Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 101 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

OHA CEO defends letter on sovereignty

By Timothy Hurley

LAST UPDATED: 03:03 p.m. HST, May 12, 2014

Appearing with more than 100 vocal supporters at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs offices Monday, OHA Chief Executive Officer Kamana'opono Crabbe explained why he sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry asking for an opinion on whether the Hawaiian kingdom still exists as an independent sovereign state under international law.

After learning about the May 5 letter Friday, OHA trustees fired off another letter to Kerry rescinding Crabbe's letter, explaining that it doesn't reflect the position of the board.

Crabbe said he met with trustee Chairwoman Colette Machado before making the letter public and was under the impression she had given her blessings to proceed. "Unfortunately, it is now apparent that we walked away from that meeting with a misunderstanding and misinformation," he said.

Contacted Monday afternoon, Machado said she didn't give Crabbe any approval and, in fact, she described her reaction as "dumbfounded and stunned" because it appeared to undercut OHA's policy to work toward nation building.

Crabbe said Machado suggested he and the board engage in hooponopono, the Hawaiian practice of reconciliation and forgiveness, to smooth things out over the flap. Machado said the hooponopono is scheduled for May 19.

One trustee, Dan Ahuna, sent a subsequent letter to Kerry asking that his name be removed from the board's follow-up letter. In his letter, Ahuna said Crabbe was merely "carrying out his fiduciary authority of due diligence in gathering evidence needed to make decisions" as OHA's chief executive.

