Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Major Articles Opposing the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) -- from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. Jere Krischel (x3); Ken Conklin (x5); U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS; HAWAII GOVERNOR LINDA LINGLE; U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES MINORITY PARTY (REPUBLICAN) STATEMENT; CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICAN WEBSITE; Duncan Currie (National Review Online); REP DOC HASTINGS, RANKING MEMBER OF HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (x2); PETER KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS (x4); GAIL HERIOT, COMMISSIONER, USCCR; SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER (R, TN); SENATOR JIM DEMINT (R, SC); John Fund (Wall St. Journal writer); Kevin D. Williamson (New York Post); Mike Brownfield (Heritage Foundation), Matt Sussman (

CLICK HERE FOR AN INDEX OF ALL MAJOR PUBLICATIONS OPPOSING THE AKAKA BILL FROM 2000 THROUGH NOW (with links to subpages for specific time periods)

Following is a table of contents of the articles in the order they appear lower on this webpage, for the period January 1, 2010 through the present. To see full text of the actual articles, in chronological order, scroll down below the index.

On January 15, 2010 there was a public forum on the Akaka bill. Pollster John Zogby gave a slide presentation of the results of his poll on the Akaka bill that was released in December, and answered questions. Results of the Zogby poll are at
http://tinyurl.com/yczuo3q
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was invited to send a spokesperson to give a speech and answer questions, but at the last minute OHA backed out. Ten-minute speeches opposing the Akaka bill were given by civil rights activist Jere Krischel and by ethnic Hawaiian sovereignty activist Leon Siu. Jere Krischel published an essay based on his speech, at
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2f8cd402-479f-4abf-8361-c05d53a93c38
Full text of Mr. Krischel's article appears below.
An audio podcast of the speech by Jere Krischel is at
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/attachments/39/2010-01-15_Akaka_Panel_-_Jere_Krischel.mp3
And an audio podcast of the speech by Leon Siu is at
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/attachments/40/2010-01-15_Akaka_Panel_-_Leon_Siu.mp3

January 18, 2010:
I am Hawaiian; we are all Hawaiians
by Jere Krischel, Senior Fellow of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Published in Hawaii Reporter online newspaper
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2f8cd402-479f-4abf-8361-c05d53a93c38

February 22, 2010:
10th Anniversary of U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rice v. Cayetano
The February 23, 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision spurred a decade of additional civil rights lawsuits seeking to abolish or desegregate Hawaii's empire of government and private race-based programs. Racial separatists immediately sought protection for those programs through the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) still being pushed in Congress 10 years later.
Published in Hawaii Reporter online newspaper
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?245f8af4-5154-46f0-86f8-eacf41f33693

February 22, 2010:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sends letter to Congressional leaders reaffirming their letter of opposition to the Akaka bill from August 28, 2009
Letter reprinted in National Review Online; links to pdf files can be found in full text later on Conklin's website.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFlNmNjMTQwZjc0OTgyOTBjM2RkMjY3Njk1NTZmY2U=

February 22, 2010:
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle: Current Version of Akaka Bill is Not One My Administration Can Support
"The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow."
Published on the Governor's official government webpage at
http://hawaii.gov/gov/news/releases/2010-news-releases/statement-by-governor-linda-lingle-on-the-native-hawaiian-government-reorganization-act
Also published in Hawaii Reporter online newspaper
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?4b452e51-a86d-4e22-950b-a6ef7f42c374

February 22, 2010:
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, Minority (Republican) blog, February 22, 2010
Press Release
Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill Creates Unconstitutional Race-Based Government
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=171333

February 22, 2010
GOP.gov -- The website of the Republicans in Congress
What Every Member Needs to Know About the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/02/22/what-every-member-needs-to

February 23, 2010
Trouble in Paradise
Why the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act deserves to fail.
by Duncan Currie, deputy managing editor of National Review Online
Published in National Review online
http://article.nationalreview.com/425840/trouble-in-paradise/duncan-currie

February 23, 2010
Hawaiians deserve to vote, not just Congress
By Rep. Doc Hastings
[the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee]
Published in The Dailer Caller (Republicsn Congressional blog]
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/23/hawaiians-deserve-to-vote-not-congress/
[Plus text of amendments to be offered by Rep. Doc Hastings and Rep. Jeff Flake, which will be voted down by Democrats]

February 23, 2010
Hawaiian Hallucinations [Ethnic Hawaiians are nothing like an Indian tribe]
by Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Published in National Review Online
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDI3MzUyMTg5NDQ5NWIwYTdkNzQxYWJhMzIzZWQwMDY

February 23, 2010
Disunited States
["The bill is not only constitutionally defective and morally repugnant, but by logical extension it opens the door for members of other racial classifications to petition the government for sovereign status. ... All congressmen who vote in favor of this odious bill should be questioned closely about their support of state-sponsored racial discrimination and juridical balkanization. That this bill could make it to the House floor for a vote is an abomination."]
by Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Published in National Review Online
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTc0ZWNlYjc1MDJjMTZlMTY5YTY0MjJlY2ZlOGQzZmI=

February 23, 2010 Floor Statement during Akaka bill debate by Rep. Doc Hastings opposing the Abercrombie substitute version of the Akaka bill Published by House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Press Office
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=172644

February 23, 2010
Press Release from Senator Lamar Alexander (R, TN)
(no URL available)
"But in America, we say, 'One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'— not 'Many nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some.'"

February 23, 2010
Press release from Senator Jim DeMint (R, SC)
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=fdf0418c-c4af-73d8-e623-c67526a390e6
"We should stand together in opposition to racially divisive and discriminatory laws like this. The Native Hawaiian bill is unconstitutional and violates the national unity of E Pluribus Unum. I will use all the tools available in the Senate to ensure that this bill does not become law."

February 24, 2010
The Two-State Solution
The Abercrombie bill is a profound mistake. The people of Hawaii are a true melting pot, living in remarkable harmony
by John H. Fund (columnist for The Wall Street Journal)
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?74575861-4af3-409e-93a2-fc4af7fa6709

February 24, 2010
Race-based gov't: the aloha land grab
By Kevin D. Williamson
The New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/race_based_gov_the_aloha_land_grab_dQG4jwJZF4ybQff4jMhYDM

February 24, 2010
A Separate, Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians?
By Mike Brownfield, writer for The Heritage Foundation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?80bbad39-9f29-4ffd-a5ec-677cb83a2d99

February 24, 2009
Equal Protection Is for Flakes [referring to Rep. Jeff Flake's proposed amendment to require the Akaka tribe to comply with the 14th Amendment]
by Peter Kirsanow (Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights)
National Review Online
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODM3M2UyMTgyMTFjOWFiZjJkNTdlYWFkYjAwN2MzZDg

February 25, 2010
Hawai'i Wants Two Different Governments
by Matt Sussman, executive editor, "Technocrati"
http://technorati.com/politics/article/hawaii-wants-two-different-governments/#comments

February 25, 2010
Akaka Bill needs airing
Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial says there should be public hearings in Hawaii
http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20100225_akaka_bill_needs_airing.html

February 27, 2010
Hawaiian Secession
Dividing up the islands based on race.
The Wall Street Journal, Editorial
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083843429621442.html
[** As reprinted in U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Minority (Republican) webpage, March 1, 2010
"In Case You Missed It - Wall Street Journal: Hawaiian Secession
"Hawaii has a rich and diverse cultural history, and the Senate should reject this attempt to segregate the state by legislative sleight of hand.""
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=174092 ]

February 28, 2010
Congress Tries to Break Hawaii in Two
A racial spoils precedent that could lead to new 'tribal' demands across the U.S.
By GAIL HERIOT AND PETER KIRSANOW, Commissioners, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Published in the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703411304575093180795586118.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

March 1, 2010
Hawaii's Real Tsunami
Many metaphors are needed to describe the horrors of the Akaka bill.
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Reporter
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?29735ffb-9d81-49e1-b517-eb223667becb

March 1, 2010
Racism under the radar screen
By Armstrong Williams
The Hill (Washington D.C. newspaper focusing on Congress)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/84203-racism-under-the-radar-screen

March 3, 2010
Will Senate say aloha to racial discrimination?
by Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst, The Washington Examiner
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Will-Senate-say-aloha-to-racial-discrimination_-86050397.html

March 14, 2010
Hawaii voter can forgive major disagreements with leftist gubernatorial candidate Abercrombie over several decades regarding Viet Nam war, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.; but can never forgive Abercrombie's support for Akaka bill.
Honolulu Advertiser, letters to editor
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100314/OPINION02/3140333/1108

April 21, 2010
On April 21, 2010 the Honolulu City Council considered a resolution to support the Akaka bill. On April 16 Ken Conklin submitted by e-mail detailed and heavily documented testimony opposing the resolution, and then very brief oral testimony at the Council hearing on April 21. A webpage contains the proposed resolution, Conklin's oral testimony, and Conklin's written testimony including a proposed substitute resolution opposing the Akaka bill. Below are the oral testimony, and a summary of ten main points from the beginning of the written testimony, and the proposed substitute resolution. The webpage containing everything is at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaResoHonCouncilApr2010.html
Three 10-minute YouTube videos of the 29-minute Honolulu City Council testimony and discussion on the Akaka bill are arranged from left to right in the correct order at
http://tinyurl.com/35tvwyr

June 13, 2010
What Kamehameha Joined Together, Don’t Let Akaka Rip Apart
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Hawaii Reporter
http://boss.hawaiireporter.com/what-kamehameha-joined-together-dont-let-akaka-rip-apart/

July 19, 2010
Will The U.S. Congress Succeed in Institutionalizing Racism Where A Monarchy Failed?
by James W. Cox
Hawaii Reporter
http://boss.hawaiireporter.com/will-the-u-s-congress-succeed-in-institutionalizing-racism-where-a-monarchy-failed/

July 19, 2010
Thank You, President Obama (Part II)
by Brian Darling, Heritage Foundation director of U.S. Senate relations
Human Events magazine
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38097

August, 2010
"Who Is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters."
by Ryan William Nohea Garcia
Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2010, pp. 85-162
http://www.hawaii.edu/aplpj/articles/APLPJ_11.2_garcia.pdf

October 25, 2010
"Equality for Native Hawaiians (and all other Americans)"
by Jere Hiroshi Krischel
Hawaii Reporter
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/equality-for-native-hawaiians-and-all-other-americans

November 1, 2010
One Nation, One People, One Law: E pluribus unum.
by Jere Hiroshi Krischel
Hawaii Reporter
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/one-nation-one-people-one-law-e-pluribus-unum

December 1, 2010
Akaka bill now being attached to "must-pass" legislation despite Akaka and Inouye previously deploring such a maneuver.
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaAttachOmnibusDec2010.html
and also
Hawaii Political Info online newspaper
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/3563

December 2, 2010
PRESS RELEASE FROM SENATORS KYL, ALEXANDER, CORNYN, COBURN DEPLORING INOUYE STEALTH MANEUVER ON AKAKA BILL
See below for full text

December 2, 2010
The idea of a race-based sovereign nation within the bounds of a U.S. state should never have been taken seriously
by John S. Carroll (former candidate for Governor)
Honolulu Star-Advertiser
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20101202_The_idea_of_a_race-based_sovereign_nation_within_the_bounds_of_a_US_state_should_never_have_been_taken_seriously.html


=================
=================

FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2f8cd402-479f-4abf-8361-c05d53a93c38
Hawaii Reporter, January 18, 2010

I am Hawaiian; we are all Hawaiians

By Jere Krischel

These remarks were made at a Grassroot Institute of Hawaii forum on the Akaka Bill, on Friday, Jan. 15, 2010

I'd like to start off with a proclamation. He Hawai'i au; he mau Hawai'i kakou a pau. I am Hawaiian; we are all Hawaiians. For many years people have been told that they're not Hawaiian, or not Hawaiian enough, and I want to make my bias about this issue very clear up front. Hawai'i is a place, not a race. To exclude all the people whose families have lived and died in these beautiful islands for generations, but who do not have the proper bloodline, is discriminatory, mean spirited, and goes against the very ideals upon which the Kingdom, Republic and State of Hawai'i were founded.

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, "wait, I'm Japanese!" or, "nah, nah, I'm Portuguese!" For people born and raised in Japan or Portugal, and here today only as tourists, perhaps that's true. But what about the Japanese guy who knows where every Zippy's on Oahu is, but couldn't name the four islands of Japan? Or the Portuguese guy who knows all the good surf spots in Waianae, but not the capital of Portugal? For so many local Hawaiians, there is no other world than Hawai'i, no other home than Hawai'i. But for decades now, people have been insisting that they aren't Hawaiian enough.

It is my belief that If you look carefully at Hawai'i today, and even more carefully at the history of Hawai'i, you will come to share my bias, and seek the same vision of common humanity. I hope today I can share with you a bit of history, a bit of the present, and together we can share a similar vision of what our future can and should be.

Let's start with history. Before the white man arrived in 1778, Hawai'i was a perfect place. There was no war, no disease, no native birds or animals had been driven extinct, there was freedom of religion, everyone got to vote, there were no taxes, and everyone was pure native Hawaiian. Oh, wait, that's not right.

So what's the real story? Prior to the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778, the islands we now call Hawai'i were a collection of warring chiefdoms. Oahuans, Molokaians, Kauaians and Hawaiians were at almost constant war with each other. Torture and slavery were common, and women were viciously discriminated against. The ruling class consisted of ali'i and kahuna, who violently subjugated the maka'ainana and enslaved the kauwa. The racial mix was one based upon multiple waves of migration, initially from the Marquesas, but later by conquering Tahitian invaders.

That all being said, it wasn't that different than the rest of the world. All humans have had violent histories, with torture, racism, slavery, intolerant religion and sexism as recurring themes around the world. The resource limitations of the Pacific meant that technology there would never advance past the Stone Age, but other than that, in 1778, the people living in what we today call the Hawaiian islands were pretty much like any other group of humans.

