The investigating committee would be empowered to “Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of the witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of books, documents, records, papers, or other evidence in any matter pending before the joint investigating
committee; … Administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses at hearings of the joint investigating committee; Report or certify instances of contempt as
provided in section 21—14, Hawaii Revised Statutes …”

This resolution is both ridiculous and dangerous. My own testimony explains why, and is on a webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/4t5pecj

The purpose of such an investigation is not merely to do academic research on an obscure historical question from 118 years ago. The purposes are to claim that the U.S. had an obligation to restore Liliuokalani to the throne; and to claim that the obligation of the President of the United States continues to this day to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation.

Three of the many harms that would result by passing HCR107 are briefly identified here and discussed in detail in the testimony.

1. A resolution such as HCR107 brings ridicule and disrespect upon those who support it, and upon the legislature as a whole — as shown by recalling what happened in connection with another Hawaiian sovereignty resolution passed in 2007. Many current members of the legislature, including members of this committee, participated in that debacle. The 2007 resolution established a permanent annual Hawaiian Restoration Day holiday for April 30. Reverend Kaleo Patterson knowingly used a fake Grover Cleveland proclamation from 1894, cited it as fact, and used it as the basis for a media blitz in 2006 in Hawaii and on the mainland calling for a national day of prayer for restoration of Native Hawaiians and repentance for the overthrow of the monarchy. He repeated his local and mainland propaganda campaign in 2007 and pushed a resolution HCR82 through the Hawaii legislature citing the joke proclamation as real and “proclaiming April 30 of every year as Hawaiian Restoration Day.” A 4-page flyer pokes fun at the legislature for passing that ridiculous resolution despite testimony proving the Cleveland proclamation was a joke.
http://tinyurl.com/2tj5jl

2. Such a resolution as HCR107 provides a platform whereby certain perpetrators of historical malpractice bring fame and fortune to themselves while spreading false information far and wide, using the legislature as an accomplice. Keanu Sai is the man behind this resolution. He is now revving up his third big scam based on twisted historical allegations which the resolution describes as fact. His convoluted lawsuit against U.S. government officials including President Obama, based on the allegations in HCR107, was dismissed on summary judgment in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on March 9.

3. HCR107 contains numerous false or misleading statements, some of which are refuted in my testimony. For example: There was no “executive agreement” between President Grover Cleveland and ex-queen Liliuokalani. One reason is that Liliuokalani was overthrown by the Hawaiian revolution on January 17, 1893 and no longer held executive authority after that, but Grover Cleveland was not installed as President until March. Also, President Cleveland had no power or authority to put Liliuokalani back on the throne, which is what Keanu Sai’s theory says is the core of the “executive agreement.”

For my entire testimony, see
http://tinyurl.com/4t5pecj

But there are exceptions.   And today, we’re celebrating the 9th Anniversary of one the best of them.  Yes, today, Hawaii Reporter turns 9.  (Happy Birthday!)

People want to use all the trendy buzzwords about communication in the 21st century to belittle the importance of community news, but the truth is that it’s still as important as ever.  My ability to send a message to Washington DC in a matter of nanoseconds doesn’t make them more interested or dedicated to our interests out here.  And when was the last time you saw something about Hawaii on the national news that didn’t deal with the LA Lakers training camp, a beauty pageant, or a television show?  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  And for all of this time, Hawaii Reporter has been setting the standard for an active, invested, and free community news source.  More than any other news outlet in Hawaii, they have concerned themselves with providing a voice for the regular local guy and keeping abreast of the issues that we really care about (and without the editorializing that so often derails one’s enjoyment of the Advertiser and other Hawaii newspapers.)  Let’s hope they’re around for many more anniversary celebrations.

Yes, New York and Massachusetts both make the top 5.  But for a sheer, soul-crushing, burdensome tax scheme, no other state can beat Hawaii.  That’s right.  We’re #1! We’re #1!  I quote the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent article on the states with the greatest individual tax burden on their residents:

Gibson’s rise to power came to a sudden stop with the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, when Kalakaua was forced by local politicians to curtail his own powers. Although Gibson was exiled, and died shortly after, the seeds of race-based politics he planted continued to infect the governments of Hawaii. Not until the late 20th century did these seeds begin sprouting in earnest.

