But a Kahului resident, whose great-great-grandfather helped draft 1839 documents of the Hawaiian kingdom, said he opposes the Akaka Bill "mind, body and soul."

"The Akaka Bill is a race-based bill," said Foster Ampong, an advocate for Hawaiian independence. "Because you're talking about Native Hawaiians, as defined by law - 50 percent or greater Hawaiian blood."

Ampong said the Akaka Bill does not address the most critical legal issue for Hawaiians: nationhood.

"The Akaka Bill is another attempt at creating a fraud or appearance that the Hawaiian Islands and people were acquired by the U.S. lawfully - and in essence and in fact it wasn't," he said.

"For me, it's my passion. It's what I really, sincerely believe: We are Hawaiian nationals, not just Native Hawaiians by blood or ethnicity. . . . We have our very own bill of rights that formed our lahui, our nation," Ampong said.

Likewise, another Akaka Bill opponent points out that the kingdom of Hawaii had a relationship as a co-equal with "England, France, Russia, Belgium, Netherlands, all the powers of the world."

Kaleikoa Ka'eo, Hawaiian studies instructor at Maui Community College, said of the Akaka Bill: "I am actively involved to organize against its passage" because the bill would diminish Hawaii's international standing, making it "go to the back of the line" and give up a status it already had.

"It's like saying you attained citizenship - and now you give yourselves the right to attain a green card as an alien," he said.

Land an issue for some

For Ka'eo, a major issue "is that the so-called Akaka Bill provides no land, not one acre of land, and no access to water - that's not really self-determination," he said.

A Central Maui minister agreed.

"Akaka Bill, OHA, DHHL are all in my opinion a compromise of true reconciliation, a total distraction to overt [sic] giving back what was stolen," said Kahu Hanalei Colleado, kahuna pule, or priest, of Pu'uhonua 'O 'Iao, referring to the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

[...]

Yet a former Hana resident said he doesn't support the Akaka Bill because it seeks to place Native Hawaiians in the same "Native American" category as Native American Indians and Alaska Natives - who he felt sold out their birthright.

"We were a recognized, sovereign, independent nation," said Henry Noa, co-founder and leader of the nearly 10-year-old Reinstated Hawaiian Government. "For us to agree to be given a new definition, a new description of our identity - that really saddens me. That we have today Hawaiians that just take that lightly, that I see them support the Akaka Bill - it's as if they're willing to compromise their inheritance (for) handouts from the United States of America.

"When I look into the Alaska Native Act, when Alaskans made their deal with the United States government they gave up 392 million acres of land that they had control over because they wanted to be reclassified as Native American Alaskans," he said.

Critics question

public input for bill

Some critics also say not enough input from the Hawaiian community went into drafting the Akaka Bill - raising the question of whether it truly reflects Hawaiian self-determination.

Andre Perez, a coordinator of the activist group Hui Pu who formerly worked for the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission, maintains insufficient input from Native Hawaiians invalidates the Akaka Bill.

"We Hawaiians never even conceived the name 'Akaka Bill,' " he said. "Most Hawaiians don't have a clear idea, don't even know the Akaka Bill."

WASHINGTON — With a larger Democratic majority in the new Congress and an incoming Democratic administration headed by a Hawai'i native, the Akaka bill seems to have its best chance yet of passage.

But supporters of the bill also fear that Republicans may erect procedural roadblocks that they have used before to prevent the full Senate from voting on the bill since it was first introduced in 2000.
[...]
If Congress approves the legislation, Obama is expected to sign it, a commitment he made during his presidential campaign.
[...]
But with Congress focused on reforms for the nation's financial system and other pressing issues, Abercrombie and Akaka are not expected to push for action on the bill right away.

The Hawaiian punch in Washington is about to get a lot stronger.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D) is taking over the gavel of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) and Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) have begun to wield the legislative clout that comes with seniority. And Barack Obama, a native son who understands the 50th state’s needs and reflects the Pacific islands’ multicultural ethos, is about to become the 44th president of the United States.

