Eye on Ken Conklin

April 14, 2009 Ken Conklin Once Again Singles Out and Targets Hawaiians. This time falsely accusing some Hawaiians as "tax cheats" without evidence.

2009-04-23T00:10:00.001-07:00

It has come to our attention that once again Ken Conklin wrote a piece specificially singling out and targeting Hawaiians based on their national origin (i.e. Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina.)

It does not end there. He names some Hawaiians in his diatribe falsely accusing some of them of being "tax cheats" going as far as falsely accusing them of being "dirt bags:"

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8adc34b3-9b52-4a08-92fd-7b12eef593a1

Will he refrain from singling out and targeting Hawaiians based on their national origin?

It remains to be seen.

Eye on Ken Conklin: Ken Conklin continues to promote racism against Hawaiians

2009-03-13T20:41:00.000-07:00

Ken Conklin has created a website solely about Hawaiian sovereignty which singles out and targets Hawaiians based on their national origin. It doesn't end there.

Ken Conklin also posts at other forums:

http://hawaiiconcon.ning.com/profile/KenConklin

Ken Conklin's topic? Hawaiians.

Notice that Ken Conklin seems to discuss Hawaiians and only Hawaiians. Ken Conklin does not discuss other issues or people. Ken Conklin solely singles out and targets Hawaiians based on their national origin (Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina.) Instead of discussing issues, Ken Conklin discusses Hawaiians and only Hawaiians singling out and targeting them based on their national origin.

Racism against any group of people based on their national origin should never be tolerated. Unfortunately Ken Conklin continues to devote an entire website and devote countless comments on various forums solely to discuss Hawaiians and only Hawaiians.

More on Ken Conklin later.

When Ken Conklin writes it's about Hawaiians and has a website solely about Hawaiians by Eye on Ken Conklin

2009-03-11T08:58:00.001-07:00

When Ken Conklin writes it is about Hawaiians. For example at the Honolulu Starbulletin forum he comments on articles such as articles about so-called "ceded" lands:

Ken Conklin writes:

"I'm going to have a vigil starting at 4 AM Wednesday. I'll be praying that the Supreme Court does exactly what Apoliona is afraid they will do -- bring the 14th Amendment to bear, and focus like a laser beam on the whole sorry mess; abolish OHA as a state agency (the racists can have a private club with no government money); order the Homeland leases to be converted to fee simple and DHHL to be abolished (ever hear of "neighborhood boards"?); make clear the ceded lands belong to all Hawaii's people without racial distinction."

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/honolulu-star-bulletin/TKV14J15CMLA8FRVP#c2

There are a few things inherently wrong with Ken Conklin's statement. For example, Ken Conklin advocates that OHA (the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) be abolished. However that would be conversion which is the unauthorized use of personal property. Conklin states, "Make clear the ceded lands belong to all of Hawai'is people without racial distinction."

Actually the so-called "ceded" lands were never ceded by the citizens of Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina which is sometimes called "the Hawaiian Kingdom" in English.

Would Ken Conklin's statement be tolerated if Ken COnklin was to say this about Jewish people who never consented to transfer their title? Of course not.

However Ken Conklin singles out and targets Hawaiians based on their national origin (Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina) which shows Ken Conklin's racism.

Notice that whenever there are articles about Hawaiians Ken Conklin is there posting racist comments which singles out and targets Hawaiians based on their national origin.

Ken Conklin has a website singling out and targeting Hawaiians and only Hawaiians:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty

This website epitomizes the racism that Ken Conklin has directed to Hawaiians, citizens of Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina.

There is something inherently wrong about that. Instead of discussing issues Ken Conklin discusses Hawaiians.

Notice on Ken Conklin's Self-Published Book Cover That He Excludes Hawaiians

2009-03-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

Ken Conklin's self-published book cover includes America and the seal of Hawai'i but note that Ken Conklin excludes Hawaiians and their nation, Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina.

Ken Conklin charges $16.95 per book.

Was that Ken Conklin's motive? To profit off of Hawaiians?

It seems as though Ken Conklin disparages Hawaiians based on their national origin (Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina) in order to profit off of Hawaiians.

Ken Conklin wrote a book about Hawaiians

2009-03-04T09:16:00.000-08:00

Another example which shows how Ken Conklin singles out and targets Hawaiians... and only Hawaiians:

He wrote a book called, " "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" thus singling and targeting Hawaiians based on their national origin (Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina.)

Ironically he charges $16.95 for his book thus showing that he is trying to profit off of the very people he singles out and targets based on their national origin.

That may have been his purpose or one of his purposes: Write a book and try to profit off of Hawaiians. An inherent problem is that it seems as though Ken Conklin writes solely about Hawaiians disparaging them based on their national origin (Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina) because he wanted to make a profit.

There is something inherently evil about this.

Another example of Ken Conklin's misrepresentation of the truth

2008-09-05T21:05:00.000-07:00

Ken Conklin has claimed that in his illogical bid for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (which he has unsuccessfully tried to have dissolved) that he was "4th out of 20 candidates."

The truth is when he ran for a seat with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs he won 4.9% of the votes while there were 31.7% blank votes:

http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/results/2000/general/00swgen4.htm

This clearly shows that the people of Hawai'i have spoken and they will not and do not tolerate his racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin. The will of the people has been heard loudly and clearly.

We can see how he twists the truth. Scott Crawford of Maui caught him twisting data in order to try to substantiate his racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C608676235/E20051023121159/index.html

They say the truth takes few words. It is obvious that Ken Conklin uses many words to try to deceive. We are happy to report that we have been receiving overwhelming support for our website.

Mahalo for reading.

Ken Conklin inaccurately claims that Hawaiians want "freebies" and "special rights" and inaccurately uses the words "Hawaiian Apartheid"

2008-09-02T18:22:00.000-07:00

Thank you to all of your emails telling us that you are glad that we are exposing Ken Conklin for the racist that he is. We appreciate it.

In Ken Conklin's numerous disjointed diatribes which show a lack of order he fails to mention two main points:

1. The Admissions Act and
2. The Hawai'i "State" Constitution

In the Admissions Act it explicitly states:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c) of this Act, the State of Hawaii is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii entitled "An Act to provide for a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State constitution, and the forwarding of the same to the Congress of the United States, and appropriating money therefor", approved May 20, 1949 (Act 334, Session Laws of Hawaii, 1949), and adopted by a vote of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed."

Later it states:

"§4. As a compact with the United States relating to the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be adopted as a provision of the Constitution of said State, as provided in section 7, subsection (b) of this Act, subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States, and in no other manner: Provided, That (1) sections 202, 213, 219, 220, 222, 224, and 225 and other provisions relating to administration, and paragraph (2) of section 204, sections 206 and 212, and other provisions relating to the powers and duties of officers other than those charged with the administration of said Act, may be amended in the constitution, or in the manner required for State legislation, but the Hawaiian home-loan fund, the Hawaiian home-operating fund, and the Hawaiian home-development fund shall not be reduced or impaired by any such amendment, whether made in the constitution or in the manner required for State legislation, and the encumbrances authorized to be placed on Hawaiian home lands by officers other than those charged with the administration of said Act, shall not be increased, except with the consent of the United States; (2) that any amendment to increase the benefits to lessees of Hawaiian home lands may be made in the constitution, or in the manner required for State legislation, but the qualifications of lessees shall not be changed except with the consent of the United States; and (3) that all proceeds and income from the "available lands", as defined by said Act, shall be used only in carrying out the provisions of said Act."

