
"Hawaii's Fifth Column: Anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement"

Rubellite Kawena Johnson is a patriotic ethnic Hawaiian Professor Emerita of Hawaiian Language and Literature, with 50% native blood quantum, who is descended from Kamehameha The Great and also from two Mayflower pilgrims. She says passing the Akaka bill would split her personally in half, would split Hawaii in half, and would begin the breakup of America.

Examples of the cultural and emotional divisiveness of the Akaka bill can be found in a series of one-minute videos and audios provided at
Examples of racist attitudes proudly proclaimed by well-educated Hawaiian activists can be seen at "Dialogs with a racist" at

How was it decided there should be no celebration of Hawaii's 50th anniversary? What happened in previous years?

The official Hawaii 50th Anniversary of Statehood Commission made a decision more than a year beforehand that there would be no celebration, but only a commemoration. There would be no parades or fireworks, only a low-key conference at the Hawaii Convention Center including a jobs fair and various panels discussing predictions and hopes for the next 50 years. Also, each week for 50 weeks before the golden anniversary there would be a one-minute public service announcement on TV and radio featuring nostalgic reminiscences about what Hawaii had been like 50 years ago, or how excited people were when President Eisenhower had made his announcement.

The politically correct word "commemoration" was chosen after extensive discussion by the planning Commission, because any real celebration would certainly have spawned noisy protests from a militant secessionist minority among Hawaii's 20% minority of ethnic Hawaiians. The secessionists claim that the State of Hawaii is a fake state. To understand these historical claims and why they are bogus, see "Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959" at

The secessionists claim Hawaii has been under belligerent military occupation by an oppressive foreign power (the U.S.) for more than a century, just as Hungary was occupied by the Soviet Union and Tibet remains occupied by China; and it's time for the U.S. to withdraw. Fearing possible violence from the militant secessionists, Hawaii was not allowed to have a celebration but only a commemoration, much as we commemorate the December 7, 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Although Statehood Day has long been an official holiday in Hawaii (state and local government workers get the day off with pay), there have been no celebrations for many years. The reasons include fear and intimidation; but also leftist "political correctness", plus a general attitude of love and respect for Hawaiian culture and the people who created it. Hawaii's state bird is the endangered nene; and the state fish is the colorful humuhumunukunukuapuaa. The state's highly favored race is ethnic Hawaiians, who have been informally adopted by Hawaii's multiracial society as a sort of state pet or mascot, dearly beloved and entitled to race-based control over three branches of the state government plus exclusive benefits from hundreds of race-specific federal, state, and private programs. See "Native Hawaiians as the State Pet or Mascot: A Psychological Analysis of Why the People of Hawaii Tolerate and Irrationally Support Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism"

State Senator Sam Slom decided to personally organize a celebration in 2006, after Governor Linda Lingle refused to authorize a government event. In his August 8 announcement of his plans in Hawaii Reporter (online) he wrote "The last major observance took place in Candlestick Park, San Francisco. Then Gov. Ben Cayetano was quoted as saying a celebration in Hawaii had become too controversial and 'might now be perceived as culturally insensitive by Native Hawaiian leaders.'"

The 2006 celebration organized by Senator Slom was set for the grounds of Iolani Palace. That building, now a museum, was exactly the historically correct place for a Statehood Day celebration. It served as the Territorial capitol building from 1898 to 1968, where the Territorial Legislature and Governor had their offices. The transition from Territory to State took place there in 1959, where huge crowds celebrated. See photos and news reports from 1959 at

But in recent years, since a new state capitol was built, the Palace has been where the secessionists stage large rallies, because they regard it as their capitol of a still-living Kingdom of Hawaii. See photos at

On Statehood Day, Friday August 18, 2006, a gang of militant secessionists arrived at the Palace before Senator Slom's celebration was scheduled to begin. They hung their banners from the trees, set up a sound system, and played loud music. They walked up to the children of the Kalani High School Band who were seated with their instruments, made threats, and yelled through a megaphone "You'd better leave because bad things are going to happen." So of course the parents, fearing for the childrens' safety, took them back to the bus. The militants then swarmed the would-be celebrants, cursing and screaming in their faces. Although Senator Slom had an official permit to use the Palace grounds, there was no security; and police who were on duty in the Palace basement never came out to restore order. For a compilation of news reports and commentaries about what happened, see