Though his “I have a dream” speech still resonates, there has been an unfortunate twisting of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of civil rights and equality, embodied in the modern ethnic “rights” movements which insist on special privilege for separate groups. This has been particularly vivid with the so-called “native Hawaiian rights” activists. Encouraged by the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which provided one billion dollars in cash and over forty-four million acres of land to 80,000 native Alaskans, these activists began a deliberate process of infiltrating academia and rewriting inconvenient history to their ultimate goal of race-based reparations and separatism.

In spite of well researched and impartial historical foundations, including the works of noted historians such as Ralph S. Kuykendall, Gavan Daws and William Adam Russ, Jr., a steady stream of propaganda promoting the idea of native Hawaiian victimhood has been published since the early 70’s. Having lost prominence and power in government after World War II and the enfranchisement of Japanese voters (who in the early 1900’s Territorial period were not able to vote), this propaganda found a receptive audience in a politically frustrated native Hawaiian community. Unbeknownst to most observers at the time, alongside the Hawaiian Renaissance of cultural rediscovery, which we in Hawaii are rightfully proud of, came a more insidious specter of racial separatism.

The native Hawaiian victimhood industry, preying upon the ignorance of the general public of both Hawaii and the mainland, made great strides in consolidating power and influence in the hands of an elite few over the past four decades. In 1978, OHA was created – ostensibly a state agency to service “Native Hawaiians” as defined by the 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (50% and above). Since 1978, OHA has instead become a hotbed of corruption, patronage and privilege. It has expanded its bank account balance, reach and influence not only to the detriment of the “Native Hawaiians” it was created to serve, but also to the detriment of the general public of Hawaii, which has seen hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue funneled away from public schools and services and into the hands and control of these neo-ali’i.

The premise of this industry is simple – so long as native Hawaiians can be seen as poor and downtrodden, and the blame can be placed on their peers and neighbors, money can be taken from the public of Hawaii and put into the hands of a new royalty. This royal money translates into power over the common people of all races, both in terms of funding or not funding community projects, but also in terms of direct lobbying for further concessions from federal, state and local governments. With over 400 million dollars in the bank, OHA has an amazing amount of influence over the Hawaii State Legislature, and has spent millions of dollars lobbying our United States Senate and House of Representatives as well.

The psychology of blaming other ethnic groups for one’s own problems is by no means unique to Hawaii politics, nor even to this particular day and age. People have been pointing the finger since time immemorial, and distinguishing between “us” and “them” is nearly as natural as breathing. However, this particular behavior and attitude is especially repugnant and destructive in such a thoroughly integrated and racially mixed society as the one we have in Hawaii.

The basic premise of asserting the need for special ethnic “rights” generally goes like this – being a member of a given ethnic group, one is confronted by systemic prejudice throughout life. Other people are assumed to judge you to be part of some disdained ethnicity, and the only way to rectify this injustice is to counter this systemic prejudice with institutionalized prejudice in favor of your ethnic group. In simpler terms, if you look native Hawaiian, and people tend to treat native Hawaiians worse than other people, then we must fight that by giving all native Hawaiians a special boost to make up for it.

However, the fact is that most “native Hawaiians” are not mostly native Hawaiian. The vast majority of “native Hawaiians” are only ambiguously identified as such by appearance or by name. “Native Hawaiians” run the gamut of looking very dark, very light, to a host of other stereotypical appearances commonly associated with every ethnicity or nationality found in the world. Hawaiian names are common to children of all ethnicities in Hawaii, and are even used elsewhere in the United States. With these “native Hawaiians” indistinguishable from other Hawaiians, the premise for special ethnic privileges becomes obviously unfounded, illegitimate and unjust.