The power shift for the Aloha State, among the nation’s smallest with 1.3 million people, is poised to win more federal money and gain influence it has long lacked.

[...] With Obama headed to the White House, Akaka and Inouye may finally win the recognition for Native Hawaiians that had been opposed by the Bush administration and stalled by Republican senators.
[...]
Inouye’s new post will help him increase the substantial amount of money from Washington that he and the rest of the delegation win.
[...]
Hawaii can also benefit from a president who understands the state’s issues. Obama, who went to high school in Honolulu and lived with his grandparents there, has already come out in support of efforts to win federal recognition for 400,000 Native Hawaiians, some of whom have pushed for sovereignty.

An Akaka-sponsored bill that would grant that recognition had passed the House but stalled in the Senate under opposition from Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration. The new administration and a larger Democratic majority in the Senate could get the issue moving again.

Privately, supporters of the bill believe they have the 60 votes necessary to break a Senate filibuster. The strategy is to get the bill through the Senate and then possibly attach it to other legislation to reduce the chances of a Bush veto. Even if Bush were to veto the bill, some supporters say, it would be in a stronger position if re-introduced in the next Congress because of having finally cleared the Senate after eight years.

Ikaika Hussey, an organizer with the Movement for Aloha No ka Aina, a group seeking independence, said the discussion should go back to the question of reconciliation raised by the 1993 apology resolution.

"I think even the people who support the Akaka bill recognize it doesn't really address the question of reconciliation. It's sort of a work-around," he said. "It's bad legislation, all the way around."

Hussey said reconciliation is not the same as an apology and he would urge Obama or McCain to look at the issue differently than how it is presented in the bill. He said it should not be about federal recognition, but how to return land and correct the effects of private development and military expansion.

Hussey would like something more akin to the Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand, which reviews claims brought against the government by the indigenous Maori, or the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which heard accounts of government abuses under apartheid.

"I would tell them that we do need to arrive at a political agreement," he said. "But it needs to be based on the question of making right the wrongs of the past and making sure that, moving forward, we have an equitable solution."

From thousands of T-shirts to the establishment of a bureau office in Washington, D.C., the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has spent nearly $7.5 million in the past three years on three separate efforts designed to establish a Hawaiians-only government entity.

OHA spent an additional $2 million in the 2008 budget year that ended June 30 and has budgeted about $2 million for the current year, OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o said last week.

The spending is detailed in reports posted recently on OHA's Web site that represent the fullest public accounting yet on the agency's nation-building expenditures, an area of controversy for some Native Hawaiians.

To put things in perspective, the approximately $2 million that is to be spent on nation-building efforts both this year and next year represents about 5 percent of OHA's annual operating budget.

OHA has come under fire in some quarters for its aggressive efforts lobbying for passage of the Akaka bill, enrolling Hawaiians in the Kau Inoa voter registry, and establishing the Ho'oulu Lahui Aloha Hawaiian Governance Initiative.

Authority questioned

Some feel that OHA, as a state agency, is not the right party to be at the head of any effort that would lead to negotiating what reparations are due to Hawaiians as a result of the U.S. role in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian government.

The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs has enlisted larger-than-life retired U.S. Sen. Ben Night-horse Campbell to help its efforts to push the Akaka bill through Congress.

Campbell, 75, is the son of a Northern Cheyenne Indian, and was the first American Indian to serve in the U.S. Senate when he represented Colorado from 1992 to 2004. For a time, he chaired the Indian Affairs Committee, the only American Indian to do so.

OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o said OHA's strategy is to try to get the Akaka bill out of Congress and into the hands of President Bush before the end of the year. Failure to do so would send the matter back to the drawing board.
[...]
Namu'o said Campbell is being retained under a subcontract with Patton Boggs, the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm that OHA has paid more than $2 million to help win support for the Akaka bill.