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/04-ADM/ADM-.HTM

Conklin inaccurately claims that Hawaiians want "special" rights but when it comes to title, title must be accepted and delivered. In the case of Hawaiians title is held in trust by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. This is explicitly described in the Hawai'i "State" Constitution:

§10-3 Purpose of the office. The purposes of the office of Hawaiian affairs include:(1) The betterment of conditions of native Hawaiians.A pro rata portion of all funds derived from the public land trust shall be funded in an amount to be determined by the legislature for this purpose, and shall be held and used solely as a public trust for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians.For the purpose of this chapter, the public land trust shall be all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands ceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaii under the joint resolution of annexation, approved July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. 750), or acquired in exchange for lands so ceded, and conveyed to the State of Hawaii by virtue of section 5(b) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4, the Admissions Act), (excluding therefrom lands and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or disposition of lands defined as "available lands" by section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended), and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands retained by the United States under sections 5(c) and 5(d) of the Act of March 18, 1959, later conveyed to the State under section 5(e);(2) The betterment of conditions of Hawaiians;(3) Serving as the principal public agency in this State responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to native Hawaiians and Hawaiians; except that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be administered by the Hawaiian homes commission;(4) Assessing the policies and practices of other agencies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, and conducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians;(5) Applying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants and donations from all sources for native Hawaiian and Hawaiian programs and services; and(6) Serving as a receptacle for reparations. [L 1979, c 196, pt of §2; am L 1990, c 304, §§4, 16]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0010/HRS_0010-0003.HTM

In Article XII in the Hawai'i "State" Constitution the title being held in trust for Hawaiians is explicitly described:

OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS; ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Section 5.

There is hereby established an Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall hold title to all the real and personal property now or hereafter set aside or conveyed to it which shall be held in trust for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. There shall be a board of trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elected by qualified voters who are Hawaiians, as provided by law. The board members shall be Hawaiians. There shall be not less than nine members of the board of trustees; provided that each of the following Islands have one representative: Oahu, Kauai, Maui, Molokai and Hawaii. The board shall select a chairperson from its members. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7,
1978]

Seen here: http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart12.html

He tries to twist that with misinformation trying to de-humanize the Hawaiian and trying to make Hawaiians look as though they want "freebies" and that they want "special rights" in order to try to substantiate his racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin. However the Admissions Act and the Hawai'i "State" Constitution show otherwise.

That is, Hawaiians do not want what Conklin inaccurately calls "freebies." Hawaiians do NOT want "special rights." Instead Hawaiians want what is rightfully theirs.

Ken Conklin also inaccurately claims that Hawaiians have what he claims is "Hawaiian Apartheid." A close look at the ethnicities of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its people (i.e. Hawaiians) today proves that Conklin is inaccurate. Ironically Hawaiians are proof that we are inclusive... not exclusive like how Conklin inaccurately claims. That is, most Hawaiians today are of mixed ethnicities which is a product of the inclusiveness of the Hawaiian Kingdom and of Hawaiians yet he continues to use inaccurate words such as "Hawaiian Apartheid" to try to spread misinformation and lies about the Hawaiian Kingdom and thus about Hawaiians in order to try to spread his racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin.

It has gotten so bad that very recently he has threatened a Hawaiian named Terry Kekoolani with bodily harm. Watch it here under the red bar, "Featured Videos" then click onto "Raw Footage:"

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5301211

His racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin is becoming more obvious. He is now resorting to physical violence against a Hawaiian woman.

Nearly two years later

2008-08-31T12:34:00.001-07:00

Aloha kakou. (Aloha everyone.)

Nearly two years later to our last entry... we are back with more information. We are here to continue to expose Ken Conklin's racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin. Mahalo (thank you) for all of your supportive emails and contributions to this website.

Mired with inaccuracies about Hawaiians and about Hawaiian history, his racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin is evident.

There will be more posted here by the editors of KenConklin.com and by the Hawaiian Foundation. From all of us at the Hawaiian Foundation... stay tuned.

Ken Conklin PhD tries to deceive us once again

2006-08-30T09:20:00.000-07:00

In this letter to the editor, Ken Conklin PhD fails to mention that he repeatedly tried to bite a Hawaiian woman's finger. Here is a still of the incident:

Here is the raw footage courtesy of KHNL of Ken Conklin PhD trying to physically bite her finger:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5301211

He forgot to mention this in his letter which singles out and targets Hawaiians based on our national origin:

Rudeness replaces aloha for patriotism

Sovereignty protesters used a sound system, bullhorns and in-your-face shouting to disrupt Statehood Day celebrations (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 19). They terrorized a high school band into leaving before the music could be played.

Five days later, I attended a blessing ceremony to open a $23 million renovation project at Windward Mall. Kamehameha Schools owns the mall.

I am an active opponent of Kamehameha's racist admissions policy. But I left my bullhorn at home. I did not go to the podium, interrupt any speakers, yell or stick my finger in their faces. I did not harass the school kids performing right next to my seat.

A large American flag hangs permanently above center-stage; yet there was no Pledge of Allegiance. When everyone stood to sing "Hawaii Pono'i" I sat down because the U.S. national anthem was not also sung. That was my protest. I believe the anthem and pledge were deliberately excluded for fear that some in attendance would be disrespectful. That's how bad things have gotten.

At the end we all joined hands and I sang along --"Hawai'i Aloha." Indeed. Let's hope so.

Aloha ke Akua. Aloha kakou.

Kenneth R. Conklin

Kaneohe

Seen at http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/editorial/letters.html

Ken Conklin tries to bite a Hawaiian woman's finger

2006-08-21T10:59:00.000-07:00

Fortunately someone took raw footage of a recent showdown at Iolani Palace between Hawaiians and anti-Hawaiians:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5301211

Under the red bar labelled "Featured Videos: Raw Footage" you can hear and see Ken Conklin tell a Hawaiian lady, Terry Kekoolani, that he is hungry and threatens her with bodily harm. (Please watch the RAW footage version in the link above.) He is in the right of this picture:

That is the guy who tries to spread racism against Hawaiians. This footage also shows how violent Ken Conklin is towards Hawaiian women.

Lately some people have questioned his credentials. We question his hatred against Hawaiians based on their national origin and his singling out and targeting Hawaiians based on their national origin.

Another example of Ken Conklin's deception

2006-03-09T01:14:00.000-08:00

From Paul Arrighi:

"Ken Conklin posted a commentary on an article saying that "ohana" was a recent creation and when Lana Robbins provided proof that ohana has been in use for well over 120 years, Conklin's response is a lame, maybe the person who wrote the article did not have access to this information. A honest assessment would be to admit that the article was wrong but Conklin because of his prejudice or whatever reason is unable to bring himself to say this."