Let's review how successful the anti-American secessionists have been at intimidating patriotic Americans and the State government. In 2006 they disrupted and destroyed a Statehood Day celebration at the very place where Statehood had been proclaimed and celebrated in 1959 -- they scared away the children and parents of a high school band by threatening them, and then swarmed the would-be celebrants who included a State Senator and State Representative, screaming anti-American nonsense in their faces -- while police in the basement of the building did not come out to protect the celebrants or restore order.

In 2008 they intimidated the government 50th Anniversary of Statehood Day Planning Commission into replacing a celebration with a mere commemoration for fear that otherwise there would be violence, and they also intimidated the commission into not allowing any government commemorative events to happen at the place where Statehood happened in 1959.

In 2009 on Statehood Day they marched through the streets, bashed the head off an effigy of Uncle Sam, cut the 50th star off the U.S. flag, and burned it. Then they entered the Convention Center where a commemorative conference was underway, and loudly shouted anti-American slogans for an extended period of time. They never applied for a parade permit but were given one at the last minute anyway; a congenial Police Department assisted the marchers by coning off one or two lanes of a busy street; and Convention Center management made a prior agreement to allow the protesters to enter and use a stage and sound system. Meanwhile neither the government nor any private group dared to actually celebrate the official state holiday.

As noted earlier, if the Akaka bill passes it will end up sending money, land, and political power to be controlled by the most radical, racist, and anti-American members of the "Native Hawaiian" ethnic group. Why in the world would Congress want to do that?

Anti-American, anti-statehood protests happened not only in Honolulu but throughout the islands. Here are a few excerpts of news reports about the anti-statehood protest on August 21, 2009 in Honolulu (Oahu), Lihue (Kauai), Kahului and Wailuku (Maui), and Hilo (Hawaii Island).

Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, August 21, 2009
"Donald Cataluna, a trustee of the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and a member of the Statehood Commission, fought against any statehood event at 'Iolani Palace, which he believes could have led to bloodshed and unwanted nationwide attention for Hawai'i. At least 30 Hawaiian sovereignty groups represent 30,000 Native Hawaiians, Cataluna said. "And many, many Hawaiians — many Hawaiians — would be very, very upset," Cataluna said. "It would not be a good idea to have an event at the site of the overthrow of their queen. It would be a horrible mess there. I had visions of blood spilling and I didn't want that."

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, August 21, 2009
"About 1,000 demonstrators who would rather see Hawaii's independence restored are expected to rally today outside the conference at the Hawaii Convention Center. 'We want to show how U.S. imperialism has spread across the Pacific and across the world,' said Lynette Cruz, an organizer of the Hawaiian Independence Action Alliance. 'It'll be fun.' ... Last year, police arrested 23 members of a Hawaiian pro-sovereignty group that broke into the palace, locked its gates and posted signs that read, 'Property of the Kingdom of Hawaiian Trust.' 'The state is very cognizant of Hawaiian protests, and I think they don't want to have any bad press,' said Dean Saranillio, a student who wrote his dissertation on how statehood came at the expense of Hawaiian self-determination. 'There's a very vibrant and vocal Hawaiian community that's well-versed in the history. They know statehood was a product of the overthrow.'"

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, August 22, 2009
"Thirteen chanters performed about an hour of Hawaiian oli, or chants, at Iolani Palace yesterday in tribute to Queen Liliuokalani — a protest of Hawaii's 50th anniversary of statehood. They chanted about the queen's glory, her loss and a desire to reclaim what Hawaiians lost. While they hold different views of Hawaiian sovereignty, they all support Hawaiian independence, said Manu Kaiama, the protest organizer. ... Another attendee was Lynette Cruz, who organized a protest at the Hawai'i Convention Center earlier in the day. Hawaiians need to gather to celebrate their history and culture, and the solemn palace protest was a proper setting, she said. She said it contrasted the earlier political protest, where a lot of rage was released."