Namu'o noted that Campbell is a longtime Republican. "There were certain Republican senators who Patton Boggs felt former Sen. Campbell could be helpful in discussing the positive aspects of the Akaka bill," Namu'o said.
[...]
Namu'o said OHA is still aiming to get enough senators to pass a cloture petition on the Akaka bill, which would lead the way to a Senate floor vote on the issue before the end of the year.
[...]
The Bush administration has indicated opposition to the bill, and the president may veto it if it passes.
[...]
If the debate over the Akaka bill were to drag into next year, the dynamics of the discussion would change immensely with the changing landscape of Washington. Not only would there be a new Congress, there would be a new president. Democrat Barack Obama supports the bill, and Republican John McCain opposes it.

The Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce will host a seminar on the Akaka Bill, also known as the Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, from noon to 1:30 p.m. April 24 at the chamber's Manoa Grand Ballroom Lounge at 2454 S. Beretania St.

Registration fee is $25 and includes lunch. For more information or to register, call 949-5531 or visit the Chambers Web site at www.honolulujapanesechamber.org.

You have to wonder about U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka's strategy in pushing for a vote this year on his bill for Native Hawaiian political recognition despite the certainty of a veto by President Bush if it passes.

It might be wiser to wait until after the election and hope for a Democratic president who is open to resolving indigenous claims of land and sovereignty stemming from the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and U.S. annexation of Hawai'i.

After the Senate opens its new session Jan. 22, Sen. Dan Akaka, D-Hawai'i, hopes to bring at least three major bills to the floor for debate and vote, which Republican opposition has stalled.

One would create a process to form a future Native Hawaiian government and put it on a path for federal recognition. Republicans believe the measure is race-based and therefore unconstitutional.

The House approved a similar bill in October.

"I am working with the Senate majority leaders to bring my Hawaiian federal recognition bill to the floor, building upon momentum from the House passage of the bill," Akaka said.

"I decide who is a Jew around here."

-- Hermann Goering in 1934, when told that a favorite Munich art dealer was Jewish.

Under legislation that the House of Representatives has voted 261 to 153 to foist on Hawaii, Goering's role would be played by a panel empowered to decide who is a "Native Hawaiian" and entitled to special privileges and immunities. Because there are perhaps only 7,000 "pure" Native Hawaiians, "Hawaiian blood" will inevitably be the criterion, and the "one-drop rule" probably will prevail. Goering would have approved of this racialist sorting-out.

What in the world was conservative columnist George Will smoking when he wrote yesterday’s column equating Native Hawaiian rights with Nazi racism? Do you think he really believes that stuff? What an ass.

Also opposed to the Akaka bill and federal recognition are those who believe much more is needed to address wrongs against Hawaiians. Some of those opponents believe Hawai'i should be restored as a nation wholly independent of the U.S.

A U.S. Commission on Civil Rights advisory panel, which this year got several new members who are opposed to Native Hawaiian federal recognition, voted 8-6 yesterday to not take a position on the Akaka bill.

The vote was seen as a victory for supporters of the bill, named after its sponsor, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai'i. Akaka bill opponents had been hoping the Hawai'i State Advisory Committee would go on record against the bill.

In July, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission added 14 new members to the 16-member Hawai'i advisory committee, including several outspoken activists against Native Hawaiian federal recognition.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, dominated by Republicans and independents, is on record against the bill, but the Hawai'i advisory committee has favored federal recognition.

We appreciate Rep. Abercrombie for citing for both colleagues and C-SPAN viewers, the specific, misleading question, successfully discrediting this "push" poll by Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i.

He immediately cited credible polls, which consistently find the majority of Hawai'i residents support federal recognition.

...one question posed in the new survey was troublesome: "There has been talk about creating a Hawaiian governing entity that would represent the Hawaiian people in their dealings with the state and the federal government. Do you agree or disagree that an entity of some kind should be formed?"