Rescind letter to Secretary of State John Kerry

Letter to Secretary of State John Kerry

 Print   Email   Comment | View 101 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
what wrote:
It's easy to be confused when you work for such a ironic organization that promotes racial inequality in the 21st century.
on May 12,2014 | 12:15PM
Hawaii_Libertarian wrote:
Well said. Just as Kamehameha Schools is fearful of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on its race-based preference admissions policies, it's doubtful OHA's racist nation-building programs (if implemented) will survive a legal challenge in U.S. Federal Courts. With Republicans likely to retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives and experts assessing there is an 82 percent likelihood Republicans will take back control of the U.S. Senate this Fall, any Federal legislation supporting OHA's objectives will be dead on arrival as long as Hawaii keeps sending Democrat representatives and senators to Washington.
on May 12,2014 | 01:34PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Hey, Libertarian, don't worry about it. Keep your stupid phony "advice" to yourself.
on May 12,2014 | 01:51PM
Ezdeewilly wrote:
Yes, only super liberal victims for Hanalei
on May 12,2014 | 04:20PM
boolakanaka wrote:
You are mistaken on some of your impressions. The fact is, and this is true of any federal recognition, it would not and could not go forward unless it was already vetted by the federal government. The Department of Justice would have initial say so on its comfort level to defend any potential legal action after the fact. This is true of any administrative ruling. And moreover, it would not necessitate any congressional approval, thus, whether there is a R takeover--it is exclusively an executive branch action. Facts, not platitudes.
on May 12,2014 | 03:50PM
Hawaii_Libertarian wrote:
This would have to be be more than just an "administrative ruling." It would essentially need to be a treaty recognizing a sovereign "Hawaiian Kingdom." According to the U.S. Senate's website at http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm: The Senate's Role in Treaties The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat. Thankfully, there's no way 2/3 of the U.S. Senate would approve such a treaty. If the President tried to bypass the Senate and do this by "administrative ruling", it would be wide open to all kinds of legal challenges up to the Supreme Court.
on May 12,2014 | 04:47PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Sir, either go to law school and practice in administrative and/or Indian Law for 20 year, or please refrain from speaking what basically is tomfoolery. Let me give you the basic legal outline on how one can obtain federal recognition. There are in short three ways:one, via congress; two, a treaty tribe can go before a federal court to enforce a previously recognized treaty right or relationship, or three, through administrative rule-making. (Specifically 25 CFR part 83) These are the only three ways to obtain recognition that the DOJ will enforce. (do your own research or speak to an actual attorney in this area of law)If you are keeping track, it is the latter that is applicable for kanaka maoli. Tacking back to my original point, this cannot occur without the implicit and explicit approval of both the Secretary of DOI and the AG of DOJ. Moreover, DOJ gives approval as they weigh the constitutionality of the process prior to it taking place. This is important, because it also means that they are willing to defend such actions after the fact. In layman's terms, they have already placed all their legal ducks in order, or they would not be willing to defend such lawsuits. Your next lesson should be on the merits and the significance of "chervon deference". That is to say, once all this occurs there is an already adopted legal standard recognized in federal courts that provides great deference to for such rule-making, e.g, courts are very reluctant to overturn such rulemaking, after the fact.While you cite a bunch of legal verbiage, you certainly do not exhibit any knowledge on what that application looks like as applied to a real life situation---I just gave it to you--malama pono.
on May 12,2014 | 05:07PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Boolakanaka, Sen. Akaka attempted to accomplish the three things you mentioned. He started from #3, working through the Indian Affairs Committee and found that Hawaiians did not qualify as native under federal law. Then he attempted #2, to see if the Federal Courts would recognize Hawaiians and the Courts ruled against any recognition. He ended up with #1, by having to work through Congress and failed over the 12 years. The law, history, and adopted rulings by the Federal Courts have prevented the re-creation of the Kingdom. Now, the multi-racial Hawaiians are attempting to back door the process with having the State recognize the Native Hawaiian Government then go to the Feds and say "See the State of Hawaii has recognized the Native Hawaiian Government and therefore, the Federal Government must do the same." It's a huge amount of work and effort that will fail, as did the Akaka legislation. The State of Hawaii is just too critical a part of the United States of America and the vast majority of Hawaii citizens would want to remain Americans.
on May 12,2014 | 05:33PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Hmmmn, perhaps you have not considered that the Feds are already contemplating option three.....which, BTW is the hardest to defeat legally as DOJ basically sets the judicial deference standard prior to final rule making.
on May 12,2014 | 05:38PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Boo, then the Feds gotta get a legislation through Congress amending the existing law and places you back in Congress again attempting to get cloture, or the 60 votes to move Hawaiian recognition legislation. An Executive Order for recognition without congressional approval is unconstitutional.
on May 12,2014 | 05:58PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Kuro-not quite. While not common, rule making can be amended as you advance in the process. It does not require congressional approval, as it is already in the organic legislation.
on May 12,2014 | 06:04PM
Mythman wrote:
Mr Boo nailed it 100 percent except he left out it is not the OHA that part 83 is going to deal with, initially, if at all.
on May 12,2014 | 07:15PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Yes, that is true, However, they could do a rulemaking that would create rules specfically for native hawaiians, and that would be enitirely legal and copacetic.
on May 13,2014 | 03:53AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
(1) So, boo, did you go to law school and practice in administrative and/or Indian Law for 20 year? Give us your credentials, or please refrain from speaking what basically is tomfoolery

(2) There are lots of state-recognized tribes which have failed to get federal recognition.
U.S. Federally Non-Recognized Tribes: 226 federally non-recognized tribes are listed here. Updated 06/18/08. "Federally Non-Recognized Tribe" is defined as a formally organized entity that has: A. Applied for federal recognition and is not yet approved; or B. Previously recognized and recognition was rescinded; or C. Applied for federal recognition and was rejected. http://www.manataka.org/page237.html