Not to mention the fact that there is no systemic disdain for native Hawaiians in either the State of Hawaii, nor the other forty nine states of the Union. On the contrary, there is an almost New Age worship of people with the slightest degree of native Hawaiian ancestry, and a tremendous respect for the beautiful culture and environmental values associated with our idealized image of native Hawaiians. Although we can certainly look back at events in the last century, such as the Massie Trial in 1932, as indicative of a poisonous racial prejudice against native Hawaiians, the people and attitudes expressed in such historical moments are as dead and gone as the human sacrifice, slavery and misogyny practiced by native Hawaiians under the kapu religion. Assuming that all Americans not of native Hawaiian ancestry disdain native Hawaiians because some white Americans in the early 20th century did is as silly as assuming that Daniel Akaka believes that any woman eating bananas or coconuts should be subject to capital punishment.

A watershed moment in the appeasement of radical race-based sovereignty activists came in 1993 with the passage of the so-called “Apology Resolution”. In a sweeping stroke of historical revisionism, the Kingdom of Hawaii was haphazardly and ignorantly transformed from a multi-ethnic and multi-racial country, to a country simply for the benefit of ethnic native Hawaiians. Whereas the very first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom declared all men to be “of one blood”, the Apology Resolution disregarded and disenfranchised the multitudes of non-native Hawaiians who were part and parcel of the creation, governance and general populace of Hawaii.

In a speech given on September 4, 1999, Senator Daniel Akaka made clear his reasons for promoting this twisting of history – “to neutralize the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission’s Majority Report conclusion that the U.S. government was not liable for the loss of sovereignty or lands of the Hawaiian people in the 1893 overthrow.” Rather than accept the well researched and studied opinion put forth by the most comprehensive government review regarding the history of the 1893 Hawaiian Revolution, politicians such as Senator Akaka have used every method possible to muddy the waters of historical record which have contradicted their premises for race-based privilege.

Since the passage of the “Apology Resolution”, and the success of several civil rights cases in opposition to the racial separatism and privilege promoted by OHA, the Akaka Bill, or Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, has been pushed year after year in Congress. Written explicitly to protect existing race-based programs from equal protection civil rights lawsuits, the Akaka Bill has attempted and failed to walk a thin line between appeasing sovereignty activists, and radicalizing them. They have used the same arguments, and twisted the same history as the more radical race-based sovereignty activists, but have tried to position themselves as being a moderate middle between the abolition of race-based criteria in government social programs, and the secession of Hawaii and transformation into a sovereign race-based government.

This attempt to have their cake and eat it too is the direct cause for the unrest we have seen at Iolani Palace for the past year, and promises only to encourage more violence and hatred. We cannot assert that native Hawaiians were the sole victims of the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, and that the U.S. was to blame, and offer only a half-measure of justice. These radical race-based activists are simply listening to the arguments made by OHA ali’i and other native Hawaiian victimhood politicians, and taking them to their logical conclusion.

We know that the heavy hitters trying to preserve race-based programs in Hawaii don’t believe their own arguments – if they did they would be joining James Kimo Akahi and his cohorts at Iolani Palace. It is morally imperative that they cease and desist their dishonest and destructive propaganda, and make clear the following three incontrovertible truths:

1) The State of Hawaii is the legitimate government of all the people of Hawaii and there is no question under either local, state, federal or international law as to its legality;

2) Native Hawaiians are not victims requiring special reparations, additional privileges or a separate government;

3) All Hawaiians, regardless of ancestry, deserve equal protection under the law and equal consideration by the government.

He Hawai’i au; he mau Hawai’i kakou a pau – I am Hawaiian; we are all Hawaiians. The sooner our politicians give up their machinations for power based on race-based institutions, the sooner we will be free from the unintended consequences of historical revisionism and racial pandering. Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Hawaiian Islands with a multi-racial coalition including luminaries such as his son-in-law John Young, from Britain, and Don Marin, from Spain, would certainly challenge any presumption that he was a victim, or in need of special assistance. To honor Kamehameha’s wisdom and legacy, we must rededicate ourselves to be active participants in a thriving Hawaii, where race or ethnicity simply has no place in the spirit of aloha.