Actually, there has been more than talk about such a governing body. The Akaka Bill explicitly calls for a "native Hawaiian governing entity to negotiate with federal, state and local governments, and other entities." Only 51 percent of the poll's respondents support it, while 34 percent disagree.

We have criticized a 2005 poll taken by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which opposes sovereignty, because of a loaded question designed to elicit negative reactions to the Akaka Bill. The newest OHA poll deserves similar scrutiny for a misleading question implying that a Hawaiian governing entity is being talked about but is not part of the Akaka Bill. [Emphasis added.]

Republican opponents of the legislation also said it could open the door for Native Hawaiians to declare territorial independence from the United States.

The rights of Native Hawaiians have been an issue since the 1893 coup.

A spokesman for Hui Pu, an umbrella group of Hawaiian organizations opposed to federal recognition, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the House vote.

Hui Pu member Ikaika Hussey said millions of dollars spent by OHA on "lobbyists and chocolate-covered macadamia nuts" paid off.

Hussey said the Akaka bill remains "a clear threat to the movement for self-determination" and that Hui Pu members will be meeting to decide their next move.

Hussey encouraged Congress to hold legislative hearings on the issue in Hawai'i.

Bumpy Kanahele, head of the group Nation of Hawai'i, also called for local hearings.

"If we're going to present something to the U.S. government, it should be something we're all a part of," Kanahele said. What's currently before Congress is "a desperate attempt by the U.S. congressional delegation in Hawai'i to settle all future claims."

House approval of the Hawaiian sovereignty bill by a 261-153 vote fell far short of the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto, rendering futile continued action on the bill while President Bush remains in office. Any effort to pass the bill also would be useless in the Senate, where support has been inadequate. Proponents should wait until the next administration before renewing their cause.

Neither yesterday's House vote nor the White House declaration of opposition should have come as a surprise. [...] Advocates of Hawaiian sovereignty seem to have been in denial during recent years but now must acknowledge reality.

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

The power to do everything in a state without accountability, --to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

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

(b) Negotiations-
(1) IN GENERAL- Upon the reaffirmation of the special political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the United States and the State of Hawaii may enter into negotiations with the Native Hawaiian governing entity designed to lead to an agreement addressing such matters as--
(A) the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such lands or resources; (B) the exercise of governmental authority over any transferred lands, natural resources, and other assets, including land use;
(C) the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction;
(D) the delegation of governmental powers and authorities to the Native Hawaiian governing entity by the United States and the State of Hawaii;

Republican Whip Blunt announced late last week that the “Akaka bill,” H.R. 505 Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, is scheduled for consideration by the House with several other bills, this coming Wednesday and Thursday, Oct. 24 and 25 starting at 10 a.m.

The bill will also apparently be heard by the House Rules Committee on Monday, Oct. 22 at 5 p.m.

...those that support the Grassroot Institute do so voluntarily and know for what purpose their money is going to be used.

As everyone who lives in Hawaii is well aware, some "non-profits" are more equal than others. For example a department of the state government, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, proudly trumpets on its Web site the vast sums of tax dollars they have spent lobbying for both state and federal legislation.

Ikaika Hussey, of Hui Pu, an umbrella organization of Hawaiian groups that oppose federal recognition on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough in addressing the wrongs against Hawaiians, said the debate between Akaka bill supporters and those like Burgess is too narrow.

"Self-determination includes all kinds of options, including the right to independence," Hussey said.

The hearing schedule:

Honolulu: Wednesday, 1 to 5 p.m., state Capitol.
Hilo: next Thursday, 12:30 to 4:30 p.m., State Office Building, 75 Aupuni St.
Lihu'e: Sept. 14, 1 to 5 p.m., Kaua'i Community College Performing Arts Center, 3-1901 Kaumuali'i Highway.