The Garden Island (Kaua'i), August 21, 2009
"A half-century after becoming de-facto citizens of America’s 50th state, some Hawaiians still believe joining the union was a poor decision, arguing it was illegal and has undermined Hawai‘i’s rich cultural heritage. ... A number of kanakas reached by The Garden Island this week argued that statehood is based on lies, and said educating Hawai‘i’s youth about the true nature of the Islands’ history is key to preserving the local culture. ... 'We are celebrating, but we’re celebrating the unity and freedom of our country,' Sylva said, referring not to America, but to Hawai‘i. Others echoed Sylva’s upbeat tone, expressing optimism and hope for a future free from what Sausen described as 'suppression, oppression and depression at the hands of American invaders."

The Maui News, August 19, 2009
"Two Maui protests are set to take place, said organizer Foster Ampong of Kahului. The first will be from 3 to 6 p.m. Thursday at the State Building on the corner of High and Main streets in Wailuku, since government workers have Statehood Day off on Friday. The second will run from noon to 1 p.m. Friday, the 50th anniversary of statehood, at the bridge on Keolani Place right before the Kahului Airport, Ampong said. 'We want to raise awareness that the whole process of statehood was really a fraud,' said Ampong, who hopes for hundreds of protesters, even on short notice. 'Most people who voted for statehood (in June 1959) were not even Native Hawaiians.'"

Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo, the "Big Island"), Friday, August 21, 2009
"In Hilo, a vigil that began Thursday at the Kamehameha I statue will continue until Saturday, with people lining Kamehameha Avenue to wave signs protesting the illegal occupation by the United States. Kihei Soli Niheu, 66, who lives in the Pu'ukapu district near Waimea, said the last legal constitution was promulgated in 1864. ... A kanaka maoli who supports America is not a Hawaiian, he said. Niheu has spent decades organizing Hawaiian communities and has founded or supported various organizations. He founded Hawaii United for Liberation Independence in the 1970s, and is a supporter of Ko Hawaii Pae Aina, another sovereignty movement. While Niheu, Kaleleiki and others may have their differences, today members of the Hawaii independence movement put aside their differences stand together against the common enemy -- America."

Dr. Conklin's book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is in the Hawaii Public Library, and also at


August 28, 2009: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights letter to Congressional leaders once again blasting the Akaka bill: calling it unconstitutional, racially divisive, setting a bad precedent, and contrary to the multiracial polity of the Hawaiian Kingdom. On official stationery signed by Commissioners.

The Washington Times, September 8, 2009

Shakedown at the luau
Congress tries to carve up Hawaii

Imagine what would happen if Congress proposed setting up a special, sovereign government for any descendant, anywhere in the country, of the mix of Cajuns and American Indians who lived before the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 in what is now the state of Louisiana. Imagine if the law created a new Office of Native Cajun Affairs that would own one-fifth of the land in Louisiana and would have the power, independently from the state, to write and enforce laws, punish offenders, tax its members and seize private land for the new sovereign entity -- without the full protections of the Bill of Rights.

People nationwide would laugh at the absurd proposition. Non-Cajun Louisianans would be up in arms at the seizure of the state's lands. Black Louisianans whose families arrived after 1803 would yell from the rooftops against the obvious racial discrimination. The bill, rightly, would never receive a hearing.

Substitute "Native Hawaiian" for "Native Cajun," however, and this is exactly what the House and Senate leadership plans to ram through a slumbering Congress this month. This unwise legislation shreds both common sense and the Constitution. Known as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, or H.R. 2314, the bill is racist in intent and operation. It must be defeated.

According to this act, it would become U.S. policy that "Native Hawaiians have an inherent right to autonomy in their internal affairs" and that "the United States shall continue to engage in a process of reconciliation and political relations with the Native Hawaiian people." This claim to the right of autonomy is based on the demonstrably false notion that "Native Hawaiians" are culturally and ethnically a tribe like the Cherokee, Chippewa or Sioux. They are not. The bill could count as "Native Hawaiian" anybody with a single drop of ethnic Hawaiian blood. More than 60 percent of the "tribe" will have genetic roots that are less than half original islander.