Jere Krischel
Senior Fellow
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

The power point presentation in PDF format of Jere Krischel’s presentation is available here.

Topics include Conklin’s book, Hawaiian apartheid, racial separatism, ethnic nationalism, Hawaiian religious fascism used to justify racial supremacy, Kamehameha Schools admissions policy, how a historical falsehood was asserted on the floor of the U.S. Senate in June 2007 to push the Akaka bill.

Conklin’s 302-page book can be ordered on the internet, and a preview is available free of charge. “Hawaiian Apartheid — Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State.” A webpage provides the book’s cover, the entire Chapter 1, a detailed table of contents, a link to the publisher’s online bookstore, and a toll-free phone number.
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

Congresswoman Mazie Hirono’s press release on the appointment of William Burgess and Paul Sullivan to the Hawai’i Civil Rights Advisory Board in which she states that the “group does not appear to reflect the position of the majority of the people of Hawai’i” misrepresents what I know to be the more prevalent public opinion about the Akaka bill.

Most of us who live here don’t like it, and, moreover, the ultimate goal of sovereignty for Native Hawaiians is not supported by Hawai’i's history of racial inclusion. She might not like the appointment of Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Burgess, but that doesn’t justify telling a fib.

When the ali’i invited our non-Hawaiian ancestors, who were not for the most part Americans, to come and blend with Native Hawaiians to build Hawai’i together, they didn’t tell them that someday that promise would be refuted by the creation of a racially exclusive and unequal status. Many non-Hawaiians were born in the kingdom and were equal subjects.

Perhaps it would be more intellectually honest for her to listen to the people by allowing some way to publicly determine what people truly want. We’re all tired of being lied to by politicians. In my opinion, most of us oppose the Akaka bill, contrary to her press release.

Furthermore, I know Congresswoman Hirono to be a bright and aggressive lady and suspect that she sees the insurmountable constitutional problems with this. So why not take the position she has taken? The prospective Akaka law will almost certainly be invalidated by the judicial system outside Hawai’i, which can then be blamed, and she and her colleagues won’t have to answer to Native Hawaiians. Is that it?

Paul de Silva
Hilo

On July 14, 2007 the Honolulu newspapers reported that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has approved the nominations of 14 new members to its 17-member Hawaii State Advisory Committee. News reports and commentaries are compiled in references further down in this post.

Some of the new members include strong opponents of the Akaka bill, and of race-based programs for ethnic Hawaiians. This is the first time in the history of the Hawaii Advisory Committee that opponents of Hawaii’s numerous race-based programs, and opponents of the Akaka bill, have served. The 17 members of the newly constituted committee appear to be roughly balanced between supporters and opponents of racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians, so it seems safe to predict lots of fireworks ahead.

Aside from issues concerning ethnic Hawaiians, there will be constant struggle between two different concepts of civil rights. One view is that civil rights is about giving advantages and group rights to minorities to make up for past or present difficulties, aimed at helping groups achieve equality of results. The other view is that civil rights is about protecting individual equality of opportunity under the law; recognizing that equal opportunity produces unequal results due to differences in individual ability and effort. The first view holds that people should be categorized as members of groups (race, social class), and individuals are presumed to have whatever advantages or difficulties statistics ascribe to the group. The second view holds that if government helps needy individuals based on need alone, then disadvantaged groups will automatically receive greater government handouts without focusing on race, simply because their individuals receive greater help because of their greater needs. In Hawaii, every ethnic group is a minority. Recent incidents of violence against Caucasians, accompanied by racial epithets, have raised the issue of hate-crime; so perhaps the committee will decide to look into it. See “Road Rage or Racial Hate Crime? (Thinking carefully about an actual incident of racial violence in February 2007, and how such violence can be used as a political tool to bolster demands for Hawaiian sovereignty)” at

http://tinyurl.com/2jle2e

ORDER OF TOPICS:

HISTORY BEHIND THE PREVIOUS HAWAII ADVISORY COMMITTEE (it was zealously and uniformly favorable to race-based programs for ethnic Hawaiians, and to the Akaka bill; and it even recommended that ethnic Hawaiians should be able to force the secession of Hawaii from the United States as a matter of civil rights)

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS (NATIONAL) NOW GREATLY IMPROVED (the national commission strongly opposes the Akaka bill, and has appointed a fair and balanced membership on the Hawaii Advisory Committee

THE NEW HAWAII ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS ANNOUNCED ON JULY 13, 2007 (members’ names and descriptions)

NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES ABOUT THE NEW HAWAII ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JULY 13 2007 (the compilation will be updated going forward)

This essay has been a summary of a lengthy webpage. To read about the topics listed above, please visit

http://tinyurl.com/2f2ynf

On Friday June 8, 2007 a group of ethnic Hawaiian organizations and individuals staged a protest against the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in front of the building where its office is located. The event had the outward appearance of a 1960s-era street demonstration by “little people” using guerilla street-theatre tactics (prayer and folk songs) to protest at the headquarters of a powerful corporation or government agency.

But in fact it was a form of intimidation by a group of extremely wealthy and powerful race-based institutions complaining that a small local think-tank dares to challenge their “right” to exercise racial exclusion and their demand to expand their already-existing racial supremacy by establishing a race-based government.

The event was also interesting because it clearly showed the active cooperation of major institutions seeking passage of the Akaka bill, assembling under the leadership of Hawaiian secessionists demanding that the 50th star be ripped off the American flag. The institutions seeking passage of the Akaka bill, present at this event, often claim that the bill would not foster secession. Many secessionists, including some present at this event, protest against the Akaka bill because they think it would interfere with eventual secession. Yet this event brought all of them together in solidarity to protect an Evil Empire against think-tank thoughts that challenge its belief-system and lawsuits intended to dismantle it.

The Evil Empire is described in a 302-page book published March 1, 2007 entitled “Hawaiian Apartheid — Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State.” The cover shows an American flag with its 50th star ripped off, and the Great Seal of the State of Hawaii broken apart. The cover, detailed table of contents, and entire Chapter 1 (“The Gathering Storm”) are available for free at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

The $8-15 Billion Kamehameha Schools was one of the “protesters.” It was represented on the sidewalk by its highly-paid CEO Ms. Dee Jay Mailer and its highly-paid media spokesperson Ms. Ann Botticelli. For proof of the presence of CEO Mailer, and her short speech at the event, see transcript of TV news broadcast and photos, below. Kamehameha enjoys an enormous tax exemption as a charitable trust. Federal law imposes severe limits on political activity by tax-exempt charitable trusts as a condition for retaining tax-exempt status; but somehow Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) has always played a major role in politics both in Hawaii and nationwide. See Samuel P. King and Randall W. Roth, “Broken trust: greed, mismanagement & political manipulation at America’s largest charitable trust” (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006). A large website providing background information and documentation is at
http://brokentrustbook.com/

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs sent staff from its monthly newspaper so that a report could be included in the July edition (however, the July edition turned out not to mention this incident). Alu Like sent representatives. Alu Like recently celebrated its 30th anniversary as the first federally funded racially exclusionary Hawaiian institution after the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921; its original purpose was to provide vocational training for ethnic Hawaiians but in recent years it has expanded to other areas including a Native Hawaiian library and an internet archive of Hawaiian-language newspapers from the Kingdom and Territorial periods.

The madrassa-like University of Hawaii Center for Hawaiian Studies was represented by its highly-paid chairman, Professor Jonathan Osorio. Mr. Osorio is also a professional entertainer who gives night-club performances singing Hawaiian-language songs while accompanying himself on his guitar; and he also is a paid consultant and lecturer in the tourist industry. At this “protest” event he led the singing of “Kaulana Na Pua,” a song composed in January 1893 to protest the revolution that overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy and to pledge support to ex-queen Liliuokalani (an armed counter-revolution was attempted in January 1895 led by racist firebrand Robert Wilcox). Today’s sovereignty activists use this song both as a bitter reminder of past “injustice” and a rallying cry for restoration of Hawaii as an independent nation.