on May 12,2014 | 07:48PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Over the last 20 years or so, over 60 tribes have received federal recognition, and another 2 via legislation. As to my credentials, the prudence of knowledge requires that the advancement of such information is going to good hands, and not individuals who suffer from moral dissapation, thus the answer is the following--wouldn't you like to know.
on May 13,2014 | 04:03AM
MoTown808 wrote:
boolakanaka - I like you and I like what you write. However, 25 CFR 83 doesn't apply to Native Hawaiians. But, administrative rule making separate from 25 CFT 83 could apply to Native Hawaiians.
on May 12,2014 | 11:26PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Exactly, the feds could do a distinct and separate rulemaking specificlly for native hawaiians, so my point was that 25 CFR serves as the template, but ultimately there would be a separate process.
on May 13,2014 | 04:04AM
boolakanaka wrote:
Oh, and while you have correctly stated that congress has plenary authority over tribes, congress has also directed the executive branch via, DOI, to have the ability to both articulate rule making, and the ability to federally recognize tribes--hence the CFR, I previously provided. In fact, dozens of tribes have received recognition via this route, which requires no congressional approval.
on May 12,2014 | 05:26PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
What ..... Racial inequality? You make it sound like the Hawaiian people own slaves or something. No one is saying they're better than you, they just want the land that was taken from their queen returned and the right to determine their own future and destiny. Is that so bad?
on May 12,2014 | 07:25PM
jomama wrote:
Hawaiians have the right to determine their own future and destiny, as individuals, equal under the law. Race should not qualify you for the big payout. So yes, it is obviously a play for racial preference.
on May 12,2014 | 08:19PM
kolohepalu wrote:
As long there are thinking people and diversity in Hawai'i, it will be a blue state. There are plenty red ones for you to move to.
on May 13,2014 | 09:23AM
kuroiwaj wrote:
What, I agree that this issue is going to get messy, very messy.
on May 12,2014 | 01:59PM
kainalu wrote:
And that's good - the whole point. It's time to open this can of worms. It's the New Millennium internet cyber-space communication world. Let's see what the United States stands for, eh?
on May 12,2014 | 04:20PM
holokanaka wrote:
That is a good thing. Finally we may get the truth of the "true" legal and political history of these Islands.
on May 12,2014 | 04:42PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Very messy. If it turns that the Kingdom does still exist, then it's good news for Birthers, Republicans, Obama-haters. Very good news. Good news that Obama was indeed born in a foreign country. .... Birthers, Republicans, etc., are hoping, wishing, praying for the good news.
on May 12,2014 | 06:29PM
jomama wrote:
on May 12,2014 | 08:13PM
hlau64 wrote:
I also support Dr. Crabbe and way to go Dan....Don't go to the media and make your CEO look bad and then ask for hooponpono after you lambast him in public. Shame on you who call her selves Hawaiian...Be nice...Hawaiians need to practice what they preach...Live aloha OHA
on May 12,2014 | 12:16PM
PCWarrior wrote:
Jeepers what a dysfunctional organization. Either get together and produce a consistent message or say nothing. What does it say about OHA's internal process when they cannot even appear to present a unified front? Perhaps OHA should be disbanded and all proceeds distributed among Native Hawaiians.
on May 12,2014 | 02:18PM
Skyler wrote:
^ this - especially the last statement. Why wait?
on May 12,2014 | 03:34PM
copperwire9 wrote:
Just an observation, Warrior. . .Forever and ever, I've heard people say, "Well, when *are* the Hawaiians going to get themselves together?" . . . And I finally figured out how best to reply - "Well, when are the haoles going to do just that - get unified on everything? Or how about the Koreans? The Arab world - when's that whole population going to get ITself together? The Alaskan tribes all unified?" . . . So I ask you to consider, when are *those* folks all going to "get together and produce a consistent message?"
on May 12,2014 | 11:44PM
squidbro wrote:
The USA constitution unifies the nation. Get real, and read the constitution. It has a consistent message of supporting personal freedoms in a democratic process. As far as Hawaiian island groups go, there was never anything put forward like the USA constitution. If you want to go back to living under a primitive violence-based monarchy system, then I do not think you have fully considered the negative consequences of that system. The USA has been and is always going to be the best opportunity for Hawaiian natives to enjoy freedom and have self-representation in a democratic society. Be careful what you wish for.
on May 13,2014 | 12:47AM
copperwire9 wrote:
There are many thousands of people who would disagree with you that the USA "has been and is always going to be the best opportunity for what is left of the Hawaiian natives to enjoy"...etc. . . . But that's not what I was saying - your comment is deflective. I'm saying that those of us who are not Hawaiian have no room to criticize when Hawaiians can't come to agreement on something. . . You and I might come from the same ethnic framework, along with many other thousands of people. When will *we* all agree, and present a unified front? . . . As to reading the constitution, you make a greatly incorrect assumption, and have no knowledge of the depth of my background. . . . As to wanting to "go back to living under a primitive violence-based monarchy," I almost spewed soda onto the monitor when I read that, it was such a patently silly thing to say. Let's not argue, okay? We don't have to do that even if we don't agree. And neither, by the way, do the Hawaiians. It's all the same.
on May 13,2014 | 01:16AM
squidbro wrote:
Frankly, I do not care if there is a unified Hawaiian state approach or not. The key point is that the current situation is pretty good, not perfect from some points of view. But much better than anything that might be imagined under a revised monarchy. I respect your comments and understand that your view of the USA constitution may be very clear. That said, it is hilarious to suport a return to a "monarchy" in the 21st century. Self-determination is an admirable goal but it needs to be cast within the framework of what is doable. And a new Hawaiian state monarchy has very little chance of success in the current world, and it is not clear that this would be a beneficial and desirable state for the persons involved. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
on May 13,2014 | 01:33AM
Slow wrote:
John Kerry must be relieved. Most of the OHA board appear to be distancing themselves from their CEO's letter. Why? Ignoring the issue of legality will not simply go away. To the contrary, I sense a broad awakening of he Hawaiian people. Why not have our Secretary of State respond?
on May 12,2014 | 12:28PM
false wrote:
You know he or someone one just might. Wonder if many are ready for an answer?
on May 12,2014 | 01:04PM
bsbsbs wrote:
Kerry could care less about this issue and his staffers will never pass on these letters to him; he'll get a three sentence summary in a situation brief that he won't read. Get real.
on May 12,2014 | 11:16PM
MoTown808 wrote:
Are you serious