A little background:

This is what Ken Conklin wrote about the Hawaiian word "ohana." Note that he amended it but he does not reflect the fact that Lana Robbins pointed it out to him that "Ohana" has been in Hawaiian language papers as early as 1834 which proves that "ohana" is NOT a modern invention as he inaccurately claims on his website here inaccurately asserting that the Hawaiian word "ohana" was created in about 1950 when it was not:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/ohana.html

Then Lana Robbins showed that the Hawaiian word "ohana" is shown being used as early as in 1834 NOT in 1950 which Ken Conklin tries to deceptively lead people to believe:

http://nupepa.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/nupepa?a=q&r=1&hs=1&e=q-0nupepa--00-0-0--010---4----text---0-1l--1en-Zz-1---20-about---00031-0000utfZz-8-00&t=0&q=ohana

This is reflected here:

http://www.kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Word_

In it the editor states:

"Editor's note

Lana Ululani Robbins found references to the word "ohana" in old olelo newspapers online, circa 1831 and forward. It is quite possible that the information she uncovered was not available to the original writer of the article referenced below."

It is easy for people to see the deception of Ken Conklin.

Again... the Hawaiian word "ohana" is clearly seen in a Hawaiian newspaper dated as early as in 1834 which is clearly NOT a modern invention as Conklin inaccurately and deceptively claims.

The writers could have easily checked out this information. Especially Kenneth Conklin PhD aka Ken Conklin PhD. He has a PhD in the Philosophy of Education yet he FAILED to do thorough research. Instead he published it and has been caught by Lana Robbins.

In conclusion... it is clear that Conklin tries to deceive people in order to try to spread his racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin.

Ken Conklin's Racist Attacks on the Hawaiian Culture

2006-03-02T20:08:00.000-08:00

In the HAWAII REPORTER, Ken Conklin writes a piece regarding the recent desecration of ahu (alters) that were put up at Maunakea on the island of Hawai'i and at 'Iolani Palace on O'ahu. He questions if it was:

1) a simple act of vandalism by people who did not know its significance?

2) demolition of a rockpile a desecration of a religious shrine?

3) was it an act against ethnic Hawaiians?

4) was it a political statement against Hawaiian sovereignty, therefore being protected under "free speech"?

5) an act done by sovereignty activists in order to gain sympathy?

So to answer his questions.

#1 Does he really think that people are that clueless not only being aware of the cultures in the islands but just standard, social etiquette?

#2 What it comes down to is destroying property, that's all he needs to be concerned about.

#3 If there's any act against "ethnic" Hawaiians, a term that he habitually uses, it would be him. Keep in mind how many centuries we have lived together with outsiders and allowed them to come in to the islands. Now comes Ken Conklin with his own agenda and rocks the boat and questions non-Hawaiians as to why they never went against Hawaiians to begin with.

#4 This is nothing but an excuse. He hates sovereignty, therefore will use anything he can against it. This is just that.

#5 Now he is really groping for things to say. Ken claims to be savvy in the Hawaiian culture. If that's the case, he should know that Hawaiians would never do things like that akin to the tapu system.

He says that there is no way to know unless the perpetrators are caught. Yet he can publicly pose these scenarios, but what about number 6, where Ken Conklin may have something to do with this in order to write this article?

He belittles our culture by his constant use of rockpile to which in his opinion it is nothing more than that unless we hold his beliefs as to what is deemed as sacred or not. He asks if it is a shrine, what god does it honor? In other words, it cannot be a "shrine" unless it honors an actual god that he is familiar with because if it doesn't, then it isn't a shrine, only because he believes that it is. Does he realize that a shrine is nothing more than a place where devotion is paid to a venerated person, not necessarily a "god" as he insists. He uses this term (to no surprise) in order to marginalize our culture. I hear about these "make-shift shrines" on the t.v. all the time when someone is gunned down, run over, or killed by any other means in any given area. They are not "gods". And if he really knew something about Hawaiian culture, he should know that there were also kupua (demigods) that were venerated as well.

Worse, he justifies its attack and demolition simply because the monument at 'Iolani Palace was built for political purpose. Is he serious? It's like saying that it's okay for Al-Queda to attack the White House, Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore or the Washington Monument.

Because some Hawaiians are practicing the ancient religion, he finds that it is a bold move since it is used as an embellishment for political purposes. Ken will say anything to use against sovereignty, something he does not want Hawaiians to have.

He continues by repeating the purpose of the "rockpile" that it was done with nothing more than a political purpose. I find it very odd that he opens up by mentioning possible scenarios a la CSI only to finally state that he sees this "rockpile" as nothing more than having a political purpose. So all of this just to express again how much he despises Hawaiian people and their culture once again:

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c4781530-a57b-4c05-8e38-7d3987a15164

Once again Ken Conklin tries to push his agenda for the ethnic cleansing of Hawaiians by Lana Robbins

2006-02-17T11:45:00.000-08:00

In today's newspaper, Kenneth Conklin writes to the editor of the Honolulu Advertiser to try to spread his racism against Hawaiians again. The fatal flaw in his argument is that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was the result of the Admissions Act. In it it explicitly states:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c) of this Act, the State of Hawaii is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii entitled "An Act to provide for a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State constitution, and the forwarding of the same to the Congress of the United States, and appropriating money therefor", approved May 20, 1949 (Act 334, Session Laws of Hawaii, 1949), and adopted by a vote of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed."

Then it states:

§4. As a compact with the United States relating to the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be adopted as a provision of the Constitution of said State, as provided in section 7, subsection (b) of this Act, subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States, and in no other manner: Provided, That (1) sections 202, 213, 219, 220, 222, 224, and 225 and other provisions relating to administration, and paragraph (2) of section 204, sections 206 and 212, and other provisions relating to the powers and duties of officers other than those charged with the administration of said Act, may be amended in the constitution, or in the manner required for State legislation, but the Hawaiian home-loan fund, the Hawaiian home-operating fund, and the Hawaiian home-development fund shall not be reduced or impaired by any such amendment, whether made in the constitution or in the manner required for State legislation, and the encumbrances authorized to be placed on Hawaiian home lands by officers other than those charged with the administration of said Act, shall not be increased, except with the consent of the United States; (2) that any amendment to increase the benefits to lessees of Hawaiian home lands may be made in the constitution, or in the manner required for State legislation, but the qualifications of lessees shall not be changed except with the consent of the United States; and (3) that all proceeds and income from the "available lands", as defined by said Act, shall be used only in carrying out the provisions of said Act.

Furthermore, in Hawaii STATE LAW, Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 10, it states

§10-3 Purpose of the office. The purposes of the office of Hawaiian affairs include:

(1) The betterment of conditions of native Hawaiians.

A pro rata portion of all funds derived from the public land trust shall be funded in an amount to be determined by the legislature for this purpose, and shall be held and used solely as a public trust for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians.