The Democratic Party of Hawaii gave permission for the “protesters” to use its printing equipment to print various materials, including flyers. This fact illustrates the political connectedness of the protesting institutions and individuals — they could easily have used other facilities, but it seemed perfectly natural and ordinary for them to seek and receive such a favor from the most powerful political party in the history of Hawaii.

Some of the protesters entered the building where GRIH has its office, and distributed notices to all the other tenants in the building informing them of the reason for the protest. The notices also may have had the effect of disrupting the activities of those other tenants and perhaps causing them to suggest to building management that it might be wise to ask GRIH to move out for fear of similar incidents in the future. The people leading the protest have many long years of experience as environmental and anti-military protesters and as political strategists, so it would not be unreasonable to suppose that they intended to cause trouble with the neighbors. The protest leaders also have previous experience taking over and occupying administrative offices, including the President’s Office at the University of Hawaii.

Ikaika Hussey, leader of this event, was a student activist at the University of Hawaii and a writer for the student newspaper. He was elected as a delegate to the State of Hawaii government-funded Native Hawaiian Convention whose stated purpose was to develop one or more proposals for race-based political sovereignty. The convention had two factions, with a minority favoring the model of a nation-within-a-nation (Akaka bill) and a majority favoring independence. Hussey became the public spokesman for the independence faction, which was the only faction left standing by the time the convention faded away due to lack of additional government funding. In 2000 Hussey ran as a Democrat for the state House of Representatives (taking a candidate’s oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States despite his clear intention of violating it). Two e-mails from Hussey are copied below, one calling for people to participate in the protest of June 8 and the other reporting on what happened.

Also present at the protest was Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell, a medical doctor and professor emeritus at the University of Hawaii School of Medicine. Interestingly for someone who advocates blood-nationalism, his medical specialty is the study of blood diseases. Blaisdell is the godfather of the Hawaiian independence movement. He has attended numerous international conferences, especially in Pacific island venues, pressing foreign diplomats to support Hawaiian independence. Also present was Blaisdell’s long-time friend and colleague in the independence movement, Lynette Cruz. Cruz has a Ph.D. and is a professor of anthropology at Hawaii Pacific University. Her dissertation was on the history of the sovereignty movement; and she is extremely active in running many sovereignty rallies, organizations, and TV programs.

It seems strange that no newspapers and only one TV station reported on the June 8 event, although all were presumably invited by these very experienced media-savvy protesters. TV station KGMB had a crew at the event. It broadcast a very short report about the protest on both the 6PM and 10PM news on June 8, including footage of Kamehameha CEO Dee Jay Mailer standing with protesters and expressing a sentence or two in support (see transcript and photos below); but the station’s website has no record of news about the event having been broadcast. Perhaps the “establishment” institutions like Kamehameha School, OHA, etc. decided it might cause trouble for the Akaka bill if they were seen publicly working in concert with the secessionists. Of course the event was videotaped by secessionist activists using equipment from the public access cable TV system “‘Olelo”, so eventually there might be a program on cable TV.

The immediate excuse for the “protest” was an e-mail that had been sent a couple weeks previously from attorney David Rosen to two friends, one of whom was GRIH chair Richard Rowland, asking whether Rowland was aware of any potential clients for a new lawsuit Rosen was planning against Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy. That e-mail was forwarded by Rowland to some of his friends, and found its way to a large number of Kamehameha alumni and Hawaiian activists who were angry and outraged that another lawsuit was apparently getting started. Kamehameha had just settled a similar lawsuit at the last possible moment while the Supreme Court Justices were considering whether to accept the lawsuit for a review of the 9th Circuit Court’s 8-7 decision upholding the admissions policy. The “Hawaiian community” had breathed a sigh of relief that its racially exclusionary policies had survived the latest legal challenge, and now they were once again faced with the possibility of another challenge.