One good reason for him not responding is because maybe they'll get a worse answer than what they want.
on May 12,2014 | 11:30PM
palani wrote:
...whether the Hawaiian kingdom still exists as an independent sovereign state under international law.

There may be treaties and formal agreements among nation states, but there is no such thing as "international law". UH Professor Chang is seriously delusional and diminishes the already tenuous standing of UH with such nonsense.

on May 12,2014 | 12:51PM
false wrote:
Do not attempt to adjust your television set. You are now in the outer limits.
on May 12,2014 | 01:05PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
"There are both things in international law: the principle of territorial integrity and right to self-determination." Vladimir Putin
on May 12,2014 | 01:46PM
NiteMarcher wrote:
And Vladimir stated it right on the money where it concerned Crimea. The US did wrong and broke their own laws when they annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii.
on May 12,2014 | 09:00PM
MoTown808 wrote:
Maybe Chang is delusional. Who knows. But there is such a thing as International law, it's just not statutory law.
on May 12,2014 | 11:32PM
DiverDave wrote:
Obviously it's the Royalists against the Indian Tribalists. These folks are definitely not on the same page. Just the very reason that they will never succeed.
on May 12,2014 | 12:57PM
jomama wrote:
Royalists vs tribalists versus bloodlinists
on May 12,2014 | 08:21PM
false wrote:
The chaos is just beginning.
on May 12,2014 | 01:06PM
Bully wrote:
I guess the board does not want to know the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The beginning of a tumultuous relationship between the board and the CEO.
on May 12,2014 | 01:09PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
It's a stupid question and one that reflects badly on the Board. I can see why they want to distance themselves from it. Sounds like a divided group is running OHA, it's no wonder they can't do anything right.
on May 12,2014 | 06:53PM
NiteMarcher wrote:
Those who sit on the board are afraid of losing their jobs, period. I support Crabbe whose decision was to make a move in what he believes is in the right direction--while the others did nothing for all the years that OHA has been an entity.
on May 12,2014 | 09:06PM
Denominator wrote:
Is there any question that Hawaiians can't get out of their own way on these issues? They really don't know whether they're coming or going. They just keep looking for the line where all the free land and free money is and then they're totally confused because they can't find it. So far, just a few Hawaiians have found the free money by taking advantage of their fellow Hawaiians.
on May 12,2014 | 01:27PM
DiverDave wrote:
Crabbe obviously blew it. Machado and company were on a tract to accept being an Indian Tribe, and now the State Dept. is going to think they are just saying that in order to slide into "recognition" through the back door(which they are), when they really believe that the "Kingdom" still exists. Now Kerry knows that OHA is not united, and there is dissention as to their true beliefs. Kerry must be thinking "are they going to claim they are a Kingdom latter? Am I as the head of the State Dept., in a Democratic country, helping to form a Kingdom?" In this corner the Indians, and in that the Royalists! Who will win?
on May 12,2014 | 01:43PM
Barefootie wrote:
In the end, DD, nobody will win unfortunately! The Hawaiian islands and it's people have been assimilated into the 'manifest destiny' of the United States for good or bad, and will rise or fall as a nation. The Hawaiian Kingdom was once a nice 'golden era' dream, but now the reality is that we have become part of a larger scheme, and people in Hawaii still dream of the 'good old days' which were not so good or golden!
on May 12,2014 | 02:16PM
jomama wrote:
on May 12,2014 | 08:22PM
Mythman wrote:
Mr DD: close. The US is not going to make an unrecognized tribal group into a recognized tribal group wherein the unrecognized tribal group has been deemed to be a racial group. There is no difference between the OHA and the rest of the ali'i trusts. The maheles were takings in contravention of the INIA, as Dan Inouye knew. Laches doesn't protect the ali'i trust lands from being returned, including the OHA lands, to the original owners as determined in federal Indian land policy. There is and has been a Native American tribe recognized as such since 1921. The kingdom was a tribal kingdom. Kaui was trying to return tribal (i.e. pre 1778) land ownership to the families and heirs as known by the families. Local courts have to mix in whites and others who got on the chain of title. Federal Indian land doctrine has remedy for all the mess and confusion and here's the best part, everyone comes out ahead financially, really, for the first time, and not just the ali'i trusts and the politicians and their friends, family and associates.