Continuing with our tale, in 1810, King Kamehameha the Great single handedly unified the Hawaiian islands using only native technologies and tactics. He established a Kingdom of pure Native Hawaiians, and fought against all foreign invaders who dared reach Hawai'i's shores. Oh wait, that's not right either.

So what really happened? Of all the amazing people in the history of Hawai'i, the example of King Kamehameha the Great is extremely notable. He was born a lesser chief, but became the first person ever to unify the Hawaiian Islands. How did he manage such a feat? By accepting all people as human, worthy of respect and equality.

His closest advisor and son-in-law, Keoni Olohana, was the father of Kamehameha the third's Kuhina Nui, and the grandfather of the beloved Queen Emma. You might know him better by his English name, John Young. This ex-British sailor was originally captured by Kamehameha, but later helped equip Kamehameha's armies with modern weapons, taught them modern tactics, and helped lead them into battle. As one of the people who created the unified Kingdom of Hawai'i, John Young was truly one of the first "Hawaiians", and today is buried amongst the other Hawaiian royalty in the Royal Mausoleum.

So when the Akaka Bill says that we need a government for native Hawaiians, by blood, let's always remember that this was not how the Kingdom of Hawai'i was created or governed. Ever. The Kingdom of Hawai'i was founded by a multi-racial coalition, their first constitution in 1840 declared that all people were "of one blood", and they were far ahead of their time in establishing civil rights and equality regardless of race.

Moving on to the present, let's talk about the appeal to fairness that Akaka Bill supporters make. The Akaka Bill is supposedly to bring parity between native Hawaiians and Native Americans. But we never really stop to think about what that really means, so let's be very clear here. Most people with Native American blood are not part of any tribe. With parity we can expect that most native Hawaiians wouldn't be in the brand new Akaka Tribe.

There are millions of Native Americans who currently have exactly the same legal rights as citizens of any other race. They do not enjoy any special tribal benefits, nor the many disadvantages that comes with tribal membership. They don't have any legal claims to ancestral lands, or casino revenue. They live side by side with other Americans, and have no special privileges granted to them simply because of their bloodline.

The Akaka Bill will give incredible powers to just nine people, who will get to select the few lucky native Hawaiians who will be allowed into the Akaka Tribe. If you're well connected and toe the party line of the nine Akaka Ali'i, becoming "native Hawaiian" will be quick, and easy. If you disagree with the ali'i, or speak out against them for any reason, watch out.

The proposed "Akaka Tribe" will be just that, an arbitrary tribe of specially selected "native Hawaiians". Having native Hawaiian culture will not be a guarantee for membership in the tribe. Having native Hawaiian blood will not be a guarantee for membership in the tribe. In fact, membership in the tribe one year will not be a guarantee for membership in the tribe the next.

One of the more distressing features of so-called "Indian Law" in the United States is the determination of tribal membership. Because tribal membership is held as the sole province of the tribal leadership, any tribe, for any reason, can expel members from the tribe.

This loss of tribal membership is devastating. People are kicked out of the houses they have lived in for generations. Children are taken away from parents by court proceedings they aren't even allowed to attend. Allocations of tribal income are revoked.

It's likely that the DHHL lands will be converted to Akaka Tribe lands, and it is a good bet that those people already living on DHHL lands will have to be very careful about how they treat the nine Akaka Ali'i. Cross the wrong people, and you'll be kicked out of the tribe and lose your house, and get kicked off of the land your family may have been living on since 1921.

You could compare it to the loss of U.S. citizenship - imagine a world where if you offended a Legislator of the State of Hawai'i, they could revoke your U.S. citizenship, and you could be deported to some country you've never even been to. Now, if your leaders could destroy your life that way, would you dare speak out against them? Would you dare vote against them? Would you dare expose corruption, or demand justice? This is what "tribal law" has brought to Native Americans today, and it is exactly what the Akaka Bill will bring to Hawai'i and to native Hawaiians.

Of course, who is and isn't native Hawaiian wouldn't be such a poisonous issue if it wasn't for the disparate treatment being proposed. If everyone is treated equally, then it doesn't matter if you consider yourself native Hawaiian, or native African, or native American, or native Italian - self identification would be a simple matter of personal preference, unfettered by any legal consequences.

But already, we live in a world where DHHL beneficiaries have to be concerned about not being "Hawaiian" enough. People are forced to consider race when they choose spouses, in order to preserve benefits for their children. Already we live in a world where money taken by OHA must come out of the pockets of people who are not eligible for their programs, and where one drop of blood can make the difference between having a benefit, or not.

The Akaka Bill promises to enshrine this poisonous idea into law, and to exacerbate the pain and suffering caused by the government arbitrarily deciding that some people are better or more deserving than other people, simply because of their race.

The alternative vision for the future, is one where we can simply eliminate race from the equation, and return to the wisdom of the first constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Get rid of all blood quantum measurements, racial classifications, and simply open up OHA programs for anyone in need. End DHHL once and for all by distributing the property to the beneficiaries in fee simple, and allow them to decide for themselves what they want to do with their land and their lives.

Hawai'i has a choice, and all the people of Hawai'i deserve to have a voice in whatever the future holds.

Mahalo!

Jere Krischel is a civil rights activist who can be reached at
jere@krischel.org


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


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?245f8af4-5154-46f0-86f8-eacf41f33693
Hawaii Reporter, Monday February 22, 2010

10th Anniversary of U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rice v. Cayetano

The February 23, 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision spurred a decade of additional civil rights lawsuits seeking to abolish or desegregate Hawaii's empire of government and private race-based programs. Racial separatists immediately sought protection for those programs through the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) still being pushed in Congress 10 years later.

By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Rice v. Cayetano on February 23, 2000. But ten years later it's not clear who, if anyone, is celebrating the anniversary. It's also not clear whether the Akaka bill, which was primarily a response to the Rice decision, will finally become law after ten years of civil rights opposition; and whether it will survive court challenge if it passes.

Will Hawaii's multitude of racially exclusionary programs eventually be dismantled through the civil rights activism inspired by the Rice decision? Or will Hawaii be permanently ripped apart through creation of a racially exclusionary Akaka tribal government followed by a partitioning of land and jurisdictional authority between the tribe and a greatly diminished State of Hawaii?

The Rice v. Cayetano lawsuit was extremely important because it was the first time anyone had dared to challenge Hawaii's massive power elite of government-sponsored racial entitlement programs. Anticipating the likely ruling, defenders of those programs launched major political actions as soon as the case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 1998, even before the Court agreed in 1999 to hear the case, and more than a year before the decision was handed down.

Throughout the ten years since the Rice decision a David vs. Goliath battle has ensued. Civil rights activists with the relatively small resources of their own personal money have filed several lawsuits, citing language from the Rice decision, seeking to abolish Hawaii's racial entitlements either by destroying them or by desegregating them.

Powerful race-based institutions with billions of dollars in assets, supported by a pro-segregation state legislature and the Attorney General's legal staff (paid with tax dollars), have spent megabucks defending the racial entitlements in court and through advertising and political lobbying. To understand how the Rice decision and Akaka bill fit into the "big picture" struggle for unity and equality in Hawaii, see the 302 page book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State."
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

The Akaka bill was first introduced shortly after the Rice decision, as a direct response to it. The bill seeks to convert a racial group into a political entity by creating a federally recognized Indian tribe out of thin air. Its purpose is to defend Hawaii's racial entitlement programs against legal challenges by taking them out of the state government and enfolding them into an Indian tribe, because tribes are allowed to engage in racial discrimination.

What started out as benevolent affirmative action programs have turned into hardcore racial entitlements which now seek protection through a federal grant of political sovereignty to a racially exclusionary fake Indian tribe.

No other state has 20% of its people who are racially Indians, let alone 20% who would be eligible to join a single tribe, and claiming half the state's land as its own. Thus the Akaka bill would foster a real apartheid regime, unlike anything seen in the other 49 states. The bill would also begin an avalanche of jurisdictional disputes and lawsuits, because the lands likely to be claimed by the Akaka tribe are scattered throughout most neighborhoods on all the islands.

It was the federal government that apologized to ethnic Hawaiians in 1993 for the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy, and it is the federal government whose Congress might pass the Akaka bill. But it is the people of Hawaii who will pay the restitution called for in the Akaka bill by turning over state lands to the Akaka tribe. In effect the federal government is saying to the State of Hawaii: We (the feds) did the crime (in 1893); now you (the State of Hawaii) must do the time (pay the damages).

In the weeks after the Rice decision Hawaii politicians seriously proposed numerous ways to nullify or circumvent it. Perhaps the most far-reaching concept locally was legislation proposing a "global settlement" through creation of a private trust to be owned by all ethnic Hawaiians collectively, with the state turning over land, money, and jurisdictional authority to the trust in the same way the state sometimes grants land or money to legitimate charitable or benevolent groups.

The concept of a global settlement by creating a racially exclusionary private trust was initially unsuccessful; however, in June 2006 OHA officially adopted "Plan B" to accomplish the same goal in case the Akaka bill fails. Under Plan B the State of Hawaii would create a state-recognized tribe and turn over huge amounts of government land and money to it.

The same concept of a racially exclusionary private trust has once again been revived in the 2010 session of the Legislature by Senator Fred Hemmings, who originally proposed it nearly ten years previously. Whether it is the Hemmings trust or OHA's Plan B, the concept is similar to proposals in 1954 by various Southern states and municipalities to privatize the public schools by turning them over to white or black race-based community groups as a way to avoid the desegregation ordered in the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision.

A newly created webpage reviews in detail the major political events and lawsuits flowing from the Rice v. Cayetano case, during the period from 1998 (even before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case) to February 2010, and ponders the question: Where do we go from here? Numerous links are provided to webpages containing legal briefs and news reports related to the lawsuits and the Akaka bill.

The sections of that webpage have the following headings, in order of appearance. The detailed webpage is at http://tinyurl.com/y8jaahg

1. WHAT IS RICE V. CAYETANO? (How OHA was founded as a racially exclusionary agency of the state government; how the voting system worked for choosing OHA trustees; how Mr. Rice filed his lawsuit; and what the decision said)

2. WHAT POLITICAL ACTIONS WERE TAKEN IN ANTICIPATION OF THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING, BY DEFENDERS OF HAWAII'S RACE-BASED PROGRAMS? (Rice's request for a Supreme Court hearing drew an immediate response and propaganda forum in 1998 from a politically stacked Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; when Supreme Court oral arguments indicated the Court would probably rule in favor of Rice President Clinton immediately sent high officials of the Department of Justice and Department of Interior to Hawaii for a week of "Reconciliation Hearings" in December 1999 to push public opinion to favor creation of an Indian tribe for ethnic Hawaiians)

3. WHAT POLITICAL TURMOIL HAPPENED DURING THE REMAINDER OF 2000 IN RESPONSE TO THE RICE DECISION, AS RELATED TO THE AKAKA BILL? (Supporters of racial entitlements rushed to write the Akaka bill whose first official version was introduced in Congress in July 2000; in August 2000 "From Mauka to Makai" was published containing the propaganda from the "civil rights" forum of 1998 and the "reconciliation" hearings of 1999; at the end of August 2000 a "joint Congressional committee" hearing was held in Honolulu to listen to public testimony on the Akaka bill which the Hawaii delegation reported was favorable to the bill but independent news reports said was 9-1 in opposition; the Akaka bill passed the House on a stealth maneuver on September 26; a public forum was held in Honolulu September 28-29 by the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to consider the impact of the Rice decision on the civil rights of ethnic Hawaiians and to support the Akaka bill; the bill briefly passed the Senate on a stealth maneuver on December 13 which nobody knew about except Senators Inouye and Akaka but then died when its stealth passage was uncovered and vitiated by special legislation on the last day of the 106th Congress on December 15, 2000)

4. WHAT POLITICAL TURMOIL HAPPENED LOCALLY IN HAWAII IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RICE DECISION, IN AN EFFORT TO EVADE OR CIRCUMVENT IT, ASIDE FROM THE AKAKA BILL? (Politicians proposed that if OHA paid for its own elections, or if OHA trustees were appointed by the Governor, the Rice decision could be ignored; legislation was proposed to transfer $400 Million of OHA assets to DHHL to put them out of reach of a desegregated OHA, and legislation was proposed to privatize both OHA and DHHL by setting up a racially exclusionary trust fund to hold all their assets; a prominent legislator suggested complying with Rice by letting all voters register for OHA ballots but giving OHA ballots only to those who actually took the time to register specifically for OHA; there were suggestions to continue printing OHA ballots separately and to color-code them so non-ethnic-Hawaiians would be embarrassed to request them; Governor Cayetano succeeded in ousting all 9 OHA trustees and appointing temporary replacements for them pending the November elections; the Arakaki#1 lawsuit made it possible for people with no native blood to run for OHA trustee, and there were 96 candidates on the November ballot for the 9 seats on the OHA board including at least a dozen who had no native blood, including one who got elected)

5. WHAT HAS HAPPENED FROM 2001 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2010 REGARDING THE RICE DECISION AS RELATED TO THE AKAKA BILL? (Akaka bill started over again in January 2001; propaganda booklet published June 2001 entitled "Reconciliation at a Crossroads: The Implications of the Apology Resolution and Rice v. Cayetano for Federal and State Programs Benefiting Native Hawaiians" supported both the Akaka bill and the "right" of ethnic Hawaiians to force the entire State of Hawaii to secede from the United States; in May 2006 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights publicly opposed the Akaka bill, and in June the bill was killed in the Senate after President Bush said he would veto it; the USCCR again publicly opposed the bill in August 2009; links are provided to compilations of hundreds of pages of news reports and commentaries about the Akaka bill, and full text of all versions of the bill, from throughout the decade of 2000 - 2010)

6. HAWAII-BASED LAWSUITS EXTENDING THE RICE V. CAYETANO DECISION, AND LEGAL COMMENTARIES. (The progeny of Rice v. Cayetano include a detailed analysis of the successful Arakaki#1 to desegregate candidacy for OHA trustee; plus descriptions of the unsuccessful Carroll and Barrett cases; plus links to news reports and commentaries and all legal briefs from the five year long unsuccessful Arakaki#2; a propaganda forum was held at the University of Hawaii law school in July 2002 to deplore the progeny lawsuits but resulted in publication of an edition of the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal which included two well-documented major analyses by attorneys Patrick W. Hanifin and Paul M. Sullivan; several lawsuits against the racially exclusionary admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools were neutralized through settlements; Attorney H. William Burgess filed a short-lived federal lawsuit "Kuroiwa v. Lingle" which was dismissed on grounds that Arakaki#2 had already decided the issues; additional lawsuits have been filed in state courts to challenge each county's policy of granting waivers of property tax to ethnic Hawaiian owners of houses on property leased from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands)

7. WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO RACIAL ENTITLEMENTS AND HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY IN THE FUTURE? (Why do many citizens and nearly all Hawaii politicians support race-based entitlements and sovereignty? What are sovereignty zealots doing to recruit the majority of Hawaii's people, who are ethnically Asian? How are civil rights activists fighting back against racial separatism and ethnic nationalism? What will the Supreme Court probably do with the Akaka bill if it passes?)