...one question posed in the new survey was troublesome: "There has been talk about creating a Hawaiian governing entity that would represent the Hawaiian people in their dealings with the state and the federal government. Do you agree or disagree that an entity of some kind should be formed?"

Actually, there has been more than talk about such a governing body. The Akaka Bill explicitly calls for a "native Hawaiian governing entity to negotiate with federal, state and local governments, and other entities." Only 51 percent of the poll's respondents support it, while 34 percent disagree.

We have criticized a 2005 poll taken by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which opposes sovereignty, because of a loaded question designed to elicit negative reactions to the Akaka Bill. The newest OHA poll deserves similar scrutiny for a misleading question implying that a Hawaiian governing entity is being talked about but is not part of the Akaka Bill.

What have Hawaiians done to deserve being treated with blatant hostility and disrespect in their native land — or be singled out as some kind of evil-doers by the Bush administration in its ideological dismantling of federal programs that once protected minority rights?

What business does the civil rights commission have giving special standing to self-interested litigants seeking to claim traditional Hawaiian assets as their own?

The current hearings are not an intellectually honest attempt to arrive at the facts, but a political power play to find the most-expedient path to a preconceived outcome.

The appropriate response is to ignore the hearings and any findings that come from them.

The new chairman of the Hawaii committee is Michael Lilly, state attorney general under former Gov. George Ariyoshi. Lilly has not stated his opinion of the Akaka Bill. Among the allegations against Lilly during his failed Senate confirmation in 1985 was an accusation by the late David Schutter that Lilly was a "racist." Schutter then was a law partner of future Gov. Ben Cayetano, who as a state senator was among those who led the effort to reject Lilly's confirmation.

Lilly denied being a racist but conceded that he should not have written a limerick in 1979 that was interpreted as derogatory toward a native Hawaiian defendant, Kenneth Lono, who was contesting his transfer to a mainland prison. The poem said Lono "got sent back to Hawaii, so now he can eat his fish and poi."

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

The power to do everything in a state without accountability, --to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

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

Some members of Hawaii's advisory committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are raising concerns about their first public hearing tomorrow to debate a bill to federally recognize native Hawaiians, claiming its scheduling was rushed and the agenda set without consultation.

It has taken decades for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to earn its well-respected legacy — and now the agenda of one administration threatens to topple that. The agency is being used by the government to advance conservative ideas about civil rights, including a rollback of affirmative action. That national drive is playing out this week in Hawai'i in hearings over the Native Hawaiian federal recognition legislation.
[...]
...Hawai'i residents should be encouraged to speak out at the hearing, but to be aware of the context. Regardless of one's position on the Akaka bill, while witnessing political theater it's essential to know who is running the show.

OHA and its allies believe the Akaka Bill would protect Hawaiian institutions (like Kamehameha Schools), organizations (like Alu Like), and entitlements from legal challenges. Unfortunately OHA & Co. haven’t taken enough time to look behind the curtain as to why federal/state governments would be pro-Akaka Bill, despite all the legal opposition. (Hint: it has to do with land settlements, despite all the denials). And they haven’t seemed to absorb the history of the mixed blessing of what tribal recognition has done for(to) Native Americans. The Indian model has problems; I know, I'm an Indian. Legal challenges by anti-Indians and erosion of Indian rights and entitlements continue in Indian country despite protections that are much stronger than what the Akaka Bill would provide for Hawaiians.
[...]
Sovereignty activists vary in their perspective (how many self-proclaimed kings/governments are there anyway these days?) but essentially they don’t want the Akaka Bill because they don’t agree with its avoiding the essential question of the illegal occupation of another nation and they don’t believe OHA or any other arm of the federal/state government has the right to negotiate such an approach. As an Indian, and knowing what I know of both Indian and Hawaiian history, I support the struggle. Sovereignty cannot be taken away forcefully, only surrendered, and Hawaiian sovereignty was never surrendered.