on May 12,2014 | 03:11PM
AhiPoke wrote:
Time to move on. Anyone who believes/hopes that you can overturn something that happened more than 100 years ago is delusional. It would take longer than that to deal with all of the litigation that would come with it. Regarding "international law", look at what's happening in Crimea and the Ukraine and ask yourself, how does international law treat those annexations.
on May 12,2014 | 01:37PM
jomama wrote:
on May 12,2014 | 08:22PM
hywnsytl wrote:
(WHAT) This is reparrations and conciliations, not affirmitive action. One cannot turn a blind eye to the injustices of the past just because it may inconvience the present whom might have benefitted from those same injustice.
on May 12,2014 | 01:44PM
what wrote:
History is littered with far worse political change, Hawaiians fared pretty well to enjoy the privilege of self determination and equality under the American Flag. It seems that Hawaiian racists are fighting for the spoils of the Hawaiian Kingdom land. Descendants of the Hawaiian Kingdom are no more entitled to the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom than a citizen of the Untied States is entitled to its public lands.
on May 12,2014 | 02:01PM
DiverDave wrote:
Correct what. After 1865 the King no longer owned the lands as they were close to being lost to bad debt, and general drunkenness. They were owned by the government. Liliuokalani already went to court and claimed she owned them but lost for this exact reason. But, the activists keep claiming the same old worn out falsehood "they stole our land" mantra.
on May 12,2014 | 02:24PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
I suppose the Indians aren't entitled to their reservation land either? Yet they have it, regardless of what you and DD think? What! How can that be?
on May 12,2014 | 07:01PM
jomama wrote:
Because they are able to show a continuous political entity to when the grievance occurred. Unlike Hawaiians....or Royalists....
on May 12,2014 | 08:24PM
matsuyama wrote:
Indians were massacred. Hawaiians, not so much. Except by Kamehameha I.
on May 12,2014 | 08:25PM
mcc wrote:
...and who will be King or Queen of the new Kingdom?
on May 12,2014 | 02:19PM
iwanaknow wrote:
Don Ho, yet he's dead........... therefore I'd pick Frank DeLima or Augie T. since they claim they are the Kings of Comedy............the Queen? maybe Carol Kai? or Hanohano?
on May 12,2014 | 02:39PM
bsbsbs wrote:
Gotta go with Hanohano.
on May 12,2014 | 11:11PM
Mythman wrote:
Mr DD - wrt Lili's law suit, you know, every kind of approach to the issue has to be tried as a process of finally reaching the remedy. She helped point the way so let's respect that and not disparage her for it. All the natives of today are engaged in the fight for land. The way the OHA folks lost creds was by making empty promises while protecting the oligarchy's monopoly on land use and commerce. Pres O is no dummy - far from it. Come on, now.
on May 12,2014 | 03:17PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
So Crabbe tried to climb out and the other crabs pulled him back?
on May 12,2014 | 02:59PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Article says Machado has scheduled ho'oponopono for May 19. Dat mean nex Monday da trustees go take Crabbe to da woodshed an geev him dirty lickins. Ho'oponopono Kamana'opono 'okole, das wat. Mebbe Ahuna get um too.
on May 12,2014 | 05:03PM
sailfish1 wrote:
Kerry must think that Hawaii OHA is made up of confused non-communicative f^o#o*l@s. He will probably trash any further OHA letters.
on May 12,2014 | 03:35PM
PCWarrior wrote:
Uh everyone must think that not just Kerry. Sai and his compatriot are delusional. The only way to take back Hawaii is to go to war against the United States. If you ain't willing to grab your M-16, then just sit there quietly and deal with it.
on May 12,2014 | 04:11PM
jomama wrote:
on May 12,2014 | 08:25PM
Skyler wrote:
I can tell you from experience that is what some of the "Royalists" (not my term) want to do. One Potagee-Hawaiian I know puts Hanohano to shame the way he degenerates others he deems "non-Hawaiian" - even though, truth be told, he's of the same 'mix' as some of the ones he hates! Blind, elitist racism leaves him frothing at the mouth and it's nothing short of shameful that it exists in today's Hawaii.
on May 12,2014 | 10:33PM
bsbsbs wrote:
Kerry could care less about this issue and his staffers will never pass on these letters to him; he'll get a three sentence summary in a situation brief that he won't read. Get real.