Even if they had been a tribe at one point in the ways traditionally recognized by U.S. law, they gave up any pretense of separate status decades ago. As for the legislation's promise of "reconciliation," we are wondering what or who exactly is in need of reconciliation. When Hawaii accepted statehood in 1959, a mind-bending 94.3 percent of Hawaiian voters cast ballots in favor of joining the union. They did so because statehood brought great benefits, not burdens meriting reconciliation.

What's really at issue are 1.4 million acres of land from which "native" Hawaiians could profit without sharing the benefits with those classified as being of Caucasian, black, Asian or other descent, even if the others have lived in Hawaii continuously for half a century or more. This is race-based expropriation, pure and simple, and the principle runs afoul of multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission has blasted H.R. 2314. "The Constitution... cannot be circumvented so easily," the commissioners wrote to Congress in an Aug. 28 letter. "Even if it could be, we would oppose passing legislation with the purpose of shoring up a system of racially exclusive benefits."

Appropriately, the commissioners noted that the former Hawaiian kingdom's 1840 Constitution begins with these words: "God has made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness." That's well put. With that historical Hawaiian sentiment in mind, how could Congress defend the expropriation of parts of this Earth for the benefit of just one race?

-------------------- Hawaii Reporter, December 15, 2009

New Zogby Poll: Hawaii Voters Opposed to the Akaka Bill
Zogby International poll confirms majority opposition to race-based government

By Jamie Story

December 15, 2009--A new poll of registered Hawaii voters, conducted by Zogby International, has found that a majority of those surveyed oppose the Akaka Bill, while 76 percent oppose higher taxes to pay for the nation-tribe proposed in the bill. The poll was sponsored by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and conducted from November 18 to 23, 2009.

For the poll, Zogby International surveyed more than 500 registered voters in Hawaii. The results reveal strong opposition to the establishment of a separate nation inside of Hawaii for native Hawaiians. Highlights include:

76% oppose higher taxes to pay for such a nation-tribe.

48% oppose separate laws and regulations for a new native government.
7% favor that.
44% do not know or are not sure.

60% say the ceded lands are for all of the people of Hawaii.
21% say they should be for native Hawaiians only.
19% are not sure.

40% say the bill is racially discriminatory.
28% say it is fair.
32% are not sure.

60% of those with an opinion oppose the bill.
Overall, 51% oppose the bill, 34% support it and 15% are not sure.

58% say yes for a vote in Hawaii before the bill can become law.
28% say no for a vote.
13% are not sure.

The text of the questions and a summary of results may be found at

"This poll shows that most of our local elected officials are out of touch with their constituents on this issue. This should be a wake-up call to each of them" said Richard Rowland, co-founder and President Emeritus of the Grassroot Institute. "According to the results, Hawaii's Congressional delegation has been misleading their fellow Senators and Representatives about Hawaii public opinion on this issue."

Zogby International previously conducted the State's 50th Anniversary of Statehood poll in August 2009. Among other findings, that poll revealed that the people of Hawaii were very concerned about economic issues. That concern relates directly to a Grassroot Institute of Hawaii commissioned study that was conducted by the Beacon Hill Institute and released in January 2009. This economic analysis projected a loss of over 20,000 jobs in Hawaii if the Akaka bill were to become law. Under current economic circumstances, the results would likely be worse.

"The Grassroot Institute asks all elected officials to call for a suspension of any and all action to impose a new separate nation into the midst of our State until there are extensive Congressional Hearings within Hawaii that result in a clear understanding by Congress and the State Legislature of the impact of the proposed legislation," said Jamie Story, the Institute's President. "This is the least they should do in light of these poll results."

The Grassroot Institute supports more public discussion, debate and education on the Akaka Bill issue and other policy issues affecting the state. The mission of the Institute is to promote individual liberty, the free market and limited, more accountable government.

Jamie Story is the President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.


Wall Street Journal, Thursday December 17, 2009

Aloha, Segregation
The Akaka bill would create a race-based state in Hawaii.

President Obama speaks proudly of his childhood in Hawaii, so we wonder what the state's voters think of his support for a bill that would redistribute its wealth based on race. That's what would happen under the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which Congress is trying to sneak through in its final days this year.