For the purpose of this chapter, the public land trust shall be all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands ceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaii under the joint resolution of annexation, approved July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. 750), or acquired in exchange for lands so ceded, and conveyed to the State of Hawaii by virtue of section 5(b) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4, the Admissions Act), (excluding therefrom lands and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or disposition of lands defined as "available lands" by section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended), and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands retained by the United States under sections 5(c) and 5(d) of the Act of March 18, 1959, later conveyed to the State under section 5(e);

(2) The betterment of conditions of Hawaiians;

(3) Serving as the principal public agency in this State responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to native Hawaiians and Hawaiians; except that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be administered by the Hawaiian homes commission;

(4) Assessing the policies and practices of other agencies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, and conducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians;

(5) Applying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants and donations from all sources for native Hawaiian and Hawaiian programs and services; and

(6) Serving as a receptacle for reparations. [L 1979, c 196, pt of §2; am L 1990, c 304, §§4, 16]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0010/HRS_0010-0003.HTM

In addition in the Hawaii State Constitution Article 12 it explicitly states:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

ARTICLE XII

HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS

HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT

Section 1. Anything in this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, enacted by the Congress, as the same has been or may be amended prior to the admission of the State, is hereby adopted as a law of the State, subject to amendment or repeal by the legislature; provided that if and to the extent that the United States shall so require, such law shall be subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States and in no other manner; provided further that if the United States shall have been provided or shall provide that particular provisions or types of provisions of such Act may be amended in the manner required for ordinary state legislation, such provisions or types of provisions may be so amended. The proceeds and income from Hawaiian home lands shall be used only in accordance with the terms and spirit of such Act. The legislature shall make sufficient sums available for the following purposes:

development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots;
home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans;
rehabilitation projects to include, but not limited to, educational, economic, political, social and cultural processes by which the general welfare and conditions of native Hawaiians are thereby improved;
the administration and operating budget of the department of Hawaiian home lands; in furtherance of (1), (2), (3) and (4) herein, by appropriating the same in the manner provided by law.
Thirty percent of the state receipts derived from the leasing of cultivated sugarcane lands under any provision of law or from water licenses shall be transferred to the native Hawaiian rehabilitation fund, section 213 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, for the purposes enumerated in that section. Thirty percent of the state receipts derived from the leasing of lands cultivated as sugarcane lands on the effective date of this section shall continue to be so transferred to the native Hawaiian rehabilitation fund whenever such lands are sold, developed, leased, utilized, transferred, set aside or otherwise disposed of for purposes other than the cultivation of sugarcane. There shall be no ceiling established for the aggregate amount transferred into the native Hawaiian rehabilitation fund. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

ACCEPTANCE OF COMPACT

Section 2. The State and its people do hereby accept, as a compact with the United States, or as conditions or trust provisions imposed by the United States, relating to the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands, the requirement that section 1 hereof be included in this constitution, in whole or in part, it being intended that the Act or acts of the Congress pertaining thereto shall be definitive of the extent and nature of such compact, conditions or trust provisions, as the case may be. The State and its people do further agree and declare that the spirit of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act looking to the continuance of the Hawaiian homes projects for the further rehabilitation of the Hawaiian race shall be faithfully carried out. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

COMPACT ADOPTION; PROCEDURES AFTER ADOPTION

Section 3. As a compact with the United States relating to the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be adopted as a provision of the constitution of this State, as provided in section 7, subsection (b), of the Admission Act, subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States, and in no other manner; provided that (1) sections 202, 213, 219, 220, 222, 224 and 225 and other provisions relating to administration, and paragraph (2) of section 204, sections 206 and 2l2 and other provisions relating to the powers and duties of officers other than those charged with the administration of such Act, may be amended in the constitution, or in the manner required for state legislation, but the Hawaiian home-loan fund, the Hawaiian home-operating fund and the Hawaiian home- development fund shall not be reduced or impaired by any such amendment, whether made in the constitution or in the manner required for state legislation, and the encumbrances authorized to be placed on Hawaiian home lands by officers other than those charged with the administration of such Act, shall not be increased, except with the consent of the United States; (2) that any amendment to increase the benefits to lessees of Hawaiian home lands may be made in the constitution, or in the manner required for state legislation, but the qualifications of lessees shall not be changed except with the consent of the United States; and (3) that all proceeds and income from the "available lands," as defined by such Act, shall be used only in carrying out the provisions of such Act. [Add 73 Stat 4 and election June 27, 1959; ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

PUBLIC TRUST

Section 4. The lands granted to the State of Hawaii by Section 5(b) of the Admission Act and pursuant to Article XVI, Section 7, of the State Constitution, excluding therefrom lands defined as "available lands" by Section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be held by the State as a public trust for native Hawaiians and the general public. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS; ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Section 5. There is hereby established an Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall hold title to all the real and personal property now or hereafter set aside or conveyed to it which shall be held in trust for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. There shall be a board of trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elected by qualified voters who are Hawaiians, as provided by law. The board members shall be Hawaiians. There shall be not less than nine members of the board of trustees; provided that each of the following Islands have one representative: Oahu, Kauai, Maui, Molokai and Hawaii. The board shall select a chairperson from its members. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

POWERS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Section 6. The board of trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall exercise power as provided by law: to manage and administer the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of the lands, natural resources, minerals and income derived from whatever sources for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, including all income and proceeds from that pro rata portion of the trust referred to in section 4 of this article for native Hawaiians; to formulate policy relating to affairs of native Hawaiians and Hawaiians; and to exercise control over real and personal property set aside by state, federal or private sources and transferred to the board for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. The board shall have the power to exercise control over the Office of Hawaiian Affairs through its executive officer, the administrator of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, who shall be appointed by the board. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY RIGHTS

Section 7. The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

Seen at http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart12.html

In 1997 it was amended to include among a few things that the grandchildren of the Hawaiian Home Land can inherit the property of their grandparent(s):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_reports&docid=f:hr016.105.pdf

Then in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 vote strikes down the practice of allowing only native Hawaiians to vote in OHA elections:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-818.ZS.html

As for the "up-to-date copy" of the Hawaii State Constitution... that is the up to date copy. For example if you go to Section 23 which describes "marriage:"

MARRIAGE

Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]

http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart1.html

That was approved by the voters in 1998 so it is the most up to date copy.

Here is his letter where he tries to de-humanize us Hawaiians trying to make us look like monsters. Is it OUR fault that the United States helped to overthrow our government? No. However he tries to make the innocent pay for what the guilty have done which is not very nice. In addition he asserts that since we comprised less than the majority of kingdom cabinet members that we do not matter so therefore we do not nor should not deserve an apology. That is very cold and callous of Ken Conklin to imply because though he mistakenly thinks that Hawaiians do not matter the truth is that WE DO. Unfortunately he tries to discount us, who we are, our history, and our kupuna which is very disrespectful to the Hawaiian people.

In any case this is his latest letter which tries to dehumanize us Hawaiians and tries to make us look like monsters while spreading his racism against us:

RESCIND APOLOGY

MORGAN VINDICATES OVERTHROW

Thanks to James Kawika Riley for helping publicize the Morgan Report (Advertiser, Feb. 13). That 808-page U.S. Senate report from 1894 is at morganreport.org, plus an annotated table of contents and historical commentaries.