Haunani Apoliona, Chair of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, had used three consecutive editorials in the OHA monthly newspapers of August, September, and October 2006 to attack what she called “The Nutgrass Conspiracy.” The title of her trilogy was a clear reference to the Grassroot Institute, which she named in her editorials as a leader of a vast rightwing conspiracy (reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s famous diatribe) against Native Hawaiian “rights.” Another OHA trustee also editorialized against GRIH. The OHA trustees had demonized GRIH in their newspaper with a circulation of 60,000. So now, when the e-mail addressed to the head of GRIH was sent to hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Hawaiian activists, the stage was set for dramatic action. See “Nutgrass Network Conspiracy — OHA trustees put forward a conspiracy theory to attack civil rights activists who dare to oppose their nutty, racist agenda” at:
http://ohanutgrassconspiracy.htm

On June 27, 2007 the leftist “alternative” newspaper “Honolulu Weekly” published an article by Travis Quezon which included the previously unreported fact that the “host culture” public charter school “Halau Ku Mana” had sent students to participate in the June 8 protest. Travis Quezon’s slanted story about the June 8 protest against Grassroot Institute of Hawai‘i portrayed a David vs. Goliath situation, with the kids from Halau Ku Mana Charter School as David and the GRIH as Goliath. But Quezon got it backwards. On January 25 Star-Bulletin reported the $8 Billion Kamehameha Schools granted $4.8 Million to Halau Ku Mana and 11 other “public” charter schools. In June kids from HKM showed up to protest against GRIH over the appearance that the head of GRIH might refer an attorney to potential plaintiffs for a civil rights lawsuit against Kamehameha’s racist admissions policy. Highly paid Kamehameha CEO Dee Jay Mailer gave a speech at the protest, standing next to an “Official Use Only” van. See photos below. Duh! Connect the dots. So who is David and who is Goliath? Why are kids from a taxpayer-funded public charter school being used on a Friday morning as pawns in behemoth Kamehameha’s political power play to stifle free speech by a small think-tank that dares to question Kamehameha’s racist policy?

The following items are included on a webpage about the June 8 “protest”, at
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/GRIH060807.htm

1. E-mail from secessionist Ikaika Hussey on June 7, 2007 mobilizing the anti-GRIH event of June 8.

2. E-mail from Ikaika Hussey reporting after the event, describing what happened and including contents of the flyer.

3. Transcript of news report broadcast on KGMB9 TV 6 PM Friday June 8. (See also photos captured from the news broadcast, near the bottom of this webpage)

4. Commentary by Jere Krischel, Senior Fellow of GRIH, posted on a GRIH blog on June 10.

5. “Takin’ It to the Streets” Commentary by Brandon Bosworth, director of publications at GRIH, posted on a GRIH blog on June 13.

6. Brief comments “Thanks to the SS Corps” by GRIH head Dick Rowland, posted on a GRIH blog on June 13.

7. Link to webpage containing the 4 editorials by two OHA trustees in the OHA monthly newspapers of August, September, and October 2006 attacking “The Nutgrass Conspiracy.”

8. Link to webpage explaining how the Akaka bill would empower the secessionist movement. The webpage provides proof that some important long-time secessionist leaders favor the Akaka bill, and that Senator Akaka himself strongly hints that he also favors secession as a long-term goal and clearly states that the bill would not interfere with secession.

9. Link to webpage explaining important attitudes, beliefs, and goals shared by both the Akaka bill supporters and the secessionists.

10. Link to webpage describing terrorist-like disruption of Statehood Day celebration in August, 2006 led by some of the same protesters who were present on June 8, 2007 including Kekuni Blaisdell, Lynette Cruz, and Ikaika Hussey.

11. Newspaper report describing the e-mail from attorney David Rosen to GRIH head Richard Rowland asking whether Rowland might know of any potential plaintiffs for a new lawsuit against Kamehameha.

12. Photos captured from recording of KGMB9 TV news broadcast June 8, 6 PM.

13. Photos taken by protesters to showcase their protest of June 8, 2007 at the GRIH office.

For details of the above-listed 13 items, see
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/GRIH060807.htm