Sponsored by Senator Daniel Akaka, the bill would transfer a percentage of public-owned lands to a native Hawaiian government within the state of Hawaii. The legislation would collect some 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians scattered across the country into a newly affiliated tribe, eventually endowed with the powers of a sovereign state, including freedom from state taxes and regulations and separate police power.

Proponents say the plan would duplicate the legal scenario set up for Native Americans, but the Akaka bill carves out new territory. Unlike Indian tribes made up of tightly knit populations that have lived together continuously, participation in the new group would be available to nearly anyone able to trace their roots back to a Native Hawaiian ancestor, no matter where they now reside. U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Gail Heriot told Congress in June that, "If ethnic Hawaiians can be accorded tribal status, why not Chicanos in the Southwest? Or Cajuns in Louisiana?"

Under the Akaka bill, someone will have to divine exactly who qualifies as a Native Hawaiian. In the bill's current version, the determination would be handled by a nine member commission staffed by experts in native Hawaiian genealogy. That, says the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, amounts to racial discrimination and would "subdivide the American People into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that elections based on a blood quota violate the Fifteenth Amendment's ban on restricting voting along racial lines. In its 2000 decision in Rice v. Cayetano, the Court held that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs could not hold elections limited to ethnic Hawaiians. "Ancestry can be a proxy for race," the court wrote, "and is that proxy here."

While the current version of the Akaka bill doesn't offer specifics on which lands and natural resources would be transferred to a new sovereign Hawaiian state, earlier versions contained striking demands by Native Hawaiian groups. According to Tom MacDonald at Aloha for All, which opposes the Akaka bill, original demands included the transfer of all lands taken by the U.S. government including military bases and national parks which could be leased back at market value.

With some 38% of the state falling under public ownership and thus theoretically available for transfer, the benefits accruing to racial Hawaiians could be significant. For those without a drop of Hawaiian blood, the amount of lost tax revenue and other costs will also be sizable. According to a study by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and the Beacon Hill Institute, the total amount of state tax and land lease revenue lost annually could range from $342.8 million to $689.7 million, depending on the percentage of public land ceded to the project.

The state could also expect to lose as many as 20,000 private sector jobs and more than $200 million in investment. The burden will fall on non-Native taxpayers, costing the average taxpayer between $705 and $1,461 in real disposable income a year.

Perhaps that's why polls show that despite the support of the Congressional delegation, Hawaiians themselves have mixed feelings. According to a Zogby poll this week, a majority of Hawaiians oppose the bill and 76% oppose higher taxes to pay for the new nation tribe. Even Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, a longtime proponent of the legislation, has been having second thoughts about her support after proposed changes to the text this week.

Senator Akaka clearly hopes a Democratic Congress will push through the bill that has failed many times. But Hawaii was created in a spirit contrary to the racial exclusivity shaping the legislation, and Congress shouldn't let that history fall victim to victimhood.

Human Events, December 18, 2009

Only 34 Percent of Hawaiians Support Akaka Bill

by Valerie Richardson

With President Bush no longer wielding a veto and a Hawaiian in the White House, Democrats would need to stumble badly to botch the passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Fortunately for conservatives, that's exactly what's happening.

Better known as the Akaka Bill, the act would create a separate race-based government for indigenous Hawaiians. While critics view it as a noxious brew of racial pandering and political deal-making, the bill has for years enjoyed the solid support of Hawaii's ruling class, led by the congressional delegation, the governor and the state legislature.

In the days leading up to this week's House and Senate committee votes, however, Hawaii Democrats, with a big assist from the White House, threw their longstanding political coalition into chaos. They alienated the governor. They sparked a protest rally back in Honolulu. Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hi.), the delegation's elder statesman, was forced to admit twice in three days that he didn't know what was going on, but that he planned to find out.

The trouble started when the White House got involved. According to multiple accounts, the White House, the bill's chief sponsor Sen. Daniel Akaka (Hi.), and the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement privately crafted a series of amendments aimed at expanding and redefining the bill.

The revised bill immediately gives the proposed Native Hawaiian government inherent powers and privileges of self-determination, saying it would be "an Indian tribe." The original bill set up a procedure in which governing authority would be granted only after negotiations with the federal and state government.