The complete webpage covering those topics in detail is at
http://tinyurl.com/y8jaahg

Dr. Conklin's book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is in the Hawaii Public Library, and also at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa


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


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFlNmNjMTQwZjc0OTgyOTBjM2RkMjY3Njk1NTZmY2U=
National Review Online, Monday February 22, 2010

Akaka: Bad Bill, Bad Process

by Peter Kirsanow

As noted by Roger Clegg, the House is poised to vote on the Akaka Bill, a measure that would create a separate race-based government for Native Hawaiians.

The original version of the bill was the subject of a U.S. Commission on Civil Rightshearing three years ago. It was, and remains, the worst piece of proposed legislation ever reviewed by the Commission.

Today, individual members of the Commission sent the following letter to House leadership, opposing the substance of the bill as well as the manner in which it's being brought to a vote:

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
The Honorable John Boehner, Republican Leader
The Honorable Nick Rahall II, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources
The Honorable Doc Hastings, Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources
The Honorable John Conyers Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary

Dear Distinguished Members of Congress:

We write to you in our individual capacities as members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.[1] We understand that the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (the "Akaka proposal") is about to be brought to a vote on the House floor. We also understand that the bill will be a substitute for the one considered by the Natural Resources Committee. The bill slated for a hasty House vote was apparently negotiated behind closed doors among Hawaii's Congressional delegation, possibly the White House, and certain state officials, although those actually involved are unclear. Indeed, more changes were reportedly made over the weekend and released less than 48 hoursprior to the expected House vote. The citizens of Hawaii, Members of the Committees on Natural Resources and the Judiciary, and any other experts will not have the normal opportunity to discuss or debate the revised provisions of the bill. Nor will members of the general public.

We wish to register our profound disappointment that a bill of this great importance would be dealt with in this manner. The creation of the largest tribal entity in the history of the nation – potentially 400,000 strong – is too important a step to take this lightly.

Attached is a letter that the Commission on Civil Rights sent to the Senate leadership on August 28, 2009, in which the Commission expresses its opposition to the race-based Native Hawaiian Government proposal. We wanted to ensure that you received a copy. A preliminary review of the new eligibility requirements for membership in the purported tribe does not eliminate the substantial constitutional doubt about the legislation. Nor does it lessen the profound, negative policy implications of the bill.

We urge you to oppose both the Akaka proposal and this circumvention of the normal legislative process.

Respectfully submitted,

Gerald Reynolds, Chair
Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner
Gail Heriot, Commissioner
Todd Gaziano, Commissioner
Ashley Taylor, Commissioner

[1] We understand that a vote on this measure is imminent. Because the Commission only meets once or twice per month, there was no opportunity for the Commission to act as a whole.

** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: The original letter from the U.S. Commission on Civil rights, on official letterhead, dated August 28, 2009, with signatures, can be seen at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaUSCCR082809.pdf

The letter of February 22, 2010, including signatures of the 5 Commissionsers, can be seen at
http://big09a.angelfire.com/AkakaUSCCR022210reaffirm082809.pdf


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


Governor's official government webpage at
http://hawaii.gov/gov/news/releases/2010-news-releases/statement-by-governor-linda-lingle-on-the-native-hawaiian-government-reorganization-act
And also Hawaii Reporter online
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?4b452e51-a86d-4e22-950b-a6ef7f42c374
Hawaii Reporter, February 22, 2010

Governor Lingle: Current Version of Akaka Bill is Not One My Administration Can Support
The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.

By Gov. Linda Lingle

For more than seven years, my administration and I have strongly supported recognition for Native Hawaiians and supported the Akaka Bill.

We have supported a bill that would set up a process of recognition first, followed by negotiations between the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the State of Hawai'i, and the United States. Once that was completed, it would be followed by the Native Hawaiian governing entity's exercise of governmental powers and authorities.

Amendments made to the bill in December 2009 turned that process around. The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.

Although I believe the original plan to negotiate first makes more sense, my administration has tried to work with the Hawai'i Congressional delegation on the new structure to establish governing powers first, with negotiations to follow.

Ultimately, although we had good and productive discussions, the current draft of the bill is not one I can support.

The basic problem as I see it, is that in the current version of the bill, the 'governmental' (non-commercial) activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, its employees, and its officers, will be almost completely free from State and County regulation, including free from those laws and rules that protect the health and safety of Hawai'i's people, and protect the environment. 'Governmental' activity is a broad undefined term that can encompass almost any non-commercial activity.

This structure will, in my opinion, promote divisiveness and litigation, rather than negotiation and resolution.

I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules – one for 'governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else – makes sense for Hawai'i.

In addition, under the current bill, the Native Hawaiian governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits, and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of Hawai'i.

My decision to not support the current version of the Akaka Bill is done with a heavy heart, because I so strongly believe in recognition for Native Hawaiians.

If the bill in its current form passes the House of Representatives, I would hope it can be amended in the United States Senate.


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


http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=171333
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, Minority (Republican) blog, February 22, 2010
Press Release

Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill Creates Unconstitutional Race-Based Government

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb 22 - This week, the House will consider the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 (H.R. 2314), which creates a separate, race-based government specifically for Native Hawaiians. This divisive legislation would allow this new government entity to be exempt from state taxes, set their own civil and possibly criminal jurisdictions apart from the State of Hawaii, and take ownership of lands currently owned by the state (and potentially the federal government). Up to 400,000 Native Hawaiians from across the country (not just those living in Hawaii) could be eligible to become members of this new governing entity.

Democrats have re-written this bill behind closed doors (which has yet to be made public anywhere except for the Republican Committee website), without public consent, while failing to address serious and legitimate concerns:

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to recognize Native Hawaiians as a sovereign Indian Tribe. Native Hawaiians are not and never have been members of a tribe. They do not share the same political and legal history as federally recognized Indian tribes and Congress does not possess the authority to extend tribal recognition to them under the Indian Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano called into question Congress' ability to recognize Native Hawaiians as a governing entity.

It is unconstitutional to divide American people solely by race or ethnicity. The United States Commission on Civil Rights strongly opposes this legislation based on grounds that it discriminates based on race. In a letter to members of Congress on August 28, 2009 they wrote that:

"We do not believe Congress has the constitutional authority to 'reorganize' racial or ethnic groups into dependent sovereign nations unless those groups have a long and continuous history of separate self-governance."

The State of Hawaii continues to have concerns with this bill, specifically that it would immediately give the government entity "inherit powers" and remove state authority. Hawaii's Attorney General Mark Bennett and Governor Linda Lingle, who support Native Hawaiian recognition, wrote a letter last December objecting to last-minute revisions in the bill. According to an article last week in the Honolulu Advertiser, not all of Attorney General Bennett's concerns have been addressed:

"Bennett said the state's concerns about the Obama administration's language have been addressed by the parties. However, he said, the state still has strong objections to clauses in the new draft that could give immunity from state law to the entity, its employees and officers while they are conducting government activity."

Native Hawaiians would be exempt from state laws, regulations and taxes. Native Hawaiians do not live in separate communities or on separate lands, they live in neighborhoods with other Hawaiians. This would result in neighbors living under different legal regimes. For example, a Native Hawaiian business owner could be exempt from a state sales tax while his competitor down the street is not.

The people of Hawaii, whose lives and communities would be dramatically impacted by this legislation, should have a say in whether or not a race-based governing entity is established in their state. According to a December 2009 Zogby Poll, only 34% of Hawaiians support this legislation. Rather than forcing this upon the people, it should be put to a statewide vote.

The membership criteria for inclusion in this government entity would be discarded once federal recognition is extended. Even though the Department of Justice helped craft the membership criteria, the new governing entity would have the ability to grant, deny, or revoke membership for any reason. Allowing the entity to throw away the criteria after recognition is achieved makes a mockery of the legal process.

The bill sets a precedent that could be used by other ethnic groups seeking recognition. Gail Heriot with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights testified before the committee that:

"If ethnic Hawaiians can be accorded tribal status, why not Chicanos in the Southwest? Or Cajuns in Louisiana? Indeed, it is implausible to say that Congress has the power to confer this benefit only upon racial or ethnic groups, since ordinarily Congressional power is at its lowest ebb with issues that touch on race or ethnicity."

For more information, read the dissenting views by Ranking Republican Doc Hastings.

http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/UploadedFiles/02.22.10-NativeHawaiianSummary.pdf

Contact: Jill Strait or Spencer Pederson (202) 226-2311


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


http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/02/22/what-every-member-needs-to
GOP.gov -- The website of the Republicans in Congress

February 22, 2010

What Every Member Needs to Know About the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act

SUMMARY

On February 23, 2010, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (H.R. 2314). H.R. 2314 would recognize and authorize the creation of a sovereign Native Hawaiian governing entity-an Indian tribe. In order to do that, the bill would establish a process for organizing the Native Hawaiian people into an entity that knows who its members are, possesses authority over its members, adopts governing documents, etc. Such a tribe would likely have as many as 400,000 members nationwide, including more than 20 percent of Hawaii's residents, and potential authority over Native Hawaiians in all of the fifty states. If each Native Hawaiian eligible under this legislation were to apply to become a member of the new governing entity, it would be one of the nation's largest Indian tribes. Furthermore, this bill would confer upon them racially exclusive benefits, discriminating against Hawaiian residents of other races.

BACKGROUND

There are more than 150 current statutes that confer federal benefits to the Native Hawaiian people. However, in 2000, the Supreme Court put many of these benefits in jeopardy with its decision in Rice v. Cayetano. The Court's decision in Rice led many to conclude that federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians are a racial set-aside. As a result, the Hawaiian Congressional delegation has championed legislation to provide a process for the United States to recognize Native Hawaiians as a governing entity, i.e. a tribe that is political in nature and not a racial group. But instead of recognizing a currently-existing political entity that has authority over its members, H.R. 2314 must create one from scratch. Specifically, the following are some concerns that many Members have expressed with the legislation:

Unconstitutional: Congress lacks the power to create Indian tribes, and the Supreme Court has held that Congress' power with regard to indigenous peoples is not unlimited. In U.S. v. Sandoval, the Court stated that: "It is not meant by this that Congress may bring a community or body of people within the range of this power by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe." In other words, the Court held that the Congress cannot create an Indian tribe where one does not exist, but can rather, only recognize groups who have long operated as a tribe with a preexisting political structure and who live separately and distinctly from other communities (both geographically and culturally). The history and political relations between Native Hawaiians and the U.S. demonstrates that Native Hawaiians are not an existing Indian tribe.

Racial Group, Not a Tribe: Native Hawaiians are by the Court's definition not an Indian tribe but a racial group as stated in Montoya v United States: "By a 'tribe' we understand a body of Indians of the same or a similar race, united in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular though sometimes ill-defined territory" (emphasis added).

According to Congressional testimony provided by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Commissioner Gail Heriot, the very act of transforming Native Hawaiians into a tribe is "an act performed on a racial group, not a tribal group." This bill would confer upon them racially exclusive benefits, discriminating against Hawaiian residents of other races. Furthermore, this bill would preserve the State of Hawaii's current practice of conferring special benefits exclusively on its Native Hawaiian citizens. In a letter to House leaders, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights writes:

We do not believe Congress has the constitutional authority to "reorganize" racial or ethnic groups into dependent sovereign nations unless those groups have a long and continuous history of separate self-governance. Moreover, quite apart from the issue of constitutional authority, creating such an entity sets a harmful precedent. Ethnic Hawaiians will surely not be the only group to demand such treatment.

The Commission opposes passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act "or any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American People into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."

Racial Balkanization: H.R. 2314 could lead to a racial balkanization in Hawaii and elsewhere, providing for different codes of law to apply to people of different races who live and function as part of one currently homogenous community. Tribal Indians are typically located on reservations and immune from State laws, but this would not be the case should Native Hawaiians be granted the status of "tribe." In general, tribes do not pay State taxes nor do they abide by State regulations. With this in mind, consider for example, two small businesses in Hawaii competing against one another. One is owned by a Native Hawaiian, and the other is owned by someone who is not. The former would be exempt from State taxes, State business regulations, and zoning and environmental laws, and the latter would not.

Lack of Referendum: Nothing in H.R. 2314 provides current Hawaiians with any choice in the matter of whether or not there is a new governmental entity-which would no doubt affect them-created in their community. In addition, Zogby conducted a poll of registered Hawaii voters in 2009 which asked the following question:

The Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act of 2009, or the Akaka Bill, would recognize native Hawaiians as a tribe similar to the laws affecting American Indian tribes. To be included under the new Hawaiian government, residents would have to be able to show proof of native Hawaiian blood in their ancestry. Knowing what you know now, do you support or oppose the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act of 2009, or the Akaka Bill?

Only 34 percent of respondents said yes-51 percent said no. In addition, 58 percent of those surveyed supported the idea of a referendum before the provisions of H.R. 2314 became law. No such referendum is provided for in H.R. 2314.