Voluminous public testimony under oath with cross-examination proved U.S. Minister Stevens did not conspire beforehand with Honolulu residents who overthrew the monarchy. U.S. peacekeepers protected life and property while remaining scrupulously neutral. Morgan discredits a previous report by James Blount, political hatchet-man for isolationist President Cleveland.

Blount collected royalist opinions secretly, not under oath. Blount wanted to challenge the revolution's legitimacy, to slow growing congressional support for annexation. After Cleveland left office, Hawai'i's renewed offer of a treaty of annexation was accepted by vote of 42-21 in the Senate and 209-91 in the House.

Mr. Riley, a Bureau Fellow for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in Washington, understandably tries to discredit Morgan. OHA justifies race-based programs and the Akaka bill by pointing to Congress' 1993 resolution apologizing to Native Hawaiians for overthrowing the monarchy. But that resolution is based on false history, as the Morgan Report clearly proves. The U.S. did not overthrow the monarchy; armed local residents did it. The U.S. did not conspire beforehand, nor aid the revolution as it unfolded.

Native Hawaiians were already a minority in 1893. Most kingdom cabinet members, most government executives and many elected legislators had no Hawaiian native blood. So even if the U.S. wants to apologize for a revolution it did not cause, the apology should be addressed to all of Hawai'i's people and not to a racial group.

The best "apology" — the only kind that makes sense — was action during the same year as the revolution. President Cleveland, Lili'uokalani's friend, immediately withdrew a proposed treaty of annexation. He then tried hard to undo the revolution. U.S. diplomats secretly conspired with Lili'uokalani. Blount torpedoed negotiations between Hawai'i President Sanford Dole and ex-Queen Lili'uokalani (she offered to abdicate and support annexation in return for a government pension). Cleveland's official minister to Hawai'i ordered Dole to step down and restore the queen; but Dole refused (showing the provisional government was not a U.S. puppet).

Shortly thereafter, the Morgan Report was published. Cleveland accepted the verdict of Morgan, backed away from the Blount Report, recognized the legitimacy of the Dole government, and negotiated with it regarding further implementation of kingdom treaties.

Today, OHA and other powerful institutions want to blame the U.S. for the overthrow. They demand reparations forever, including a race-based government. They don't want us to know the U.S. did nothing wrong and actually tried to undo the revolution the same year it happened.

Former Sens. Slade Gorton and Hank Brown recently published their complaint that Sen. Daniel K. Inouye lied in 1993 when assuring his colleagues the Apology Resolution was a "simple apology" and would not be used to support demands for race-based reparations, communal land tenure or secession.

The apology resolution should be rescinded.

Kenneth R. Conklin
Editor of www.morganreport.org

Seen at http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060217/OPINION02/602170328/1108/LETTERS

The racist deceiver

2005-12-29T11:42:00.000-08:00

Just as Eddie Ayau of Hui Malama is being imprisoned... Ken Conklin comes out using it as a tool to spread his hatred for the Hawaiian people. Worse... he uses a picture that is about 20 years old that accompanies his article that he had published on December 28, 2005:

Seen here: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2bbca194-ed40-4fa5-9621-442270beb8db

This is how he REALLY looks:

He is the epitome of a deceiver.

Ken Conklin and Wikipedia

2005-12-11T09:24:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately the webmaster of www.kenconklin.org forwards the domain to http://kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page which is at Wikipedia.

Random, unqualified people on the Internet with easy access to Wikipedia edit and/or re-edit information at Wikipedia. Some of them even re-define definitions so Wikipedia is definitely NOT a reliable source of information and should not be used as a sole source of information. Fortunately the New York Times had a piece about Wikipedia:

Rewriting History: Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: December 4, 2005

ACCORDING to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. is 78 years old and the former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. But is that information, or anything else in Mr. Seigenthaler's biography, true?

The question arises because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and was shocked to learn that he "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby."

"Nothing was ever proven," the biography added.

Mr. Seigenthaler discovered that the false information had been on the site for several months and that an unknown number of people had read it, and possibly posted it on or linked it to other sites.

If any assassination was going on, Mr. Seigenthaler (who is 78 and did edit The Tennessean) wrote last week in an op-ed article in USA Today, it was of his character.

The case triggered extensive debate on the Internet over the value and reliability of Wikipedia, and more broadly, over the nature of online information.

Wikipedia is a kind of collective brain, a repository of knowledge, maintained on servers in various countries and built by anyone in the world with a computer and an Internet connection who wants to share knowledge about a subject. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have written Wikipedia entries.

Mistakes are expected to be caught and corrected by later contributors and users.

The whole nonprofit enterprise began in January 2001, the brainchild of Jimmy Wales, 39, a former futures and options trader who lives in St. Petersburg, Fla. He said he had hoped to advance the promise of the Internet as a place for sharing information.

It has, by most measures, been a spectacular success. Wikipedia is now the biggest encyclopedia in the history of the world. As of Friday, it was receiving 2.5 billion page views a month, and offering at least 1,000 articles in 82 languages. The number of articles, already close to two million, is growing by 7 percent a month. And Mr. Wales said that traffic doubles every four months.

Still, the question of Wikipedia, as of so much of what you find online, is: Can you trust it?

And beyond reliability, there is the question of accountability. Mr. Seigenthaler, after discovering that he had been defamed, found that his "biographer" was anonymous. He learned that the writer was a customer of BellSouth Internet, but that federal privacy laws shield the identity of Internet customers, even if they disseminate defamatory material. And the laws protect online corporations from libel suits.

He could have filed a lawsuit against BellSouth, he wrote, but only a subpoena would compel BellSouth to reveal the name.

In the end, Mr. Seigenthaler decided against going to court, instead alerting the public, through his article, "that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool."

Mr. Wales said in an interview that he was troubled by the Seigenthaler episode, and noted that Wikipedia was essentially in the same boat. "We have constant problems where we have people who are trying to repeatedly abuse our sites," he said.

Still, he said, he was trying to make Wikipedia less vulnerable to tampering. He said he was starting a review mechanism by which readers and experts could rate the value of various articles. The reviews, which he said he expected to start in January, would show the site's strengths and weaknesses and perhaps reveal patterns to help them address the problems.

In addition, he said, Wikipedia may start blocking unregistered users from creating new pages, though they would still be able to edit them.

The real problem, he said, was the volume of new material coming in; it is so overwhelming that screeners cannot keep up with it.

All of this struck close to home for librarians and researchers. On an electronic mailing list for them, J. Stephen Bolhafner, a news researcher at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, wrote, "The best defense of the Wikipedia, frankly, is to point out how much bad information is available from supposedly reliable sources."

Jessica Baumgart, a news researcher at Harvard University, wrote that there were librarians voluntarily working behind the scenes to check information on Wikipedia. "But, honestly," she added, "in some ways, we're just as fallible as everyone else in some areas because our own knowledge is limited and we can't possibly fact-check everything."

In an interview, she said that her rule of thumb was to double-check everything and to consider Wikipedia as only one source.

"Instead of figuring out how to 'fix' Wikipedia - something that cannot be done to our satisfaction," wrote Derek Willis, a research database manager at The Washington Post, who was speaking for himself and not The Post, "we should focus our energies on educating the Wikipedia users among our colleagues."