on May 12,2014 | 11:13PM
libertylover wrote:
Hawaii needs to have a Constitutional convention and rid itself of OHA and all Hawaiian race based programs. Time to move forward. This is the only truly "just" solution for all of Hawaii's citizens. A much better idea than creating more Apartheid like institutions.
on May 12,2014 | 03:42PM
hanalei395 wrote:
libertylover: "rid itself of OHA" ......... After you are rid off, and extinct, OHA and all Hawaiian benefits will still be around ... and expanded
on May 12,2014 | 04:32PM
libertylover wrote:
If the State's citizens does not get around to abolishing OHA a future Federal court challenge to it's Constitutionality will likely do so. I know your type Hanalei365. Angry and you think someone owes you something. I'd suggest therapy.
on May 12,2014 | 05:00PM
hanalei395 wrote:
I'd suggest therapy for your frustrations, disappointments and jealousy. As I said, when you longer exist, OHA and all Hawaiian benefits will still be around ... and expanded.
on May 12,2014 | 05:15PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of Hawaii's citizens and political establishment support the Hawaiian people.
on May 12,2014 | 07:08PM
squidbro wrote:
on May 13,2014 | 12:59AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Megadittoes libertylover. Mahalo.
on May 12,2014 | 05:05PM
hanalei395 wrote:
As for Ken Conklin, when he Conks, and is shipped back to wherever he came from, OHA and ALL Hawaiian benefits will still be here .... and expanded.
on May 12,2014 | 05:23PM
Frances wrote:
I am appalled by this conversation. While I agree that OHA has a checkered history since it was established about 25 years ago, I had finally begun to hope that they were on the right path when they recently announced that they had set aside advocating for one form of self-determination (i.e., "Akaka Bill", etc.) and were facilitating a neutral process for Hawaiians to re-establish the Hawaiian nation that was never legally extinguished. Yes, it is troubling that the Hawaiian people are openly disagreeing with each other - why is that so unusual? Many people of differing and similar races argue and disagree. While I have great admiration for Kamanao Crabbe, who seemed like an able and capable CEO for OHA, I cannot agree with his decision to send a letter of such momentous import without the knowledge and consent of his Board of Trustees. Why would anyone want to give the United States the power to say, "You Hawaiians do not have a nation anymore?" If Crabbe and his followers believe the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists, why in the world are they asking the usurper, the government that illegal carried out the takeover, to render a legal decision on this matter? I think that the trustees were finally on the right track toward re-establishing a Hawaiian governing entity which could have initiated formal "nation-to-nation" negotiations with the U.S., and I hope they continue to move forward despite this latest distraction.
on May 12,2014 | 05:54PM
what wrote:
You say the Hawaiian nation that was never legally extinguished. One could argue that, in the 19th century, when a nation lost a war and surrendered to the victor, they signed letters and agreements to that affect, the losing nation is extinguished. Liliuokalani made a deal with the victor, wrote and signed letters to that affect, abdicating her throne and agreeing to become a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii. How is that not "a nation extinguished"?
on May 12,2014 | 06:31PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Do you really think Liliuokalani had a choice? Was the issue put to referendum vote by the people? Or is it more likely that the white man would have taken over and done as they pleased anyway?
on May 12,2014 | 07:18PM
what wrote:
Of course she had no choice, but that's how politics worked in the 19th century. You lose the power struggle, you sign documents to make it official, and life goes on.
on May 12,2014 | 07:43PM
squidbro wrote:
Who cares, it is nonrelevant. The kingdom does not exist anymore. If not the USA, Japan or England or other nations would have taken over the Hawaiian Islands, and as it stands now the situation is pretty good for all.
on May 13,2014 | 01:03AM
MoTown808 wrote:
Maybe you're unfamiliar with the specifics of this particular history. Lili'uokalani did not surrender to the Provisional Government. She yielded her authority to the United States instead on the condition that they would restore her when recognizing the wrong done. They recognized the wrong done. That was not a war and the U.S. was not the "victor."
on May 12,2014 | 11:36PM
MoTown808 wrote:
Mahalo Nui Frances!