Independence and Secession: In the process of clarifying statements he made earlier to an NPR reporter, the Senate companion's sponsor, Daniel Akaka, admitted that this bill could lead to independence:

I've spoken to those in Hawaii who want to have the-Hawaii to be independent and I've told them, hey, you can use the governing entity to discuss it. And this is what I meant. They can bring these to the governing entity and the governing entity will make a decision as to what happens to, uh, to independence or returning to the monarchy.

The State of Hawaii's Office of Hawaiian Affairs until recently posted a document which fueled speculation that H.R. 2314 may lead to secession and further independence efforts:

While the federal recognition bill authorizes the formation of a Native Hawaiian governing entity, the bill itself does not prescribe the form of government this entity will become. S.344 creates the process for the establishment of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and a process for federal recognition. The Native Hawaiian people may exercise their right to self-determination by selecting another form of government including free association or total independence. (emphasis added)


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


http://article.nationalreview.com/425840/trouble-in-paradise/duncan-currie
National Review Online, February 23, 2010

Trouble in Paradise
Why the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act deserves to fail.

by Duncan Currie

Amid much wrangling over the economy, a bipartisan debt panel, and President Obama's health-care summit, Congress has chosen this moment to tackle . . . Native Hawaiian sovereignty? Sometime soon, perhaps as early as today, the House of Representatives will vote on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (NHGRA), which is a modified version of legislation that has been kicking around since 2000 and failed to win a cloture vote in 2006.

Popularly known as the Akaka Bill for its original Senate architect, 85-year-old Hawaii Democrat Daniel Akaka, the NHGRA would effectively designate Native Hawaiians as a sovereign nation comparable to American-Indian tribes, allowing them to form a governing body that would launch negotiations with federal and state officials over land claims, resource rights, jurisdictional matters, taxing authority, and other issues. The list of eligible Native Hawaiian constituents would be determined by a federal commission, using criteria such as (1) ancestral links to the indigenous Polynesians who lived in the Hawaiian archipelago prior to 1893 (when the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown), (2) lineal ties to the people who qualified as "Native Hawaiians" under the 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (which relied on a 50 percent blood quantum), and (3) the ability to demonstrate "a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community."

But here's the catch: Once Washington formally recognized the fledgling Native Hawaiian governing entity, that entity would have "inherent power and authority to determine its own membership criteria, to determine its own membership, and to grant, deny, revoke, or qualify membership without regard to whether any person was or was not deemed to be a qualified Native Hawaiian constituent under this Act" (emphasis added), provided that membership was voluntary and renounceable. In other words, the eligibility guidelines laid out in the NHGRA are essentially meaningless. The Native Hawaiian government would be able to confer membership on whomever it wanted.

Its broader "powers and privileges" would be negotiated with federal and state authorities. During those negotiations, the "governmental, nonbusiness, [and] noncommercial activities" of the Native Hawaiian entity would be exempt from taxation or regulation by the state of Hawaii, and the entity would be shielded from state lawsuits.

You may be wondering why the House elected to consider the NHGRA this week. The reason is simple: Hawaii Democrat Neil Abercrombie, a longtime Akaka Bill advocate, is resigning his seat at the end of February in order to run for governor, and he has been promised that a vote will take place before he departs. The NHGRA enjoys overwhelming support among Democrats and is expected to pass easily. Yet Abercrombie and his colleagues have repeatedly tinkered with the text of the legislation to address the concerns of Hawaii governor Linda Lingle, who has championed earlier iterations of the Akaka Bill but raised objections to the latest version.

The NHGRA traces its roots back to 1993, when Congress marked the centennial of Queen Liliuokalani's removal by apologizing for America's involvement in her ouster and acknowledging the "inherent sovereignty" of the Native Hawaiian people. The events surrounding the Hawaiian Kingdom's 1893 demise remain highly controversial; but suffice to say that the Apology Resolution greatly exaggerated the extent of U.S. culpability. Thirty-four senators voted against it, with Washington Republican Slade Gorton warning that the resolution "divides the citizens of the state of Hawaii — who are of course citizens of the United States — into two distinct groups: Native Hawaiians and all other citizens."

Fast-forward to 2000. In Rice v. Cayetano, the U.S. Supreme Courtdeclared that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs could not prohibit non–Native Hawaiians from voting in its trustee elections. "Ancestry can be a proxy for race," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion. "It is that proxy here." Shortly after the Court delivered its ruling, Senator Akaka introduced his legislation. One of its principal goals was to insulate Native Hawaiian programs and institutions from future legal challenges.

The old Akaka Bill said that key governmental powers would be transferred to the Native Hawaiian entity after the details had been negotiated with Washington and Honolulu. The new bill would automatically endow the Native Hawaiian body with "the inherent powers and privileges of self-government of a native government under existing law, except as set forth in this Act." As a Republican House staffer observes, "This is now an outright tribal-recognition bill."

What do Hawaiians themselves think of it? In November, before the revised bill had been unveiled, Zogby International conducted an online survey on behalf of Hawaii's anti-NHGRA Grassroot Institute. After explaining various aspects of the legislation, Zogby found that 51 percent of Hawaii residents oppose the Akaka Bill and only 34 percent support it (the other 15 percent are unsure). The poll also showed that 58 percent of Hawaiians would prefer to decide the bill's fate in a statewide referendum, and that 60 percent of Hawaiians believe the so-called ceded lands (1.8 million acres that once belonged to the old Hawaiian monarchy and were given to the U.S. when it annexed Hawaii in 1898) "should be used for the benefit of all the people of Hawaii, not just the Native Hawaiians."

Hawaii received a massive influx of Asian immigrants in the 19th century, and it has long been celebrated for its high rates of racial intermarriage. Therefore, it is often hard to distinguish "Native Hawaiians" from Hawaiians of mixed ancestry. How exactly would the proposed governing entity identify its eligible constituents? Would it rely on a crude blood quantum (as Congress did in the early 1920s when it passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act)? Unlike many American Indians, Native Hawaiians are not clustered in reservation-type communities; they are scattered throughout cities, towns, and villages across the archipelago. If the Akaka Bill were enacted, next-door neighbors could conceivably be subject to different tax codes and different criminal statutes. It would be a logistical nightmare.

And also a constitutional nightmare. "It is a matter of some dispute," Justice Kennedy noted in his 2000 Rice v. Cayetano opinion, "whether Congress may treat the native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes." In May 2006, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission urged lawmakers to reject an earlier version of the Akaka Bill, and also to reject "any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American People into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege." In a letter to congressional leaders dated Aug. 28, 2009, six of the eight current commission members affirmed their opposition to the NHGRA.

"We do not believe Congress has the constitutional authority to 'reorganize' racial or ethnic groups into dependent sovereign nations unless those groups have a long and continuous history of separate self-governance," they wrote. "Moreover, quite apart from the issue of constitutional authority, creating such an entity sets a harmful precedent. Ethnic Hawaiians will surely not be the only group to demand such treatment. On what ground will Congress tell these other would-be tribes no?"

Good question — one that all House members should ponder before casting a vote in favor of Native Hawaiian separatism.

— Duncan Currie is deputy managing editor of National Review Online.


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


http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/23/hawaiians-deserve-to-vote-not-congress/
The Daily Caller, February 23, 2010

Hawaiians deserve to vote, not just Congress

By Rep. Doc Hastings
[the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee]

In March, 1959, Congress passed and with the stroke of a pen President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law, the Hawaii Admission Act, which pending approval of the Hawaiian residents, designated Hawaii as America's 50th state. On June 27 of the same year, 94.3 percent of Hawaiians voted in favor of the Hawaii Admissions Act and joining the union as one unified state.

That historic vote gave the residents of Hawaii all rights, privileges and freedoms associated with being an American citizen. Unfortunately, Congressional Democrats are prepared to deeply divide the state by establishing new, sovereign rights to Native Hawaiians in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Today, Democrats in the House of Representatives are trying to push the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), which would recognize Native Hawaiians as a race-based, sovereign governing entity. With this newly anointed status by the Federal Government, over 400,000 Native Hawaiians, spread across the country, would be furnished with special privileges comparable to those currently enjoyed by Indian tribes.

With passage of this bill, Native Hawaiians would gain the ability to take ownership of lands currently owned by the state, set their own civil and possibly criminal jurisdictions separate from the State of Hawaii, and become exempt from some taxation.

The implementation of this bill will likely lead to serious real world implications. For example, because the bill potentially pre-empts civil regulatory and tax jurisdiction without consent form the state, special tax breaks and regulatory structures could be given to Native Hawaiian owned businesses. This would force non-Native business owners in Hawaii who have been operating under equal rules and regulations into a competitive disadvantage with Native-owned businesses. Incentives for non-Native businesses would diminish, weakening competition, which would eventually limit consumer options and drive up prices.

Hawaii's Governor and Attorney General, both strong supporters of Native Hawaiian recognition, now have serious concerns with the latest version of the bill. In a statement released last night, Governor Lingle announced her opposition to the bill, '"Ultimately…the current draft of the bill is not one I can support." The Governor cited clauses in the revised bill that would immediately grant the Native entity "broad governmental powers and authorities" and remove state and county authority. If this legislation doesn't satisfy two of the most ardent supporters of Native recognition, Congress shouldn't be trying to pass it.

Race-based distinctions with special privileges do a disservice to the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution and are completely antithetical to individual freedoms so inherent and valued in American society. Further, subdividing Americans based on race raises serious constitutional questions as to whether or not Congress has the authority to treat Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe.

With respect to dividing people based on race or ethnicity, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, less than pleased with the concept of the legislation, expressed their dissatisfaction in an August 2009 letter to Congress stating they oppose any "legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American People into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court considered Rice v. Cayetano, a case related to the separation of American citizens into race-related classifications. The lawsuit involved a Hawaii state law that limited to Native Hawaiians the eligibility to vote in elections for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). In a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court held that such a restriction is race-based and therefore prohibited by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. Though the case did not involve a Native Hawaiian entity specifically recognized by Congress, the majority opinion noted that such a proposition "would raise questions of considerable moment and difficulty. It is a matter of some dispute …whether Congress may treat the native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes."

According to a December 2009 Zogby Poll, only 34 percent of Hawaiians support the concept of the Federal Government imposing a new racially based sub-population of citizens on the islands. Like their fellow Hawaiians who voted overwhelmingly for statehood in 1959, Hawaiians today want a say in the future of their archipelago—the same poll found that 58 percent want a statewide vote on the issue. I have an amendment that will be voted on by the House that would require such a statewide vote, and I hope all Representatives will join me in support of it.

Fifty-one years ago, 94.3 percent of Hawaiian residents voted to join the United States of America, surely this Congress owes the citizens of the State of Hawaii the ability to cast their vote on whether or not to create a new race-based governing body within their own state. Hawaii voted to join the union as one unified state, if Congress is going to divide them, then the people of the State of Hawaii deserve to have their say.

** Note by Ken Conklin

** Text of two amendments to the Akaka bill which will be offered by Republicans (and defeated by Democrats)

Text of amendment to be offered by Rep. Hastings:

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HASTINGS OF WASHINGTON TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 2314
Strike subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 8(c)(8), and insert the following:
1 (A) the approval of the organic governing
2 documents by a statewide popular vote in which
3 all registered voters in the State of Hawaii are
4 eligible to participate;
5 (B) the approval of the organic governing
6 documents by the Secretary under subpara7
graph (A) or (C) of paragraph (4); and
8 (C) the officers of the Native Hawaiian
9 governing entity elected under paragraph (5)
10 have been installed.

Text of amendment to be offered by Rep. Flake

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2314, AS REPORTED OFFERED BY MR. FLAKE OF ARIZONA
At the end of the bill, add the following:
1 SEC. 12. APPLICATION OF 14TH AMENDMENT.
2 Nothing in the Act shall relieve a Native Hawaiian
3 governing authority from complying with the equal protec
4 tion clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
5 Constitution.


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


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDI3MzUyMTg5NDQ5NWIwYTdkNzQxYWJhMzIzZWQwMDY=
National Review Online, Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Hawaiian Hallucinations

by Peter Kirsanow

Rep. Neil Abercrombie has sent a letter to his fellow members of Congress urging them to follow "hundreds of years of federal Indian law" and support the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, a.k.a. the Akaka bill.

Congressmen can do one or the other, but not both. Congress does not have constitutional authority to confer sovereign status on racial or ethnic groups that do not have a long and continuous history of separate self-governance. Moreover, tribal status is generally (though not necessarily) associated with cultural cohesiveness, geographic contiguousness and autonomous community. Evidence of none of these factors has been adduced in support of the Akaka bill.


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


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTc0ZWNlYjc1MDJjMTZlMTY5YTY0MjJlY2ZlOGQzZmI=
National Review Online, Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Disunited States

by Peter Kirsanow

Americans should watch their respective congressman's vote on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (the "Akaka Bill") closely. A vote in favor of the bill is a vote in favor of granting expansive powers to a race-based government that will establish a regime of benefits and preferences based on racial purity.

The bill is not only constitutionally defective and morally repugnant, but by logical extension it opens the door for members of other racial classifications to petition the government for sovereign status.

During a hearing on the bill before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights, the chairman of the commission asked an expert witness who supported the bill whether its passage would mean that if the chairman's (black) children were living on the island they lawfully could be treated differently on the basis of their race. The answer was "yes."

All congressmen who vote in favor of this odious bill should be questioned closely about their support of state-sponsored racial discrimination and juridical balkanization. That this bill could make it to the House floor for a vote is an abomination.


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


House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Press Office
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=172644
House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Press Office

Hastings Floor Statement on Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill
[regarding the Abercrombie substitute version of the bill]

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings (WA-04) delivered the following floor statement (as prepared for delivery) on H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2314 and the Substitute text sponsored by Mr. Abercrombie.

At the outset of this debate, it is important for all Members to understand that the substitute text they will ultimately be voting on today is fundamentally changed from the original, underlying bill that the House voted on in 2007.

This rewritten text, the Abercrombie substitute, was drafted behind closed doors, away from public view. It was unveiled less than 48 hours before we in the House were to be debating and voting on it. Regrettably, this lack of transparency has become standard operating procedure for this Democrat controlled House.