Some cyberexperts said Wikipedia already had a good system of checks and balances. Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford and an expert in the laws of cyberspace, said that contrary to popular belief, true defamation was easily pursued through the courts because almost everything on the Internet was traceable and subpoenas were not that hard to obtain. (For real anonymity, he advised, use a pay phone.)

"People will be defamed," he said. "But that's the way free speech is. Think about the gossip world. It spreads. There's no way to correct it, period. Wikipedia is not immune from that kind of maliciousness, but it is, relative to other features of life, more easily corrected."

Indeed, Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0 and a longtime Internet analyst, said Wikipedia may, in that sense, be better than real life.

"The Internet has done a lot more for truth by making things easier to discuss," she said. "Transparency and sunlight are better than a single point of view that can't be questioned."

For Mr. Seigenthaler, whose biography on Wikipedia has since been corrected, the lesson is simple: "We live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research, but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects."

Seen at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html

Scott Crawford catches Ken Conklin in a lie

2005-11-11T18:36:00.000-08:00

Scott Crawford catches Ken Conklin in a lie: http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C608676235/E20051023121159/index.html

An excerpt:

Conklin lies

Ken Conklin has another letter in the Star-Bulletin today about the Akaka bill, saying "... the Grassroot Institute survey... phoned 10,000 residents and found 67 percent of respondents saying 'No.'"

Here's an earlier post I made analyzing this survey and demonstrating that this statement is not accurate, because to arrive at the 67% number one has to leave out those 22% who didn't respond to this particular question at all, and when they are included, only 52% actually said they were against the bill. There is a big difference between two-thirds and one-half.

My point isn't to argue levels of support for the Akaka bill, as the polls on both sides are probably flawed in one way or another (and I don't support the bill anyway).

My point is to show, once again, that Ken Conklin spreads false information.

And since I know that Ken reads (and posts comments) here and is aware of my analysis of this poll, I can only conclude that he continues to do so knowingly and intentionally.

Ken Conklin and attorney H. William Burgess support violating the civil rights of Hawaiians as well as violating the law of the land

2005-10-03T09:12:00.000-07:00

Shown in this Honolulu Advertiser article, Ken Conklin and his attorney H. William Burgess appeared infront of reporters as they filed a federal lawsuit seeking to eliminate the Hawaiians-only restriction for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees. (They were successful.)

However little did we know that Conklin and attorney H. William Burgess were advocating breaking laws. One of them is promoting the violation of the civil rights of Hawaiians and yes... Hawaiians do have civil rights just as Americans have a right to bear arms:

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Conklin and Burgess advocate violating the first amendment as it applies to Hawaiians:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Conklin and Burgess also advocate violating the 14th amendment as it pertains to Hawaiians:

"Fourteenth Amendment, Section One: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Another example is that they promote violating the Admissions Act of 1959 which is against the law. More to come.

Ken Conklin Strikes Again

2005-09-30T13:29:00.000-07:00

This time on Scott Crawford's website, www.hawaiiankingdom.info:

Comment #1
"full-blooded Native Hawaiians "will be extinct in their own homeland by 2044 if current trends in mortality rates continue.""

Something is pretty badly messed up here.

I'd like to see a citation to data for how many "pure" Hawaiians there are, at any time in the last, say, 20 years. The U.S. Census Bureau has never gathered data about percentages of blood quantum.

BUT --

According to Census 2000 there were 80,137 people in Hawai'i who claimed to be "pure" Hawaiians; i.e., "Native Hawaiian" is the only box they checked on the Census form, even though they could have checked as many race boxes as they wished.
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/db01...1/01/ 013001.pdf

Looks like the number of "pure" Hawaiians has been increasing rapidly throughout the first century of American sovereignty, since there were fewer than 40,000 pure or part Hawaiians in year 1900.
Ken Conklin | 09.29.05 - 10:06 pm | #

Comment #2:

I have written a webpage commenting on Gordon Pang's Honolulu Advertiser article about the "Native Hawaiian" population bomb; special attention is given to Lilikala's comments urging "Native Hawaiians" to double their population in 20 years in order to become a majority as soon as possible. The Nazi regime actually pursued a policy of rapidly increasing the number of people in the "master race" by encouraging Aryan girls to make babies, and by requiring SS soldiers to make babies with them. There were actual baby factories -- dormitories for the pregnant girls; and then the babies were adopted by "politically correct" families to be brainwashed while growing up (sort of like graduates of the Center for Hawaiian Studies). See:

Native Hawaiian Population To Double by 2050 -- Lilikala Says Use Population Bomb to Blow Up Current Non-Native Majority

http://tinyurl.com/clk7z
Ken Conklin | 09.29.05 - 10:15 pm | #

Then Scott Crawford himself responds:

ken,

according to Godwin's Law you just lost this argument, but we don't have to end the thread.

first, you know many likely chose the one they most identified with, rather than all that they could have, which seems natural in filling out a form like that. It also makes sense that Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii would identify most strongly as Hawaiians, since their heritage connects them to this land in a unique cultural way, passed down to them in their ohana.

And on Lilika's comments, I'm sure you've heard of Ho'oulu Lahui? It was Kalakaua's motto, after all. And he encouraged Japanese immigration and intermarriage as a way to try to counter what he saw as the overwhelming haole influence from Europe and America. Hawaiians aren't trying to create a master race and take over the world, they are trying to survive as an ohana in their own homeland. They are more like an ohana, that adopts and intermarries with every other ohana, than a "race" anyway. And, alas, these matters are largely affairs of the heart, not policy, anyway. why do you let yourself get so worked up about them?
scott crawford | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 12:49 am | #

Someone eloquently wrote:

The findings are somewhat invalid as in the Hawaiian culture there is no such thing as blood quantum. Then you have people like Ken Conklin who do not understand this and/or who use this as a tool to spread his hatred for Hawaiians which is scary because if he hates Hawaiians does he hates Jews and blacks and ???? too? Chances are if he hates Hawaiians then he hates other minorities too.

Look at how he appears here just to bash Hawaiians when we Hawaiians marry others who are not Hawaiian. We are a loving people. Unfortunately he's a hateful person. A hateful, hateful person. Just read his words. Its sad but true.
He oiwi | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 4:04 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also his logic is lacking:

How can Hawaiians who compose approximately .1% of the total population versus 74% Caucasians become a "master race:"

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf for more information.

As a PhD, he should know better. As for checking off "pure" Hawaiian... that is how many Hawaiians see themselves which may not be Ken's paradigm. However Ken's paradigm is not everyone's paradigm. He should respect that just as we respect the fact that he reads material then tries to twist the data to mean what he wants it to mean. However .1% Hawaiians versus 74% Caucasians is significantly different which he seems to ignore.

More importantly the people of Hawai'i have spoken. When he ran for a seat with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs which he sued to disband he won 4.9% of the votes while there were 31.7% blank votes:

Seen at http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/results/2000/general/00swgen4.htm

So the people of Hawai'i see his true colors. We are not and will not be fooled
He oiwi | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 4:13 am | #

Fortunately we are not the only ones keeping our eyes on Ken Conklin. His words and actions will not and do not go unnoticed.