Gov. Linda Lingle and Attorney General Mark Bennett, both Republicans, say they didn't learn of the revisions until late Tuesday, just hours before the bill was scheduled to go before the House Natural Resources Committee. That evening, they stunned the delegation by withdrawing their support.

"These changes are extensive, have been not part of any bill which we have supported, and have an enormous potential to negatively impact Hawaii and its citizens," said Mr. Bennett in a letter to the committee. "The views of Hawaii's citizens, native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian alike, have not been heard (certainly not recently) with regard to this new model."

The next morning, Republican Rep. Doc Hastings (Wa.), the committee's ranking Republican, moved to postpone the vote for two months, saying more time was needed to review the extensive changes, and promised to keep lawmakers buried in procedural votes if they refused.

In legislative years, two months isn't long. But it's an eternity to Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie (Hi.), the bill's House sponsor, who plans to leave Congress in the next few weeks to run for governor. Abercrombie badly wants to help make history by casting one of the votes that helps transform the bill into law.

His predicament left Hastings unmoved.

"This is a serious issue. I understand the gentleman is going to run for governor and going to resign . . . but this issue has been around for nine years," said Mr. Hastings, who added that he would vote against the bill in either form. "If there are issues that need to be resolved, I think the proper way is not to move something that has baggage."

Abercrombie compromised. He agreed to remove the amendments for purposes of the committee vote, although they could be added later in conference committee or on the House floor. That day, the House committee approved the bill 26-13.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee muddied the waters further Thursday by passing the newly amended version of the Akaka Bill by voice vote. The move all but guarantees further turmoil as Hawaii Democrats attempt to reconcile the House and Senate versions.

"While there may have been recent misunderstandings and confusion about what we are doing here today. I want to reiterate that I spoke to Hawaii's Governor this morning and will continue to work with her, her Attorney General and our other valued partners," said Mr. Akaka.

Peppered by questions about the last-minute amendments, Inouye insisted in a statement he didn't know why the governor was kept in the dark.

"The events of the past 24 hours were totally unexpected. I was very surprised. I was not aware that the revisions to the bill being discussed between Senator Akaka’s office and President Obama’s administration were not shared with Governor Linda Lingle. I am in the process of trying to determine what happened and the best course forward,” said Inouye.

The senator found himself in a similar jab Monday following reports that Democrats planned to stage a "sneak attack" by inserting the Akaka Bill into the Defense Appropriations bill, thus making it impracticable for Republicans to vote against it.

Those rumors prompted a protest in Honolulu by Akaka Bill opponents, who accused Democrats of orchestrating a "sneak attack." Inouye responded by insisting that the rumors were false and that "I don't know where this nonsensical suggestion originated."

"We have had hearings in Washington and in Hawaii," said Inouye. "It is not a measure that has been shepherded in the dark of night. It has been fully transparent."

What's not fully transparent is the extent of the White House's involvement. If the Obama administration continues to push for a more expansive bill, it could upset the coalition's careful balance and trigger a backlash in Hawaii, where the bill isn't as popular as it is on Capitol Hill.

A Zogby International poll released Tuesday found that only 34 percent of Hawaiians support the Akaka Bill, while 51 percent oppose it and 15 percent aren't sure. Of those who do have an opinion, 60 percent are opposed.

A clear majority, 58 percent, want to see the state hold a referendum on the issue, while 28 percent are opposed to a vote and 13 percent aren’t sure. The survey was conducted for the Grassroot[sic] Institute of Hawaii, a libertarian policy center that opposes the Akaka Bill.

“This poll shows that most of our local elected officials are out of touch with their constituents on this issue. This should be a wake-up call to each of them” said Grassroot Institute co-founder Richard Rowland. “According to the results, Hawaii’s congressional delegation has been misleading their fellow senators and representatives about Hawaii public opinion on this issue.”

Ironically, some of the bill's staunchest opponents are Native Hawaiians. Monday's protest wasn't staged by Republicans or conservatives, but by a coalition of Native Hawaiian sovereignty groups dedicated to defeating the Akaka Bill, which they call "a Hawaiian land grab."