I'm certain we will hear appeals from the bill's advocates that the vote on this bill should not be a partisan matter. I would agree this is not a partisan matter. Rather, it is a question of what is right and constitutional. But, appeals to nonpartisanship ring hollow when this bill was rewritten in secret by just one party, and then rushed to the Floor with little time for scrutiny by the minority. But more importantly, little time for scrutiny by the American people or the citizens of Hawaii.

There's nothing more troubling about the House voting on a fundamentally rewritten bill than the position made public by the Governor of Hawaii. Something is very wrong when that Governor, a longtime vocal advocate of Native Hawaiian recognition, feels compelled to issue a statement last night, that she can't support the rewritten bill.

The Governor and I disagree on the fundamental question of recognition – just as I fundamentally disagree with my friend from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie. But, I also strongly disagree with the House acting to impose a changed bill on one of the fifty states over their Governor's objections, especially when this Governor has long supported the concept of Native Hawaiian recognition and the original text of the bill.

Let me explain the difference between the underlying bill, which is basically what the House passed in the 110th Congress, and the Abercrombie amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The original bill extended recognition to the Native Hawaiian entity but withheld any tribal powers and privileges, such as immunity from lawsuit and State jurisdiction, until after negotiations with – and the consent of – the State of Hawaii and the Congress. Though this does not resolve my fundamental objection to the bill, it was this arrangement that drew the strong support of the Governor.

In contrast, the Substitute alters this fundamental nature of the bill. Let me quote the words that the Governor of Hawaii, Governor Lingle, used to describe this re-write:

"The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow."

Again, the original bill starts with negotiations, followed by a grant of powers and authorities that are subject to the consent of the State. But the Substitute starts with the grant of powers and authorities without the consent of the State, followed by negotiations for yet more benefits and powers.

Section 9 of the Substitute clearly spells out the powers granted to the Native Hawaiian governing entity before negotiations, without the consent of the State. It is immunity from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with only minor exceptions.

And it is that "governmental" activities pursued by the entity or its officers and employees shall not be subject to State regulatory or taxation authority. The wording of this section suggests that the State criminal authority will not even apply to officers and employees of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as long as they are acting within the scope of their duties.

To again quote from the Governor of Hawaii's statement from last night:

"I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules – one for 'governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else – makes sense for Hawai'i…

"In addition, under the current bill, the Native Hawaiian governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits, and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of Hawai'i."

Without question, this rewritten bill strikes at the heart of the State of Hawaii's authority to enforce health and environmental regulations, taxes and criminal law enforcement equally among its citizens.

Congress should not be party to imposing this upon this state or any state.

Yet, despite the State of Hawaii's concerns with the rewritten bill, here we are, debating it in the House of Representatives.

This legislation violates, in my view, the United States Constitution, because it establishes a separate, race-based government of Native Hawaiians.

The authors and advocates for this bill have argued that Native Hawaiian recognition is no different than Congress recognizing an Indian tribe, and yet there are very important and real differences.

Native Hawaiians are not and never have been members of an Indian tribe. Native Hawaiians do not share the same political and legal history as federally recognized Indian tribes. The historical record is clear on this point.

For example, in the Hawaii Organic Act of 1900, Section 4 states that all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii in 1898 were declared citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. If Congress then believed it was recognizing the existence of a separate, Native Hawaiian community, the Organic Act would have expressly reflected this. Instead, all Hawaiians were recognized as full citizens. This is in stark contrast to our nation's history of less than equal treatment of individual Indians and Indian tribes.

But try as they might, Congress cannot revise historical and political facts. H.R. 2314 attempts to do just this … to rewrite legal history.

This observation is shared by constitutional and civil rights experts. For example, in its 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano , commented on the proposition of Native Hawaiian recognition, saying that it "would raise questions of considerable moment and difficulty. It is a matter of some dispute … whether Congress may treat the native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes."

Just yesterday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reiterated its standing opposition to any legislation "that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."

In 1959, a vote was taken in Hawaii on the question of becoming state. Over 94 percent voted in favor of statehood. In other words, citizens of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly to join our union as one unified state.

Today, under this bill, Congress will vote on dividing the State of Hawaii through the creation of a separate governing entity based solely on race. If Congress is going to impose this division on Hawaii over the objections of its Governor,... then the citizens of Hawaii themselves deserve to have a vote on this matter.

In a Zogby poll from December, 2009, only 34 percent of Hawaiians supported the concept of the federal government imposing a new racially based sub-population of citizens on the islands.

Like their fellow Hawaiians who voted overwhelmingly for statehood in 1959, Hawaiians today want a say in the future of their archipelago—the same poll found that 58 percent want a statewide vote on the issue.

I have an amendment that will be offered that would require just such a statewide vote, and I hope all Members will join me in its adoption.

As I noted at the outset of my remarks, the House last voted on a Native Hawaiian recognition bill in 2007.

I want to reiterate to all Members that we will be voting on a different bill today.

The 2007 legislation has been rewritten.

I believe the changes today are so fundamentally different that those Members who voted YES in 2007, should take the time to reconsider their vote today.

There is another compelling need for reconsideration when the Governor of Hawaii has gone from an enthusiastic supporter of the 2007 bill to not supporting this rewritten text.

I hope many of my colleagues will recognize this dramatic change.

The Governor remains a committed supporter of Native Hawaiian recognition. Her position has not changed – it is the bill that has been changed and fundamentally rewritten.

Like the Governor, those who supported the 2007 bill have very good reason to oppose this rewritten version today

Before concluding my opening statement, I want to take a moment to publicly state that I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, Neil Abercrombie. He is departing the House at the end of this week, and I do regret that I am leading the opposition to his bill in his final days here in the House.

To be honest, I'd much rather be here on the Floor supporting his bipartisan bill to write into law a five-year plan to develop America's offshore oil and gas resources. Regrettably, such reasonable legislation stands no chance of making it to the Floor in this Congress.

I hope my friend knows that my opposition to this recognition bill is based on my view of this matter, and not a reflection of the high regard in which I hold him as a friend.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time."


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


Sen. Lamar Alexander (R, TN) press release opposing Akaka bill

For Immediate Release:
February 23, 2010
Contact: Jim Jeffries (202) 224-4944

Alexander: Don't Establish Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians Urges Senate to Oppose House-Passed Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act

"In America, we say, 'One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'—not 'Many nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some.'" – Lamar Alexander

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement upon passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (H.R. 2314), which would establish a new governing entity for individuals of native Hawaiian descent:

"I'm disappointed that the House of Representatives passed legislation which the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposes because the bill would 'discriminate on the basis of race.' The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would create a new sovereign government within our borders based solely on race. But in America, we say, 'One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'— not 'Many nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some.' I urge the Senate to reject this ill-advised legislation as it has done in the past."

On August 28, 2009, in a letter to members of Congress, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights expressed opposition to the Senate version of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S. 1101), which it noted is "substantially similar" to legislation rejected by the Senate on June 8, 2006. In its letter, the Commission quoted its 2006 report opposing the bill because it "would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."


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


http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=fdf0418c-c4af-73d8-e623-c67526a390e6
Sen. Jim DeMint (R, SC) Press release opposing Akaka bill

For Immediate Release: February 23, 2010
Office of U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)
Contact: Wesley Denton (202) 228-5079

DeMint Statement on Native Hawaiian Bill

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, made the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives voted 245-164 to pass a bill that would create a race-based government for Native-Hawaiians living throughout the United States.

"The House vote this evening is deeply disappointing. We should stand together in opposition to racially divisive and discriminatory laws like this. The Native Hawaiian bill is unconstitutional and violates the national unity of E Pluribus Unum. I will use all the tools available in the Senate to ensure that this bill does not become law."


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


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?74575861-4af3-409e-93a2-fc4af7fa6709
Hawaii Reporter, February 24, 2010

The Two-State Solution
The Abercrombie bill is a profound mistake. The people of Hawaii are a true melting pot, living in remarkable harmony

By John H. Fund (columnist for The Wall Street Journal)

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie is retiring next week to run for governor of Hawaii. So last night Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave him a going-away present by passing a bill he had long sponsored to establish a new race-based sovereign government for people of native Hawaiian descent -- in effect treating native Hawaiians the way many mainland Indian tribes are.

The bill passed along party lines by 245 to 164 and now goes to the Senate where South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and others promise to try to block it.

The Abercrombie bill is a profound mistake. The people of Hawaii are a true melting pot, living in remarkable harmony. Native Hawaiians have so intermarried with other ethnicities that more than 90% who claim Hawaiian heritage do so by virtue of ancestry that's less than 50% Hawaiian.

Creating a separate government that would subject people who pass a test for "Hawaiian blood" to a different set of legal codes would not produce racial reconciliation. It would be a recipe for permanent conflict. Senators ought to think hard before voting for a bill whose most fervent supporters ultimately aim at Hawaiian independence.

Indeed, supporters like Mr. Abercrombie clearly recognize a lack of popular support for their scheme. Mr. Abercrombie bitterly opposed attempts to require a popular referendum on it. Hawaii's GOP Governor Linda Lingle has thrown her weight against the current legislation because it greatly waters down a requirement in previous versions that any native government cooperate with existing state authorities and recognize state and county regulations.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it has been championed by four-term Hawaii Democrat Daniel Akaka. Only one Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, is on record supporting any previous version of the bill. Governor Lingle's opposition may well have an impact on Ms. Murkowski's stance. If all 41 Republicans hold together, they may be able to block this pernicious legislation or at least force significant revisions.


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


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/race_based_gov_the_aloha_land_grab_dQG4jwJZF4ybQff4jMhYDM
The New York Post, Wednesday February 24, 2010

Race-based gov't: the aloha land grab

By KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON

A bill surfing through Congress would create a separate race-based government for ethnic Hawaiians -- clearing the way for the transfer of public lands, assets and political power from those who can't prove the purity of their Hawaiian bloodlines to those who can.

This ugly bill, a project of Hawaii Democrats Sen. Daniel Akaka and Rep. Neil Abercrombie, is morally deformed and almost certainly unconstitutional -- but still seems likely to become law.

The bill wrongly seeks to apply the model of the federal government's relations with Indian tribes to ethnic Hawaiians, re-establishing the long-extinguished sovereignty of the "Kingdom of Hawaii." (It is strange indeed to see secular 21st century American liberals working to resuscitate a theocratic monarchy ruled by a hereditary priest-king.)

It's not just that ethnic Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe -- they're not anything like an Indian tribe. They aren't even a majority of the population: Hawaii has more people of Japanese ancestry than of Polynesian ancestry. More important, the "sovereignty" that the United States government recognizes in the Kickapoo or Hopi is not of a racial character -- it is of a political character. The Indian tribes were and are governments: coherent, identifiable political units, often of very long standing (as with the Zuni of New Mexico).

Ethnic Hawaiians do not and have not exercised such sovereignty. The legislation at hand would not recognize a sovereign regime, but create one -- on narrow, hereditary grounds, no less.

Indeed, the Akaka bill goes to great lengths to define who counts as a "Native Hawaiian," which tells us all we need to know about Hawaiians' "sovereignty" -- no Apache band ever needed Congress to tell it who was a member.

The Kingdom of Hawaii existed only from 1810, when the chief on the Big Island tapped Western resources to conquer his neighboring satraps, until 1893, when the monarchy was overthrown and replaced by the Republic of Hawaii.

And the Kingdom of Hawaii was a multi-ethnic place -- one where non-natives, including a large number of American and European immigrants, were deeply integrated into the political and economic life of the islands. That is, the Kingdom is no precedent for the racial Hawaiian sovereignty that this bill tries to create.

The Republic of Hawaii was brought into the United States in much the same way as was the Republic of Texas -- and native Hawaiians have about as good a claim to national sovereignty as do native Texans.

Behind all these hideous racial politics is a great big pile of money.

During an earlier foray into Hawaiian identity politics, Uncle Sam established a trust for the benefit of native Hawaiians, holding some 2 million acres of Hawaiian land -- the value of which is today mind-boggling. Controlling the trust was the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a government agency that acts as the vanguard of the Hawaii-for-Hawaiians movement -- and whose trustees were elected exclusively by "native Hawaiians" -- which is to say, ethnic Hawaiians.

But in 2000, the Supreme Court struck down that racial qualification for voting. The Akaka bill is in no small part an attempt to undo that decision: The ethnic-politics mob in Hawaii wants to keep control of those lands and the revenue they represent -- and if it has to set up its own little sovereign statelet to do so, it's willing to go that far.

Sadly, lots of Democrats in Congress are willing to help them do it.

Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review.


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


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?80bbad39-9f29-4ffd-a5ec-677cb83a2d99
Hawaii Reporter, February 24, 2010

A Separate, Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians?

By Mike Brownfield, writer for The Heritage Foundation

The U.S. House voted yesterday to create the largest tribal entity in U.S. history under the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, despite last-minute opposition by Hawaii's governor, Linda Lingle (R), and serious questions regarding the bill's constitutionality. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama promised to sign the legislation.

The bill would establish a separate, race-based governing body to represent Native Hawaiians in negotiations with state and federal governments. As The National Review writes, the Act would:

…partly disenfranchise a portion of one state's residents, create a parallel government for those meeting a legislated criterion of ethnic purity, and would portend the transfer of public assets, land, and political power from those who fail to satisfy the standard of ethnic purity to those who do.

The goal, as The National Review notes, is "to apply the model of American Indian tribes' formal sovereignty to people of native Hawaiian ancestry."

Notably, Gov. Lingle reversed course after more than seven years of support for the Act (also known as "the Akaka Bill"), citing recent amendments to the legislation she says aren't in the best interest of Hawaiians:

The basic problem as I see it, is that in the current version of the bill, the 'governmental' (non-commercial) activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, its employees, and its officers, will be almost completely free from State and County regulation, including free from those laws and rules that protect the health and safety of Hawai'i's people, and protect the environment. 'Governmental' activity is a broad undefined term that can encompass almost any non-commercial activity.