Editor's Note: We have recently disallowed and discontinued comments since some people are now trying to use this website as a tool to spread their hatred for Hawaiians, for Hawaiian children, and for the children of Hawaii'i. We will NOT allow that to happen. Our objective is to protect children.

It should also be noted that the editor is a member of the NRA, is a Republican, and is female and will not allow others to change the objective of this website. More importantly she, the editor of this website, will not allow anyone to leave comments here that are and/or can be a detriment physically and/or emotionally to children as many school-aged children, high school students, and college students read this website. Mahalo for your time, patience, and understanding.

A closer look at Ken Conklin's words

2005-09-30T04:52:00.000-07:00

First, this is his face:

Picture courtesy of the Honolulu Advertiser

In March 2005 he wrote a letter to the Honolulu Starbulletin:

Foes of Akaka bill outnumber its fans

Thanks to Star-Bulletin for its on-line poll regarding the Akaka bill. "Would you like to see the Akaka bill become law?" 1,301 voted "no" and only 436 "yes." The only poll that really counts is a vote at the ballot box, but politicians will never allow such a vote. They know the results would be similar to the Star-Bulletin poll.

Hawaii's politicians are pawns of the large, wealthy institutions pushing this evil bill. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Kamehameha Schools, Alu Like, Papa Ola Lokahi, etc. want the bill to protect their unconstitutional, racially exclusionary programs.

Politicians mistakenly see ethnic Hawaiians as a monolithic 20 percent swing vote. But most Hawaiians I know, both native and non-native, oppose the Akaka bill. We do not want to splinter our rainbow to create a race-based government.

The Akaka bill allows fat-cat institutions and people trapped in dependence upon them to create an apartheid government without ever taking a vote among all 401,000 ethnic Hawaiians, or all Hawaii's people.

If the bill passes, there is no way to stop Hawaiian apartheid. That's why all Hawaiians, native and non-native, must rise up now to stop this abomination. Please see http://tinyurl.com/5jp5r for further information.

Ken Conklin
Kaneohe

Notice two points that he tries to twist:

1. The Starbulletin's poll was an unscientific one yet he writes about it as though it is a valid one. It was not. It was an unscientific one which is odd considering that he claims to have a PhD.

2. Notice how he discounts the Hawaiian people and their culture by stating, "most Hawaiians I know, both native and non-native." The term "Hawaiian" is used by kamaaina and malahini alike to mean "the indigenous people of Hawai'i" who are the descendants of Wakea and Papa. That is, they are respectful of the Hawaiian people and their culture. Unfortunately Conklin is trying to rewrite the definition of what a Hawaiian is. Fortunately, it does not go unnoticed.

Also why does he write only about Hawaiians?

It seems as though his ultimate goal is to ethnically cleanse Hawai'i of Hawaiians many of whom are of mixed ethnicities. What does that say about his values? That he sees Hawaiians as being less than human? Or could it be that he sees people of mixed ethnicities as less than human? What about children of mixed ethnicities which are common in Hawai'i? When they read something like that how does it affect them?

Thus, we will continue to watch Ken Conklin for he is a danger not only to Hawaiian children but to all of Hawai'i's children many of whom watch him and/or read his words. That is, he is a danger to Hawai'i's children and we will continue to watch him until he stops being a danger to them.

More on Ken Conklin

2005-09-29T06:09:00.000-07:00

In July 2000, a "group of 13 Hawai‘i residents includes Kenneth Conklin, 57, a Kane‘ohe resident of English and Irish descent who has been barred by state election officials from running for a trustee position. Another is Thurston Twigg-Smith, former owner of The Honolulu Advertiser, who is a descendant of Lorrin A. Thurston, a leader of the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy."

Seen at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2000/Jul/26/localnews13.html

In November 2000 he wrote about his candidacy for the very organization that he tried to disband:

"Aloha kakou,

I was a candidate for Trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the election of November 7, 2000. You may read a general explanation about who I am, why I ran for OHA trustee, and the legal decisions that made my candidacy possible. Additional information is also available about my spiritual background and personal reasons for being committed to Hawai'i as my permanent homeland. My fundamental political beliefs about sovereignty are also described."

Seen at http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/ohacandidacy.html

He lost his bid for election. The results?

Ken Conklin won 4.9% of the votes while there were 31.7% blank votes.

Seen at http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/results/2000/general/00swgen4.htm

That is, the people of Hawai'i have spoken. They see Ken Conklin for who he is: Someone who harms Hawaiians and thus harms Hawaiian children. Unfortunately he continues to be a threat to Hawaiian children. Therefore, we will continue to watch him.

Comments regarding www.KenConklin.com

2005-09-23T17:41:00.000-07:00

We recently received this comment from an anonymous reader:

"Why do you and other sovereignty/hegemony activists always attack anyone who questions your ideas as racist, vile, cruel, anti-Hawaiian, etc. There's plenty to question about the Akaka Bill, sovereignty, independence, etc. without going there. Just to take issue with current activists isn't racist or anti-Hawaiian. I think that attempts to blame others for the current plight of Hawaiians will ultimately hurt, not help them"

Our response:

"If you have read, seen, and heard his comments then you would probably realize that he has been attacking Hawaiians for years. By writing about him... we are only defending the Hawaiian people. That may be unimportant to you or that may be trivial to you but to us to protect children, Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian, is our number one goal. If it means that we write about people like Ken Conklin then we will continue to do whatever it takes to protect Hawai'i's children. This includes Hawaiian children. We will not stop til all Hawai'i's children are protected. Please... respect that."

Unfortunately there are some people who are using the Akaka Bill as a tool to bash Hawaiians and Ken Conklin is one of them. Whenever he does so he is bashing and thus hurting children. We will not allow him to do so. Therefore we ask for people to help us to erase the hate that Ken Conklin is spreading against the Hawaiian people and thus their children.

Mahalo,
The Hawaiian Foundation, Inc.
A non-profit organization concerned with protecting Hawaii's children

Ken Conklin is at it again.

2005-09-21T09:34:00.000-07:00

This is the face of someone who is trying to hurt Hawaiian children, Ken Conklin:

Photo from the Honolulu Advertiser

This is what he recently wrote at http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info. He included links to his personal website:

"In addition to Professor Johnson's commentary in the Washington Times of August 18, 2005 at

http://tinyurl.com/e44bl

people may also be interested in reading more about her background, including her testimony of March 1 opposing the Akaka bill at

http://tinyurl.com/3mdmv

Professor Johnson is indeed a Living Treasure of Hawai'i. As a descendant of Kamehameha the Great, she carries the genealogy of a courageous warrior. She has been showing her courage by publicly opposing the Akaka bill for the right reasons -- the only reasons which realistically have any chance of stopping the bill. Not one Senator has stepped forward opposing the Akaka bill for the sort of reasons championed by the independence activists. Not one "liberal" leftist Senator has apparently heard anything or been influenced by anything from the likes of Keanu Sai, Henry Noa, Isaac Harp, Bumpy Kanahele, Scott Crawford, etc. So if you truly want to stop the Akaka bill, then stop putting down those who are being successful in shining the national spotlight on it.

