The Mystery of Hawaiian History

On November 13, 2007 OHA suddenly published a slick 67-page document which tried to smear the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights just two days before a long-scheduled public meeting. The document also tried to twist history to support the Akaka bill and tried to discredit earlier testimony opposing the bill.

OHA’s 67-page document is entitled “Correcting the Record: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Justice for Native Hawaiians.” It can be downloaded in pdf format from the OHA website at

http://oha.org/images/stories/071113correcting.pdf

and a list of appendices can be downloaded at

http://oha.org/images/stories/071113appendices.pdf

A rebuttal to OHA’s 67-page document was published by civil rights activists one day later. It is entitled “Correcting OHA’s Deceptive ‘Correcting the Record’.” It was written by a few civil rights activists operating under urgent time pressure with zero budget, to counteract the slick OHA document produced by a large staff with large budget over a period of about two months. The civil rights rebuttal describes how the previous civil rights committee from 1996 to 2006 was overwhelmingly stacked with supporters of race-based government and private programs, and worked closely with OHA and the powerful race-based institutions to counteract the Rice v. Cayetano decision, to facilitate development of the Akaka bill, and to support the Akaka bill throughout the first six years it was pending in Congress. The rebuttal straightens out some of the twisted Hawaiian history presented in the OHA report. This rebuttal can be found at the GRIH Wiki.

by Ken Conklin

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL has published two major editorials against the Akaka bill at crucial moments when the U.S. Senate was poised to consider it.

“A Bright Line on Race” editorial in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL of October 2, 2000

“The Akaka State? A recipe for Balkanization heads for the Senate floor” editorial in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL of June 2, 2006

WSJ has also published a number of commentaries opposing the Akaka bill by columnist John Fund: July 18 2005, August 19 2005, June 5, 2006, June 12, 2006. WSJ published a major commentary on August 16, 2005 by former Senators Slade Gorton and Hank Brown repudiating the apology resolution of 1993 which provides the most important theoretical rationale for the Akaka bill.

Even THE ECONOMIST (London) expressed concern on September 2, 2005

Full text of all the above articles is available from subpages reached through an index organized chronologically at
http://tinyurl.com/5eflp

Readers might think those articles are not specifically concerned with the impact of the Akaka bill on business, since The Wall Street Journal and The Economist often try to familiarize their readers with broad social and political issues.

But three commentaries about the Akaka bill in August and October of 2007 were in publications that specifically target audiences of business owners and investors. Thus it appears the business community both nationwide and in Hawaii is beginning to awaken to the dangers of the Akaka bill. These three articles are still available immediately at no charge from their publishers’ websites:

HAWAII BUSINESS magazine, August 2007 (pro-con debate)
http://tinyurl.com/25rh6g

NASDAQ NEWS, October 24, 2007 (news report following House passage)
http://tinyurl.com/2×2sfq

INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY, Monday, October 29, 2007, EDITORIAL in opposition.
http://tinyurl.com/2c822f

by Ken Conklin

On August 7, 2007 a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Judge Susan Oki Mollway of the U.S. District Court in Honolulu to reinstate a lawsuit she previously dismissed. The 5 plaintiffs are native Hawaiians with at least 50% native blood quantum who complain that the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is improperly spending enormous amounts of money on programs for low-blood-quantum ethnic Hawaiians.

Read the rest of this entry »

“The Time is Now” is a slick trifold brochure asking people to support the Akaka bill. It was mass-mailed in late May and early June. The brochure features the Hawaiian flag but no American flag. One reason for the absence of the American flag is that many Hawaiian activists believe that the U.S. is illegally occupying their ancestral homeland and has been the source of prolonged oppression. To empower such people by creating a government for them is to empower a secessionist movement.

See a detailed critique of this OHA funded propaganda here.

Once a “sovereign” entity is created it is only a matter of time.

The resolution cleared its final State House hurdle when, after about an hour and a half of debate, it won Senate approval on a 23-to-13 vote. . . .

Matthew Thomas, the Narragansetts’ chief sachem, said he was “delighted” by the vote, which marks one of the high points in his 2,400-member tribe’s never-ending quest, since a 1994 defeat at the polls, to join many of its Indian brethren in the gambling business. 

If the Akaka bill passes legalized gambling could still be “negotiated” for the Native Hawaii Government. The Akaka bill so wide open that anything is “game.” 

Full story here.

Ever wonder what the newly Reorganized Native Hawaiian Government might look like and it goals might be?

Here’s a hint.

now called S.3064 is now online, in pdf format. It includes the amendments made to the bill to answer U.S. Justice Dept. objections.

Here is the link.

National Review Online’s The Corner talks about the Akaka bill and GRIH’s recent survey results.

Article here.

The Heritage Foundation’s forum “An Unconstitutional Act Is Back: The Return of the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Act” appears to be archived all day. Click on the link and choose View Event. Runs 35 minutes.

Click here.  

The Editors at National Review Online have written an op-ed entitled “A Hawaiian Punch to E Pluribus Unum”.

Although no one knows what the final form of the government would be, presumably some 400,000 “natives” would be invited to weigh in—even a resident of New Hampshire who has never stepped foot in Hawaii and has but a trace of Hawaiian blood would get a say in forming the new government. The most pernicious outcome is perhaps the only one that is assured: The governing entity would lead to a permanent hereditary caste in Hawaii, where natives—defined however the interim government chooses to define them—enjoy at least some rights that non-natives do not. Tax-exempt status and immunity from Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations are two possibilities.

 They go on to make a number of excellent points. One is that passage of the Akaka bill will set a precedent that will lead to other similar claims.

Passage of the bill would only embolden fringe groups seeking similar recognition or compensation. It would simultaneously drive a wedge into Hawaiian society—all for the purpose of silencing activists who trot out the “racist” canard at every possible moment. Even so, the greatest victim of the Akaka bill would not be non-native Hawaiians. It would be, rather, the belief that every American belongs to a single, indivisible society.

 Whole article here.