"This structure will, in my opinion, promote divisiveness and litigation, rather than negotiation and resolution.

The Akaka Bill also drew fire from five members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, who sent a letter to House leadership on Monday urging opposition to the proposal. In their letter, they reasserted objections to the bill they initially raised in August of last year. From the August 2009 letter:

We do not believe Congress has the constitutional authority to "reorganize" racial or ethnic groups into dependent sovereign nations unless those groups have a long and continuous history of separate self-governance. Moreover, quite apart from the issue of constitutional authority, creating such an entity sets a harmful precedent. Ethnic Hawaiians will surely not be the only group to demand such treatment. On what ground will Congress tell these other would-be tribes no?

And in their letter yesterday, the commissioners also questioned the manner in which the bill came to a vote, stating that it was "slated for a hasty House vote [that] was apparently negotiated behind closed doors…"

In NRO's "the corner," Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, who was a signatory to the letter, writes that the precedent the Akaka Bill sets is a dangerous one:

The bill is not only constitutionally defective and morally repugnant, but by logical extension it opens the door for members of other racial classifications to petition the government for sovereign status.

While the House is poised to pass the bill, concern over those constitutional questions and the precedent the Akaka Bill would set are quite significant. The U.S. Constitution stands for the proposition that all Americans should be treated equally under the law. It certainly stands to reason, then, that Congress shouldn't be in the business of granting different ethnic groups special treatment under the law in direct contravention of Constitutional principles.


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


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODM3M2UyMTgyMTFjOWFiZjJkNTdlYWFkYjAwN2MzZDg=
National Review Online, February 24, 2010

Equal Protection Is for Flakes

by Peter Kirsanow

As noted by Kathryn, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, a.k.a., the Akaka Bill, passed the House last night, 245–164. The more intriguing vote, perhaps, was the vote on an amendment to the Akaka bill proposed by Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.).

The Flake amendment would've clarified that nothing in the Akaka bill could be interpreted to exempt the Native Hawaiian Governmental Authority from complying with the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Flake amendment failed 177–233 (Democrats voted 18 for 225 against; Republicans voted 159 for 8 against).

The salient portion of the Fourteenth Amendment as pertains to the Akaka bill is as follows: "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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Constituents of those congressmen who voted against the Flake amendment may wish to ask their respective representatives to identify with particularity the clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment they believe should have no application to the Native Hawaiian Governmental Authority.


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


http://technorati.com/politics/article/hawaii-wants-two-different-governments/#comments
Technocrati, February 25, 2010

Hawai'i Wants Two Different Governments

by Matt Sussman Article Author: Matt Sussman is the executive editor and politics channel editor of Technorati.com, as well as the sports editor of BC Magazine. Twitter: @suss2hyphens ]

** Nice photo palm trees, grass shack, hula dancers and musicians in mu'umu's or "grass" skirts.
http://static.technorati.com/10/02/24/9911/huladancers.jpg

Seceding from the union is so 1861. The new trend that's sure to catch on is, instead of separation from the government, creating an entirely new one. Just for the indigenous people!

Something called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act passed through the House yesterday and also has the support of Hawai'ian-born President Barack Obama. So if they can hula the legislation through the Senate, then this will give descendants of native Hawai'ians a legitimate government working symbiotically with the U.S. government. As his brainchild, Hawaiian senator Daniel Akaka couldn't be more thrilled. It is, after all, known as "The Akaka Bill." Namesakes are kind of important to people.

But the National Review editors oppose the bill, noting that it "would portend the transfer of public assets, land, and political power from those who fail to satisfy the standard of ethnic purity to those who do." And then they discuss how it's like Native American reservations, but not at all like Native American reservations. Stew on that peyote for a while.

It's an odd proposition to have a parallel set of rules that affects one particular race and yet still fully recognizes another federal government. What's stranger is what it's doing all the heck way in Washington. This is all so one state tucked all the way down there in the Pacific can instantiate a new set of rules for a subset of people most people don't think about on a daily basis. Seems like something they could work out on their own. What's the harm, and what's all the commotion?


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


http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20100225_akaka_bill_needs_airing.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Thursday February 25, 2010
EDITORIAL

Akaka Bill needs airing

Gov. Linda Lingle's reversal of her long-standing support for the Akaka Bill indicates how fundamentally the Hawaiian sovereignty measure has changed over the course of this Congressional session.

Any future attempts to pass the measure -- assuming the current bill dies in the Senate, as is now predicted even by many supporters -- should include full public hearings in Hawaii to explain why the 2010 version is so different from the versions that have preceded it since 2000.

The measure, which would grant federal recognition to native Hawaiians, has been approved three times by the House since then, but never by the Senate.

The latest House approval came Tuesday on a 245-164 vote, capping Hawaii Democrat Neil Abercrombie's career as he leaves Congress to run for governor.

Leaders of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs hailed the passage and expressed hope that Lingle's objections could be assuaged in the Senate version. But the bill has never made it out of the Senate before, even when it had the Republican governor's hearty support, so it seems even less likely to survive this time.

Lingle had backed the measure so strongly in past years that she traveled to Washington to personally ask Republican representatives and senators to support it, lauding it as a way to help right historical wrongs committed against the Hawaiian people.

But those versions mandated negotiations among the native Hawaiian governing entity, the state of Hawaii and the U.S. government over vital issues such as money and land before the native government began fully exercising its sovereign authority and immunity.

Amendments were made last December -- at the behest of the Obama administration, intended to bolster the bill's chances of passing constitutional muster and in keeping with existing tribal law -- that Lingle considers untenable. For one thing, the bill approved by the House gives the native governing entity broad power from the outset, before negotiating with the state.

"This structure will, in my opinion, promote divisiveness and litigation, rather than negotiation and resolution," the governor said. "I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules -- one for 'governmental' activities of the native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else -- makes sense for Hawaii."

Hawaiian nationalists also oppose the bill, albeit for different reasons. They say native Hawaiians who support it are being duped into relinquishing their inherent sovereignty as descendants of the independent Hawaiian kingdom overthrown by U.S. interests. To them, federal recognition is a land grab disguised as recompense.

That the opposition includes such diverse points of view is further evidence that the Akaka Bill needs a full airing before rising again.


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


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083843429621442.html
Wall Street Journal, February 27, 2010
EDITORIAL

Hawaiian Secession
Dividing up the islands based on race.

[** As reprinted in U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Minority (Republican) webpage, March 1, 2010
"In Case You Missed It - Wall Street Journal: Hawaiian Secession
"Hawaii has a rich and diverse cultural history, and the Senate should reject this attempt to segregate the state by legislative sleight of hand.""
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=174092 ]

As farewell presents go, few lawmakers get to redistribute an entire state's wealth based on race. That was the send-off for Representative Neil Abercrombie, who is retiring this week to run for Governor of Hawaii. For his campaign literature, he'll take the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which was whooped through the House on Tuesday 245-164.

The bill would create a sovereign tribal entity made up of some 400,000 Hawaiians. Supposedly designed to mimic the legal structure created for Native Americans, the bill breaks new ground—requiring the federal government to create a tribe based on a loosely defined racial identification. Not yet scheduled for a vote in the Senate, the bill may face opposition from Republicans, including a filibuster. South Carolina's Jim DeMint says he'll use "all the tools possible" to prevent the bill from becoming law, and we hope he does.

This wasn't the law's first trip around the Hill, though it was the most outrageous. The version passed Tuesday includes last-minute changes by Mr. Abercrombie to evade normal legislative vetting. In a letter to House leaders, five members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights expressed their "profound disappointment" at a bill that was "negotiated behind closed doors" and "released less than 48 hours prior to the expected House vote."

And no wonder. While land transfers will still need to be negotiated with the state, the bill could affect public land covering 38% of Hawaii. The new tribe would be immediately vested with such "inherent powers" as sovereign immunity, the right to regulate its members and to be released from various state taxes and regulations. That's a departure from the original plan, which required consultation with the state government and Congress on tribal powers.

The changes are so egregious that even Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, who had been an ardent supporter, withdrew her approval. "This structure will, in my opinion, promote divisiveness and litigation, rather than negotiation and resolution," Governor Lingle wrote.

In an effort to dispel concerns that the creation of a race-based tribe violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, Mr. Abercrombie added a six-page list of membership criteria that could include non-Hawaiian state residents. But the provision contains a self-destruct clause—as soon as the tribe is officially recognized, it can extend and deny membership based on any criteria it sees fit. And if this runs into legal trouble, the legislation requires the Justice Department to designate an attorney to fight all challengers to the new tribe.

Many Hawaiians support some legal recognition for the state's native residents, but the separatism being pushed by Democrats is far less popular. Under the House's hodgepodge, nonnative citizens may face higher taxes to pay for the new tribal entity and cope with the loss of state revenue on land ceded to the new native nation.

President Obama has said he'll sign the bill if it gets to his desk, but the Supreme Court has already rejected attempts to hold elections based on race. Hawaii has a rich and diverse cultural history, and the Senate should reject this attempt to segregate the state by legislative sleight of hand.


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


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703411304575093180795586118.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Wall Street Journal, online opinion journal, Sunday February 28, 2010

Congress Tries to Break Hawaii in Two
A racial spoils precedent that could lead to new 'tribal' demands across the U.S.

By GAIL HERIOT AND PETER KIRSANOW

Last week, the House of Representatives, in a largely party-line vote, passed the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Popularly known as "the Akaka bill," this piece of legislation might turn out to be this Congress's single most calamitous decision.

The bill creates a complex federal framework under which most of the nation's approximately 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians can organize themselves into one vast Indian tribe. It endows the tribe with the "inherent powers and privileges of self-government," including the privilege of sovereign immunity from lawsuit. It also by clear implication confers the power to tax, to promulgate and enforce a criminal code, and to exercise eminent domain. Hawaii will in effect be two states, not one.

The method used to create this tribe should make everyone squeamish. The bill delegates the delicate task of deciding who may join the tribe to a federal commission appointed by the secretary of the Interior. Ultimately, the tribe itself will have the power to expel members or invite new ones.

Earlier versions of the bill demanded that the secretary appoint only ethnic Hawaiians as commissioners. In the current version, only those with "10 years of experience in the study and determination of Native Hawaiian genealogy" and "an ability to read and translate . . . documents written in the Hawaiian language" may serve on the commission. These commissioners will examine an applicants' backgrounds to ensure that only "qualified Native Hawaiians" with the right amount of Hawaiian blood join the tribe.

To understand all of this, you have to know something about the Aloha State's racial entitlement system. The State's Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), established in 1978, administers billions of dollars generated from lands the federal government ceded to the state decades ago. These monies should be used to benefit all Hawaiians. Instead they are spent on benefits for ethnic Hawaiians, including home loans and business loans as well as housing and education programs.

The protection of these benefits is what motivates supporters of the Akaka bill. Ten years ago, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Hawaiian law that limited the right to vote for those who oversee OHA to ethnic Hawaiians. The court ruled in that case, Rice v. Cayetano, that it violated the 15th Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting rights.

Rice set off a firestorm that has not yet subsided. If OHA's election methods were unconstitutional, then its racially-exclusive benefits were almost certainly also in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Something had to be done.

And it was. Shortly after Rice, Hawaii's Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka introduced a bill in Congress to protect race-based benefits in his state. He did so by seeking to exploit a 1974 Supreme Court decision, Morton v. Mancari. In that case, the court found that racial discrimination on the basis of membership in "quasi-sovereign tribal entities" was constitutional. Following the logic of the ruling, Mr. Akaka and others hoped that by transforming ethnic Hawaiians from a race into a tribe they would effectively protect special benefits for ethnic Hawaiians.

Indeed, the benefits pot might even be sweetened by such a transformation. The Akaka bill provides that after the tribe is established, its leaders may negotiate with Hawaii for the transfer of land. Everyone involved understands this to refer to 1.4 million acres known as the Ceded Lands—lands that were ceded to the state by the federal government when statehood was granted in 1959. Some activists take the position that since these lands were once owned by the Hawaiian monarchy, they rightfully belong to ethnic Hawaiians. Some even argue the tribe's ultimate goal should be secession from the United States.

Nevertheless, two problems remain. First, the Akaka bill privileges what is in fact a race, not a tribe. The very act of transforming a racial group into a tribal group confers a privilege on one race and not others and is thus unconstitutional. Second, while the Constitution implicitly gives the federal government the power to recognize tribes with a long and continuous history of separate self-governance, it does not give the power to confer sovereignty on new tribes, or to reconstitute a tribe whose members have long since become part of the mainstream culture.

If it did, all manner of mischief could be accomplished, as ethnic Hawaiians will not be the last group to demand special status. Some activists argue that Southern California should be set aside as a homeland for Mexican Americans of Indian descent. Right now, that idea looks like pure fantasy. If the Akaka bill becomes law, it will suddenly become more plausible.

What's more, the Amish in Pennsylvania and the Orthodox Jews in New York could also start to see a benefit from constituting themselves as a tribe, since tribes, unlike federal and state governments, are free to establish theocratic governments. On what ground will Congress say no to these and other would-be tribes?

Mr. Akaka's supporters argue that the American government was complicit in the 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, which they believe illegally denied not just the queen's individual right of sovereignty, but her subjects' collective right, too. They see this bill as an appropriate remedy.

This historical claim has been hotly debated. Even assuming American complicity, however, it is beside the point. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a multiracial society from its inception in 1810, when King Kamehameha united what had previously been a group of warring islands.

In the true spirit of Aloha, its rulers were welcoming of immigrants, who came from all over the world, including Portugal, China, Japan, the United States, Great Britain and Germany. The 1840 Hawaiian constitution declared that "all races" were of "one blood" and established a bicameral parliament whose members were multiracial. By 1893, ethnic Hawaiians were a population minority.

This cosmopolitan, constitutional monarchy was no kinship-based tribe. Anyone born on Hawaiian soil or swearing allegiance to the queen was considered the queen's subject and hence "Hawaiian." No single race was deprived of "its" sovereignty rights by the overthrow.