Kumu Kawena has stepped forward in public as a defender of unity and equality, despite the scorn and abuse heaped upon her by both independence activists and the institutionalized Hawaiians who support the Akaka bill to defend their institutions like OHA, DHHL, Kamehameha Schools, Papa Ola Lokahi, Alu Like, etc. etc. I greatly admire her courage and am in awe of her mana. She exemplifies the battle cry from Kepaniwai:

Imua! Imua e na poki'i, a inu i ka wai 'awa'awa. 'A'ohe hope e ho'i mai ai.
Ken Conklin | Homepage | 09.18.05 - 2:41 pm | #"

It's obvious that Ken Conklin uses the Akaka Bill as a tool for hatred as well as a tool to bash Hawaiians. It seems as though he tries to find every opportunity to bash Hawaiians and only discusses Hawaiians. He ONLY discusses Hawaiians which shows that he targets and singles out Hawaiians and only Hawaiians... which is a hate crime.

Ken Conklin likes to distort the truth.

2005-08-25T11:42:00.000-07:00

Ken Conklin likes to distort the truth. Then again people who want to ethnically cleanse a group of people tend to do that. Despite his criticism of Hawaiians saying how greedy Hawaiians are... Hawaiians make up the majority of the homeless people in Hawai'i.

In 1998:

Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians have become the largest homeless ethnic group in the islands, according to state housing statistics.

Hawaiians now make up 37.5 percent of the homeless, while Caucasians, the No. 2 group, account for 29.6 percent, said Sandy Miyoshi, homeless programs administrator for the state.

That is a reversal from 1992, when Caucasians made up 49.6 percent of the state's homeless population and Hawaiians comprised 20.6 percent, according to the Native Hawaiian Data Book.

Asians, Filipinos and blacks each make up less than 10 percent of the homeless population, Miyoshi said.

"It's both surprising and not surprising to me," said Lulani McKenzie, president and chief executive officer of Alu Like, a nonprofit organization that offers 17 programs to native Hawaiians.

"On the one hand, native Hawaiians are the leading indicator of every other category: worst health, most incarcerated, most numbers on welfare," McKenzie said.

"On the other hand, most Hawaiians do have ohana they can team up with. It's very distressing. It obviously ties into the depressed economy."

Shifting demographics may help explain the change.

The most recent ethnic population breakdown shows that the number of Caucasians decreased by about 8,000 to 254,421 in 1996 from 1990, according to the Hawaii Health Surveillance. During the same time, the number of Hawaiians/part-Hawaiians increased about 32,000 to 237,128.

The number of homeless in Hawaii has expanded between 250 and 300 each year since 1994, as the state dollars to care for them have continued to shrink.

"I do think it's tied to the economy," said Lynn Maunakea, executive director of the Institute for Human Services Inc., the biggest homeless shelter in the state. "They can't afford rent if they lost their job."

There are also more homeless children. About 60 percent of the homeless population this year are adults, while 40 percent are children, Miyoshi said.

In 1992, homeless adults comprised 80 percent and children accounted for 20 percent, according to the Native Hawaiian Data Book.

In 1992, the state spent more than $3 million to care for 5,353 homeless people. This year, the state spent $2.8 million on 12,887 homeless people, Maunakea said.

The state also receives $1 million in federal money for the homeless.

Seen at http://starbulletin.com/98/11/20/news/story5.html

Statistics for 2003 can be seen here on page 24:

http://www.hcdch.state.hi.us/03homelessstudy.pdf

Hawaiians = 38.7% of the homeless people
Caucasians = 34%
Filipino = 5.1%
Black = 3.6%
Chinese = 2.0%

Conklin needs to stop distorting the truth.

Ken Conklin of Kaneohe Hawai'i, The Epitome of Evil Strikes Again with His Racism Against Hawaiians

2005-08-17T23:14:00.000-07:00

Ken Conklin, formerly of Boston, Massachusetts now living in Kaneohe, Hawai'i struck again with his hate speech, trying to spread more of his hatred that he has for Hawaiians on August 8, 2005.

Considering that the United States is composed of 74% Caucasians versus .1% Hawaiians (see http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf for these numbers in 2001.) Unfortunately he likes to twist words so that he plays the victim when the reality is that MANY Hawaiians are out-numbered, out-powered, out-educated, and out-casts in Hawai'i. Of course like a Hitler Wanna Be, he tries to appeal to people's emotions to encourage people to hate Hawaiians. Moreover he continues to target and single out Hawaiians which is a hate crime. Here is what he sent to the editor of the Honolulu Star Bulletin this month:

Kingdom set example of equity for all

Your July 31 editorial on the Akaka Bill repeats an old sob story. You say Hawaiian natives welcomed other races into their nation, and now we're holding that against them by denying them a racially exclusionary government.
Non-natives were full partners in the Kingdom and today are full partners in Hawaii. It is historically, legally and morally wrong for one partner to say to all the other partners: "Thanks for building our nation; now we're taking it over for ourselves." That's the same attitude that would have white Americans say to today's Asian Americans and African Americans, "Hey, we founded this country and you have no right to full membership."

Kamehameha could not have "unified" the kingdom without the weapons and know-how given to him by newcomers. In gratitude, he made John Young governor of his home island, and Young's tomb today lies in the Royal Mausoleum.

Non-natives brought written language and the Christian religion eagerly embraced by the natives. Non-natives who were native-born or naturalized became elected members of the Legislature and filled most cabinet positions for 80 years. Their investments created wealth, allowing the kingdom to prosper.

Whether through government service, investment, or laboring on the sugar plantations, non-natives were and are full partners. We non-natives are not holding anything against ethnic Hawaiians. Rather, we're defending our rights to full equality; we refuse to be turned into second-class citizens; and we suggest today's Hawaiian activists respect the decisions of their ancestors to have a multiracial society and government.

Ken Conklin
Kaneohe

Seen at http://starbulletin.com/2005/08/08/editorial/letters.html

He should be ashamed of spreading racism against Hawaiians. More importantly he must be stopped before he is successful with the ethnic cleansing of Hawaiians.

We are not the only ones to feel this way about Kenneth R. Conklin

2005-02-27T14:35:00.000-08:00

Anti-Hawaiian advocate has racist agenda

Ken Conklin once again flaunts his true right-wing colors and perverted sense of history (Letters, Dec. 15). Several months ago, he equated the Hawaiian human-rights movement with Hitler's Nazi Germany. Now he demeans the name of Martin Luther King Jr. by associating his own racist crusade with King's message of justice.

Conklin's smoke and mirrors cannot hide the fact that he stands on the side of oppression and injustice. Essentially, he speaks for thieves who advocate the continued theft of Hawaiian land, culture and political rights -- the cultural genocide of kanaka maoli. Being of Japanese ancestry, I see Conklin peddling the same evil as those who subjected my ancestors to the legal rape of internment.

Martin Luther King's message was always justice for the oppressed. He would have denounced Conklin's racist agenda right along with the KKK.

Kiyoshi Matsuda

Seen at http://starbulletin.com/2001/02/05/editorial/letters.html