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.

It is quite instructive to read U.S. Congressional records of the debate over the "annexation" of Hawai'i in the late 1800s. Legislative opposition to annexation was blatant in its racism. Today, such attitudes are almost never publicly expressed. They are often couched in such terms as "being color blind."

In 1897-98, tens of thousands of Hawaiian nationals opposing annexation signed the Ku'e petitions. These anti-annexationists were motivated by completely different reasons than the men in Washington, D.C.

It is the same today. There are some very profound and very different reasons that people do not support the Akaka bill. It serves us all to learn more about this.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights yesterday filled vacancies on its Hawai'i advisory committee, choosing several outspoken activists against a Native Hawaiian federal recognition bill and potentially shifting the committee's ideological balance.

The commission itself is on record against the bill, known as the Akaka bill for its sponsor, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai'i, but the Hawai'i advisory committee has favored federal recognition.
[...]
The commission, dominated by Republicans and independents, also chose some of the most visible opponents of federal recognition.

The selections include H. William Burgess, an attorney and activist with Aloha for All, which has fought federal recognition and Hawaiian-only government programs; Paul Sullivan, an attorney who has written against federal recognition; James Kuroiwa, a Republican labor and business-relations activist who joined a lawsuit against government funding for Hawaiian-only programs; Rubellite Johnson, a Hawaiian language scholar who opposes the Akaka bill; and Tom MacDonald, a retired investment executive who is on the board of scholars of the Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i, a libertarian public-policy group that has philosophically and financially led the Akaka bill opposition.

I think it’s worth repeating what I was wondering previously: if any of the new committee members still have lawsuits pending that could be influenced by the status of the Akaka Bill , then would those members still be allowed to vote when the committee considers its position on the Akaka Bill? Aloha for All, according to its website, still is awaiting a decision on a case at the Ninth Circuit and, I would assume, intends to appeal to SCOTUS should they lose. Grassroot [sic] Institute of Hawaii is, so far as I know, still seeking plaintiffs with/for Mr. Rosen to challenge Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy in a lawsuit that could be filed at any time.

If all Democrats and independents voted for the bill, plus Republicans who supported it in the past, supporters might be able to get 63 votes — enough to overcome Senate roadblocks.

But the potential of a Bush veto looms large.

Michael McDonald, a political expert at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., said Bush's veto last week of a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a veto of an embryonic stem-cell bill last year have broken the ice on his use of that presidential power.

But outside the committee room, Ikaika Hussey, a representative of Hui Pu, an umbrella group of Native Hawaiians opposed to the bill, was buttonholing people to protest the group's not being invited to participate in the hearing and the lack of public hearings on the bill in Hawai'i.

"The only hearings in Hawai'i were held seven years ago," he said. "We want to have our views heard."

Scheduled to testify were state Attorney General Mark Bennett; Micah Kane, chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission; Haunani Apoliona, Office of Hawaiian Affairs chairwoman; and H. William Burgess, spokesman for the nonprofit organization Aloha for All.

Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell, an advocate of native Hawaiian independence, said the bill attempts to describe native Hawaiians as indigenous to the United States. "But we are not indigenous to the United States. We are a separate people. We are a nation that was invaded," he said.

Ikaika Hussey, who represents Hui Pu, a coalition of native Hawaiians who oppose the Akaka Bill, said, "The bill would not accomplish its stated goal, which is to protect Hawaiian rights, and what it will do is erode existing rights."

Both Blaisdell and Hussey, who is in Washington, D.C., to testify against the bill, continue to call for more hearings to be held in Hawaii on the measure.

Currently, the Koani Foundation is focusing on why [the Akaka bill] would be such a disaster for the people of Hawai`i in our weekly video commentaries on www.FreeHawaiiTV.com a part of the Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network.

This last week, we covered why virtually no one in Hawai`i has seen the latest version of the bill and the danger of buying it sight unseen.

This coming Wednesday, you’ll learn the three important things the Akaka bill does not contain as well as the one deadly thing it does.

Then over the following two weeks, we’ll cover why the US is trying so hard to get you to believe it’s no longer possible to have a Free Hawai`i and we’ll reveal some of the individuals who are behind this.

Supporters of federal recognition say there is nothing in the Akaka Bill that would compromise or foreclose Hawaiian national claims under international law, but U.S. actions in asserting its plenary power to keep tribal nations both domestic and dependent belie that claim, Kauanui said.

Hawaiians may not be able to realize their independence right now, ''but just because you can't see it come to fruition right now doesn't mean you throw it down the toilet. You protect the claims. I'd rather stick with the status quo for the moment and work on cultural sovereignty, get the people stronger and work on educating people about their political rights,'' Kauanui said.

Under the Akaka Bill, Hawaii could never have casinos, never have criminal and civil jurisdiction, never petition the secretary of the Interior Department to take land into trust and never be able to make land claims under the 1790 Non-Intercourse Act, which would mean ''there goes those 1.8 million acres,'' Kauanui said.

No competing Hawaiian sovereignty group would have legal standing in any domestic court or at the United Nations. The Native Hawaiian government would be formed by a commission appointed by and answerable to the Interior secretary, unlike federally recognized Indian tribes who determine their own leadership and membership. And Hawaiians could not have their ow