In 1959, 94.3% of Hawaiian voters cast ballots in favor of statehood. Within months, Hawaii became the 50th state. No one argued then that ethnic Hawaiians were part of a separate political system that needed special status. To the contrary, everyone acknowledged that ethnic Hawaiians were part of the political mainstream. It is now too late in the game to argue otherwise.

The U.S. Senate is expected to take up the Akaka bill in the coming weeks or months, where its opponents are insisting on a thorough debate. One reason for hope is that Hawaii's Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has finally withdrawn her support for the legislation. For years she advocated passing the bill, establishing a tribe, and then using vigilance to ensure that the tribe does not acquire undue power or resources during its negotiations with the state. She has now reconsidered.

Good for her. This is a train that needs to be stopped before it leaves the station.

Ms. Heriot and Mr. Kirsanow are members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.


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


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?29735ffb-9d81-49e1-b517-eb223667becb
Hawaii Reporter, March 1, 2010

Hawaii's Real Tsunami
Many metaphors are needed to describe the horrors of the Akaka bill.

By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

The warnings were broadcast on all the TV and radio stations, and published in the newspapers.

Then the sirens wailed at 6 AM on Saturday February 27, 2010.

But they were four days late. The Akaka bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday February 23.

What? This article is about the Akaka bill? But the title says "Tsunami Hits Hawaii."

The impact of the Akaka bill on the State of Hawaii will be far worse than any earthquake or tsunami. Buildings, roads, and human bodies can be repaired after a natural disaster. But once the Akaka bill is enacted and signed into law, it will put in motion a series of legal, economic, political, and social changes that will shake apart Hawaii to its very foundations and inundate our multiracial aloha with the floodwaters of separatism and hatred.

The damage from the Akaka bill can never be undone. It's worse than Thelma and Louise, in the movie, accelerating as they drive over a cliff. Remember in the nursery rhyme when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall (this time Akaka pushed him off) and shattered into a million pieces? Not all the king's horses and all the king's men could put him back together again.

Janet Napolitano is President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. Early in her term she famously refused to use the phrase "terrorist attack", replacing it with "man-made disaster." Well, the effects of the Akaka bill would be precisely that -- a man-made disaster. The big fight between Lingle/Bennett vs. Inouye/Akaka/Abercrombie for the past three months has been whether a previous version of the Akaka bill should be replaced by an even worse version. The choice is: Which would you rather have -- a catastrophe or merely a disaster?

The Akaka bill has indeed been a form of terrorism -- a looming disaster threatening to destroy Hawaii as surely as Iran's development of a nuclear weapon is a looming disaster preparing to destroy Israel. For a decade the Akaka bill has been threatening Hawaii, revived every two years when it is reintroduced in a new Congress. It's like those old horror movies "The Mummy" and "The Mummy's Hand" where the priest Kharis (Boris Karloff) periodically gives an Egyptian mummy three tanna leaves to bring it back to life temporarily. But if Kharis gives the mummy seven leaves (passing the Akaka bill) then it will be alive forever.

Governor Lingle and Attorney General Bennett enthusiastically supported the bill throughout their first seven years in office until suddenly that monster revealed its true nature and horrified them. They remind me of Dr. Frankenstein who was shocked when the monster he created ("It's alive!") was not happy to stay strapped down on the gurney in the laboratory, but broke loose and went on a rampage through town. Those pushing the Akaka bill have always insisted that "Native Hawaiians are entitled to parity and full equality with the Indian tribes." Did Lingle/Bennett think they were kidding? Once an Akaka tribe is created, regardless of the exact parameters of the legislation, the tribe will keep going back to Congress for more rights and more handouts until it has grown into the monster it always wanted to be.

In the Bible's Book of Job, there came a time when Job wanted God to prove he was really the Almighty. So God reminded Job of some of God's powerful miracles. In Job 38:8-11, reminding how He had stopped the floodwaters, God asked "... [W]ho shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth ... and said, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and there shall thy proud waves be stayed'?" God can stop a tsunami.

God help us.

REFERENCES (interesting and mostly informal)

1. Some politicians and media people have been praising President Obama, and in awe of him, as though he is God. But when it comes to the Akaka bill, Obama seems more like the Devil. He has repeatedly promised to sign the bill if Congress passes it. Here's a letter to President Obama asking him to change his mind, based on Obama's own idealistic statements and personal background:
http://tinyurl.com/bl9rvv

2. 302-page book: "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" 27 copies are available in the Hawaii Public Library system. A webpage providing cover, entire Chapter 1, detailed Table of Contents, and how to order the book, is at:
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

3. The highly respected Beacon Hill Institute (Boston) did an analysis of the economic consequences of the Akaka bill, and estimated that the bill will cost the State of Hawaii perhaps $690 million per year in lost tax revenue, not including losses to the county governments. Download the report from
http://tinyurl.com/9f6rxn

4. Zogby poll released November 2009 shows most Hawaii people oppose the Akaka bill, and an even larger majority want a ballot referendum on it.
http://tinyurl.com/yczuo3q

5. Many other proofs that most of Hawaii's people, and also most ethnic Hawaiians, oppose the Akaka bill were assembled at
http://tinyurl.com/omewe

6. From 2000 to 2010 there have been hundreds of major publications opposing the Akaka bill, including the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Republican policy committees in both the House and Senate, commentators in the local and national media, etc. Full text of the most important such publications have been compiled, and an index providing access to all ten years of them is at:
http://tinyurl.com/5eflp

Dr. Conklin's book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is in the Hawaii Public Library, and also at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa


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


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/84203-racism-under-the-radar-screen

The Hill (Washington D.C. newspaper focusing on Congress)
Pundit's blog, March 1, 2010

Racism under the radar screen

By Armstrong Williams

Congress has set the stage for institutionalizing racism in America. In a relatively underreported act of Congress, the House passed the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which authorizes our government to give about one-third of Hawaii’s land to a sovereign entity representing Native Hawaiians. It set up a sovereign state within the state of Hawaii similar to reservations granted to Native Americans on the mainland. This act would also exempt Native Hawaiians from selected taxation and laws. This egregious act is based strictly on race and President Barack Obama promised to swiftly sign it if the Senate supports this bill.

A hundred and fifty years ago we spilled the blood of millions of Americans over the issue of slavery and equal protection for all citizens under the law. When this bloody Civil War ended, Americans passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S Constitution, which ended slavery and codified equal rights for all citizens regardless of race. Over the past 75 years, Americans gradually but unambiguously embraced the civil rights movement. As a result, Congress enacted civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, handicapped status, etc. More importantly, American society today has embraced equality among all Americans regardless of race, religion, etc.

Was the blood spilled in the Civil War and the civil rights movement in vain? This Native Hawaiian Act is a major setback to equality in the U.S. It allocates our national resources, rights and responsibilities based on race. It is anathema to our national identity. Can fair-minded members of Congress actually see and understand the hypocrisy of this legislation? If this legislation becomes law, what is to prevent our Congress from setting aside land to WASPs, granting them exemption from taxation and special treatment? Substitute WASPs for blacks, Jews, Italians, Irish, Muslims, etc. Continuing on this road will lead to the further balkanization of this country.

The civil rights groups in this country, including the NAACP, Urban League, Anti-Defamation League and Lambda, should fight this bill tooth and nail. It turns back the clock on Dr. King's America, where Americans are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. How can President Obama, given his history and background, justify dividing Americans along racial lines? What happened to the post-racial America President Obama embodied?


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


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Will-Senate-say-aloha-to-racial-discrimination_-86050397.html
The Washington Examiner, March 3, 2010

Will Senate say aloha to racial discrimination?

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst

What's the worst piece of legislation before Congress associated with the letter H? Most conservatives and Republicans, many moderates and Independents and even some liberals and Democrats would answer: one of the health care bills.

But there's a robust competitor for this honor, passed by the House last week and currently before the Senate: the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

As with so much legislation, the title is Orwellian. The bill, sponsored Hawaii Sen. Daniel Akaka, does not reorganize a Native Hawaiian government, it creates one.

It states that people of Native Hawaiian descent can organize themselves as an Indian tribe. It would have "inherent powers and privileges of self-government," including presumably the power to tax, to enact criminal laws and to use eminent domain to seize private property.

There is good reason to believe this is unconstitutional. The Constitution empowers Congress to recognize established Indian tribes and to grant them self-governance. But the Constitution doesn't give it the power to create an Indian tribe.

Native Hawaiians are not and never have been an Indian tribe. The kingdom and the republic of Hawaii were multiracial societies, not tribal entities, until annexation by the United States in 1898.

Moreover, the Akaka bill is in tension if not in conflict with the constitutional ban on racial discrimination. It confers benefits on people because of their race. Many of our states used to do this, and some of us are old enough to remember separate drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites. Not many of us see this sort of thing as an attractive model for the years ahead.

There is the additional complicating factor that it's not clear just who is a Native Hawaiian. Racial intermarriage has been common in Hawaii for a century and a half, and some have estimated that there are only a few hundred people left of whose ancestors were all Native Hawaiian. The Akaka bill provides that a federal commission determine who qualifies for inclusion in the new tribe. Anyone see an opportunity for political favoritism here?

What's the impetus behind this retrograde bill? Pots of money. The state of Hawaii established an Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 1978 and gave it funding from the huge income from federal lands, the so-called Ceded Lands, granted to Hawaii when statehood was granted in 1959. OHA officials were chosen in elections limited to Native Hawaiians. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that this violated the 15th Amendment's ban on racial discrimination in voting.

The asserted purpose of the Akaka bill's discrimination is to aid a disadvantaged ethnic group. In the 1990s an OHA official told me that Native Hawaiians had the lowest education and income levels of any ethnic group in Hawaii "except, of course, the Filipinos." (Which leads me to wonder: Should we have a Filipino Government Reorganization Act?)

The actual purpose is to turn over to this racially defined governmental entity the Ceded Lands and the income therefrom: many millions of dollars. Perhaps disadvantaged individuals who get certified as having the requisite percentage of Native Hawaiian ancestry will get some benefit. But there's reason to bet that much of the moolah will go to well-connected lawyers, accountants, project managers and investment advisers.

What I find most dismaying about this Native Hawaiian bill is the contrast between Hawaii's traditional openness and tolerance and the bill's attempt to separate Hawaiians -- Americans -- by race. Hawaii, as Sen. Daniel Inouye stated in 1994, is "one of the greatest examples of a multiethnic society living in relative peace." Quite so.

Inouye was one of the Hawaii politicians who worked for statehood in the 1950s. Then their chief opponents were Southern Democrats who feared the example of a multiethnic, multiracial society in which whites were in the minority and racial segregation was taboo.

The Hawaii in which Barack Obama was born in 1961 justified those fears. Despite some tensions that Obama mentions in his autobiography, it was a sterling example of tolerance and togetherness not just to the United States but to the whole world.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would put Hawaii on a road headed in the other direction. The Democratic health care bills threaten one-sixth of the nation's economy. The Akaka bill threatens something even more precious, the progress we have made as a nation toward racial equality.

Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at
mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com.
His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.


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


** Note: Neil Abercrombie is a newly retired Congressman who has pushed the Akaka bill very hard for 10 years. He retired from Congress on February 28, 2010 to run for Governor of Hawaii, less than a week after overseeing passage of the Akaka bill by the House of Representatives.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100314/OPINION02/3140333/1108
Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday March 14, 2010, Letter to editor

ABERCROMBIE
VOTER CAN'T FORGIVE STANCE ON AKAKA BILL

I am a combat veteran from the Vietnam era, who served with the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, in 1969. My active duty began as a reservist attached to the Hawai'i National Guard's 29th Brigade in 1968. At that time, Neil Abercrombie was a demonstrator against us, calling us names that was truly not Hawai'i.

Abercrombie and I have huge differences of both moral and economic issues. We are on opposite sides on national defense, as he voted against the Patriot Act in 2002. He supports same-sex marriage and testified in support of civil unions. He supports abortion, where I believe that life begins at conception. He supported the comprehensive health care bill pending in Congress, destroying the best health care system in the world.

I could forgive him for our many differences except for one, the Akaka bill. He believes in the racial separation of Hawai'i's people without allowing for a plebiscite. His position is not pono. Hawai'i was and is a blend of many races and cultures. Hawai'i is of one people and Abercrombie wants us to be separated by race.

Governor? I don't think so.

Jimmy Kuroiwa
Honolulu


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


On April 21, 2010 the Honolulu City Council considered a resolution to support the Akaka bill. On April 16 Ken Conklin submitted by e-mail detailed and heavily documented testimony opposing the resolution, and then very brief oral testimony at the Council hearing on April 21. A webpage contains the proposed resolution, Conklin's oral testimony, and Conklin's written testimony including a proposed substitute resolution opposing the Akaka bill. Below are the oral testimony, and a summary of ten main points from the beginning of the written testimony, and the proposed substitute resolution. The webpage containing everything is at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaResoHonCouncilApr2010.html

PLANNED ORAL TESTIMONY

Aloha kakou,

'O Ken Conklin ko'u inoa, mai ke ahupua'a o He'eia, Ko'olaupoko.

I hope you have read the detailed testimony I sent you last Friday. But now I'm speaking directly to your mind and heart.

The moral basis for the Akaka bill is the apology resolution of 1993. It's a tearjerker, filled with historical falsehoods. Nevertheless, if you want to believe it, go ahead.

In the apology resolution the U.S. blames the U.S. for overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy. If the U.S. did the crime then the U.S. should pay the restitution. But the Akaka bill lays the entire burden on the people of Hawaii, to give away huge amounts of our public lands to a phony new Indian tribe. It's the biggest unfunded federal mandate in Hawaii's history. Reject it!

This afternoon you're discussing the budget and setting the property tax rate. Suppose you were going into that meeting knowing you must cut the budget in half, or else double the tax rate, because you no longer have authority to collect taxes on the lands taken by the Akaka tribe. I'm not kidding -- that's what will happen.