Finally someone is talking some sense around here.

on May 12,2014 | 11:37PM
Ldub20_Owl316 wrote:
Only an insane person would support secession. If we were to secede, our chances of avoiding annexation by Japan, China, and Russia are as great as my chances of dating Stacy Fuson.
on May 12,2014 | 06:06PM
Dawg wrote:
Can you believe how STUPID Hawaiian's look today. God help us! It appears that Crabbe has maintained his personal agenda and is now above the board. Awe, he needs to be replaced. Another 'Clyder Namuo' legendary flop in the making. He is a self serving JOKE!
on May 12,2014 | 06:22PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Dawg did you mean Auwe? Congress does much worse never agreeing on anything. You know how STUPID that makes americans look?
on May 12,2014 | 07:11PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
What's the big deal. SA hounds following OHA for any left over scraps.
on May 12,2014 | 06:58PM
WatsIt2u wrote:
Finally, someone at OHA that actually listens to the beneficiaries. Mahalo Kamanaʻopono...Imua!
on May 12,2014 | 07:43PM
MoTown808 wrote:
I'm pretty da|\/|n sure that if you polled the beneficiaries most of them would say they're not interested in independence. THe majority do not want independence - so now he's listening the minority which are his personal friends.

on May 12,2014 | 11:39PM
Mikehono wrote:
Collette Machado, either you agree with her or you are out. She is difficult.
on May 12,2014 | 09:03PM
niimi wrote:
With leadership like this today there is little wonder why the Hawaiian Kingdom is kaput.
on May 12,2014 | 09:47PM
yojimbo wrote:
those poor hawaiians. where is matsy when you need him?? oha needs clayton hee, again. the crabbe was an a'ama.
on May 12,2014 | 09:53PM
Manawai wrote:
Bozo's on parade!
on May 12,2014 | 09:59PM
Breaking News