Their concern is that the Akaka Bill will preempt their efforts to secede from the union and form the Kingdom of Hawaii in its place. It's unlikely such groups represent a majority of the state's estimated 240,000 Native Hawaiians, but they clearly include many of the most vocal ones.

"They hate the Akaka Bill worse than we do," said Andy Blum, president of Hawaiian Values.US, a Hawaii-based conservative group that opposes the Akaka Bill.

Foes of the Akaka Bill want a new set of state hearings on the issue--the last hearings took place seven years ago. Better yet, they want a referendum election, although the state legislature refuses to approve it. If the Democrats continue to bungle the bill in Congress, those calls will become harder to ignore.

Valerie Richardson has covered the Western United States for the Washington Times for 20 years.

Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, December 20, 2009

State could end up losing revenue, legal protection

By Mark Bennett

Since we have been in office, Gov. Linda Lingle and I have strongly supported the Akaka bill, which creates a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity. This legislation has been the subject of thoughtful, extensive debate and negotiation. Last Thursday, at the request of Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee approved and sent to the Senate floor an entirely new Akaka bill. The new bill, unlike any prior version, explicitly makes the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity an Indian tribe for many purposes. The new provisions have never been the subject of a public hearing or public testimony, and there has been no public explanation or discussion of the impact of the new provisions on Hawai'i and our citizens.

Gov. Lingle and I oppose the newly added amendments and believe they should be removed or significantly modified. We played no role in drafting the amendments, and we were not even informed of them prior to last week, though we had been involved (at the request of Sen. Akaka) in the drafting of and negotiations relating to the Akaka bill for seven years.

The Akaka bill that Gov. Lingle and I supported provided for creation of a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, followed by negotiations between the Governing Entity, the United States and the state of Hawai'i to establish the powers and jurisdiction of the Governing Entity. The new provisions reverse that process, and set up the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity immediately as an Indian tribe.

Let me explain the reasons Gov. Lingle and I strongly oppose these new provisions: First, the change that designates Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe has not had a public hearing. This major change was sent to the Senate floor without any notice, testimony or explanation. No one has had the opportunity to comment on or testify about this change.

Second, the establishment of an Indian tribe in Hawai'i has immediate and lasting (perhaps permanent) consequences.

Litigation throughout the nation has concerned the power of states and municipalities (like Hawai'i's four counties) to regulate and tax Indian tribes, their lands and their businesses. The new bill explicitly states that it gives the state of Hawai'i no authority to tax or regulate the new tribe, while ambiguously stating that nothing in the bill will itself preempt state authority over Native Hawaiians or their property.

Such a provision would guarantee years, if not decades, of litigation. It could deny the state and counties substantial revenue they now enjoy. It could provide some businesses substantial competitive advantages (especially if free from taxation or regulation to which others are subject). And it could create lands or zones free from state or county environmental, shoreline and development regulation.

The prior version of the Akaka bill explicitly stated:

"Nothing in this Act alters the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the United States or the state of Hawai'i over lands and persons within the state of Hawai'i. The status quo of federal and state jurisdiction can change only as a result of further legislation, if any, enacted after the conclusion, in relevant part, of the negotiation process ."

This important provision has been deleted from the new bill.

Indian tribes and their businesses are also generally immune from lawsuits, even from ordinary tort lawsuits (like auto accident suits) and ordinary breach of contract claims. While Congress has the power to explicitly waive this immunity, the new bill does not do so. And, the new bill deletes a provision expressly preserving the state of Hawai'i's sovereign immunity unless waived in accordance with state law. This virtually guarantees new lawsuits against the state.

These are the kinds of issues that are raised by the new bill. Gov. Lingle and I strongly support the previous version of the Akaka bill, but oppose the new provisions, and we respectfully urge Sen. Akaka to reconsider his action altering the prior bill. At the very least, public hearings should be held on the drastic changes being proposed so their impact on Hawai'i can be fully discussed, debated, and understood. Native Hawaiian recognition is fair and just; leaping into the Indian tribe model of government without any public hearing or public input is not.

Mark Bennett is the attorney general for the state of Hawai'i. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.


Send comments or questions to:

You may now