I'm calling on those members of this Council who have Hawaiian native blood to recuse yourselves from Resolution 10-56 and not vote on it. Why? Because you have a huge conflict of interest. You stand to benefit greatly from establishment of the Akaka tribe. A few weeks ago you chastised a Councilman for spending government money on lunches for his family and constituents. But that was chicken feed compared to giving 2 million acres of public land to yourself and your blood brotherhood. Recuse yourselves!

Do you think it's rude of me to single out Council members because of their race? But that's the whole PURPOSE of the Akaka bill -- to single out people because of race. Those with a drop of the magic blood go over here; all others go over there. Us against them. Was my language harsh? The Akaka bill is a recipe for racial strife, and constant lawsuits over land, taxation, zoning, etc.

One final point.

Tribes are outside the authority of state and county governments to regulate campaign contributions and spending. The Akaka tribe can give millions of dollars to your political opponent, and blanket the media with ads against you. So the next time you see your future bosses, Haunani Apoliona and Robin Danner, be sure to kow-tow VERY low to them.

Mahalo ia 'oukou i kou 'oukou ho'olohe ana mai ia'u. Thanks very much for listening to me. And now I leave you with a word I hope we all can still say: Aloha!

SUMMARY OF TEN MAIN POINTS IN THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY

1. The Akaka bill is unconstitutional. As public officials you have taken an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States." Don't support passing a law expecting (perhaps even hoping) that the courts will fix your "politically correct" mistake.

2. The Akaka bill relies heavily on the 1993 apology resolution, which is filled with historical falsehoods. Also, if the U.S. wants to apologize for something the U.S. did, then the U.S. should pay the restitution; but the Akaka bill places most of the burden of restitution on the people of Hawaii. It is a huge unfunded federal mandate. Why would you ask Congress to put more burdens on the people of Hawaii in general, and Honolulu in particular?

3. The Akaka bill is racially divisive, establishing ethnic Hawaiians as a privileged hereditary elite while everyone else gets pushed down to second-class citizenship. We are a nation of INDIVIDUALS fully equal under the law, not a nation of racial GROUPS governed by different laws and owning race-based COMMUNAL land tenures. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly condemned the Akaka bill.

4. The Akaka bill sets in motion the racial balkanization of America into enclaves such as a Nation of Aztlan or a Nation of New Africa.

5. The Akaka bill would create out of thin air the nation's largest Indian tribe in a place where there were no tribes before.

6. The land base of the Akaka tribe would probably be about 50% of all the lands of Hawaii (ceded lands, Bishop Estate lands, and others) to benefit about 20% of the people. Those lands are widely scattered throughout all the islands, including densely populated areas. The Akaka bill has no deadline for final settlement of historical grievances or land claims. There will be unending demands for additional lands and revenues, producing unending lawsuits and racial strife.

7. Zoning regulation, traffic law, police authority, labor-management law, etc. would be thrown into chaos because people and businesses in the same neighborhoods (even right across the street) would be operating under different laws enforced by different police departments and adjudicated in different court systems. Tribes and their businesses cannot be sued and their contracts cannot be enforced except in tribal courts.

8. The state's income tax base and the county's property tax base would be drastically lowered because tribal members and lands are outside the jurisdiction of state and county taxation. Either you'll have to double the taxes paid by all non-Hawaiians, or else cut services and fire half your employees.

9. The Akaka bill is supported primarily by Hawaii's powerful, wealthy, race-based institutions and their employees; but is opposed by most of Hawaii's people and probably opposed by most ethnic Hawaiians.

10. As elected officials you need to know that state and local laws governing campaign contributions and political advertising do not apply to a tribe. The tribe can contribute unlimited amounts of money to your opponent and blanket the media with ads against you. So when Haunani Apoliona or Robin Danner summons you to appear at tribal headquarters, be sure to bow VERY low!

Mahalo ia 'oukou i ko 'oukou heluhelu ana mai i ko'u mana'o. Thank you very much for reading my testimony. Aloha.

PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE AKAKA BILL

WHEREAS, the Akaka bill is heavily based on a 1993 apology resolution which is filled with historical falsehoods and misinterpretations; and

WHEREAS, there were no committee hearings or public testimony on the apology resolution in either the House or the Senate where history or current circumstances could be debated and resolved; and

WHEREAS, the apology resolution blames the U.S. for the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 which overthrew the monarchy, but the Akaka bill would impose most of the cost of reparations upon the people of Hawaii in the form of transfers of public lands to the Akaka tribe and resulting loss of state and county resources and tax base; and

WHEREAS, the lands likely to be claimed by the Akaka tribe are widely scattered throughout all areas of the islands including densely populated areas, and are likely to be about 50% of all Hawaii lands; and

WHEREAS, the jigsaw, checkerboard distribution of tribal lands and tribal members would create horrendous jurisdictional conflicts, lawsuits, and racial strife; and

WHEREAS, most people with Hawaiian native blood have low percentage of native blood quantum and are thoroughly assimilated and interspersed throughout all neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS, since August 2000 there have been no public hearings on the Akaka bill by Congress in the Hawaiian islands where local people could testify; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly warned Congress that the Akaka bill is unconstitutional and racist; and

WHEREAS, the highly respected Zogby company released poll results on December 2009 showing that a majority of Hawaii's people oppose the Akaka bill and an even larger majority want local hearings on the bill and want a ballot question asking whether they approve the bill; and

WHEREAS, those eligible to join the Akaka tribe comprise 20% of Hawaii's population, while no other state has such a large proportion of its people who are racially Indian or eligible to join any particular tribe; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City and County of Honolulu that the council urges the United States Congress to defeat the Akaka bill resoundingly so as to discourage any repeated introduction of it; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the council requests that the United States Congress pass a resolution that it will not give further consideration to the Akaka bill until after there have been Congressional hearings in Hawaii where all Hawaii people who wish to testify can do so, and until all such testimony has been provided to the entire Congress; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the council requests that if the United States Congress passes the Akaka bill, it does so only after including a requirement that the bill cannot take effect until after a question has been placed on the ballot in a State of Hawaii election asking whether the people approve the specific version of the bill passed by Congress; and the question must pass according to the same requirements as if it were an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Hawaii; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the governor, the Hawaii Congressional delegation, the United States Congress and the President of the United States.

***** Three 10-minute YouTube videos of the 29-minute Honolulu City Council testimony and discussion on the Akaka bill are arranged from left to right in the correct order at
http://tinyurl.com/35tvwyr


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


http://boss.hawaiireporter.com/what-kamehameha-joined-together-dont-let-akaka-rip-apart/
Hawaii Reporter, June 13, 2010

What Kamehameha Joined Together, Don’t Let Akaka Rip Apart

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

June 11 was Kamehameha Day — an official holiday of the State of Hawaii. The greatest accomplishment of King Kamehameha The Great was to unify all the Hawaiian islands under a single government 200 years ago (1810). But now once again we are threatened with the Akaka bill in Congress, whose primary purpose is to rip us apart along racial lines, thus undoing Kamehameha’s achievement.

H.R.2314 already passed the House, and S.1011 awaits floor action in the Senate. The bill would authorize creation of a racially exclusionary government empowered to negotiate with federal, state and local governments for money, land, and legal jurisdiction.

The Kingdom founded by Kamehameha was multiracial in all aspects. The reason he succeeded when all previous warrior chiefs for 1500 years had failed, was because he used British-supplied ships, guns, and cannons; together with the expertise of English sailors John Young and Isaac Davis. A grateful Kamehameha gave Young and Davis chiefly rank. He appointed Davis as Governor of O’ahu. More importantly, Kamehameha appointed John Young (Hawaiian name Olohana) as Governor of Kamehameha’s home island (Hawaii Island), gave him land and a house immediately next to the great Pu’ukohola Heiau, gave him a daughter to be his wife, and gave him a seat next to himself in the ruling council of chiefs. John Young II (Hawaiian name Keoni Ana) was Kuhina Nui under Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III — the second-highest office in the nation. Every law was required to be signed by both the King and the Kuhina Nui, who in effect had veto power over the King. The second Constitution of the Kingdom, in 1852, bore two signatures: “Kamehameha Rex” (King Kamehameha III), and “Keoni Ana” (John Junior). The granddaughter of John Young was Queen Emma, wife of Alexander Liholiho Kamehameha IV, and founder of Queen’s Hospital and St. Andrews Cathedral.

John Young was so important to the founding of the Kingdom that his tomb is in Mauna Ala (the Royal Mausoleum on Nu’uanu Ave.), where it is the only tomb built to resemble a heiau, and is guarded by a pair of pulo’ulo’u (sacred taboo sticks). His bones are the oldest bones in Mauna Ala. Yet the Akaka bill would deny John Young membership in the Akaka tribe because he lacks a drop of native blood.

Also excluded from Akaka’s tribe would be all the other Euro-Americans who were Hawaiian Kingdom cabinet ministers, department heads, legislators, and economic powerhouses; and the Asians whose sweat-equity helped the Kingdom thrive. The Akaka bill insults Kamehameha — it is the very definition of racism and divisiveness.

For short videos and audios about John Young, Saint Damien, navigator Mau Piailug, and other Hawaiian cultural heroes who lack Hawaiian blood and would be excluded under the Akaka bill, see
http://akakabill.org/audio-downloads/

Those who favor the Akaka bill have an interesting rebuttal to the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom was multiracial. They say, in a whining sort of way, “Yes, we Hawaiians are a very generous people. We were very open to newcomers and gave them full partnership with voting and property rights. And now you’re punishing us for it. You’re holding it against us that we were so warm and welcoming, by telling us that we are not an indigenous people entitled to self-determination.” But of course the answer is that this is not about Caucasians and Asians being ungrateful recipients of Hawaiian generosity and inclusiveness. Rather, this is about the fact that there would never have been a creation and flourishing of a unified Hawaiian kingdom if it were not for the contributions of the Caucasian and Asian newcomers — expertise in Western weaponry and tactics, massive investment of money and expertise, massive amounts of wealth-creating labor. It is historically, legally, and morally wrong for one partner to say to all other partners “OK, we let you in; thanks for the help; now everything we built together belongs to us exclusively.” The “native Hawaiian Government Reorganization” bill seeks to “reorganize” something that never existed; i.e., a government ruling all the Hawaiian islands consisting solely of ethnic Hawaiians.

The first sentence of Hawaii’s first Constitution (1840), known to historians as the kokokahi sentence, was written on advice of American missionary William Richards. It is perhaps the most beautiful expression of unity and equality ever spoken or written: “Ua hana mai ke Akua i na lahuikanaka a pau i ke koko hookahi, e noho like lakou ma ka honua nei me ke kuikahi, a me ka pomaikai.” In English, it can be translated into modern usage as follows: “God has made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness.” For further information see “The Aloha Spirit — what it is, who possess it, and why it is important” at
http://tinyurl.com/66w4m2

The Akaka bill would do exactly the opposite of the one-blood concept, ripping us apart for no reason other than race, establishing a binary opposition of “us vs. them,” dividing Hawaiian children from non-Hawaiian parents, spawning jealousies between members of the Akaka tribe and their cousins who are not allowed to belong. This is not aloha.

Instead of one Hawaii there would be two. A government composed exclusively of ethnic Hawaiians would constantly demand more and more money, land, and special rights to be taken away from the ever-diminishing government representing all Hawaii’s people. Ethnic Hawaiians would vote for State Senators and Representatives at the same time they are voting for tribal leaders who will sit across the bargaining table from them. This dual voting is far more serious in Hawaii than in any other state, because ethnic Hawaiians comprise 20% of the State’s population, and politicians generally kow-tow to them out of fear of racial bloc voting. For example, Clayton Hee was head of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for many years, and now sits as head of the state Senate Committee on Water, Land, Agriculture, and Hawaiian affairs. His thumb will weigh heavy on the scale when he decides how much of the State of Hawaii’s lands and waters should be given to the Akaka tribe.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was founded by people of different races working together on the battlefield and in the government. That cooperation continued throughout the Kingdom’s history. Every person born in the Kingdom, regardless of race, was thereby a subject of the Kingdom with all the same rights as ethnic Hawaiians. Immigrants could become naturalized subjects of the Kingdom, with full rights; and many Asians and Caucasians did so. From 1850 to 1893, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the members of the Legislature at various times were Caucasians appointed by the King to the House of Nobles and also elected to the House of Representatives (and later elected to the House of Nobles after a Constitutional change). Nearly all government department heads and judges were Caucasian. At the time the monarchy was overthrown in 1893 only 40% of Hawaii’s people had a drop of Hawaiian native blood; and by the time of the first U.S. Census (1900) after Annexation, only 26% were full or part Hawaiian. The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) proposes a government of, by, and for ethnic Hawaiians alone. There has never been a unified government for all the Hawaiian islands that included only ethnic Hawaiians, either among the leaders or among the people.

The Reform Constitution of 1887 (bayonet Constitution) had the primary purpose of fighting corruption by severely limiting the power of the King. It was actually a revolution, since a mob of 1500 armed men gave the King the choice of signing the Constitution or being ousted. One part of that Constitution denied voting rights to Asians. It was the first time in the history of Hawaii that voting rights were denied on the basis of race. But that evil in 1887 was embraced by Kalakaua and the natives just as much as it was embraced by the Caucasians, because both groups saw the rapidly rising Asian population as a threat to their joint hegemony. The number of Asian immigrants who gave up citizenship in the land of their birth to become naturalized subjects of the Kingdom was small. But Asians were rapidly becoming the majority race. All their babies born on Hawaiian soil were automatically subjects of the Kingdom and would become eligible to vote 20 years later unless something was done. That’s why Kalakaua never protested the disenfranchisement of Asians, and signed the new Constitution to hang onto his crown at their expense.

Today we once again have Hawaiian sovereignty activists telling Asians that they are merely settlers in an ethnic Hawaiian plantation even if their families have been here for seven generations. The activists demand that Asians know their place, which is to be subservient to anyone with a drop of Hawaiian blood; and to help ethnic Hawaiians overthrow the yoke of American occupation and oppression. See a book review of “Asian Settler Colonialism” (UH Press, 2008) at
http://tinyurl.com/8mkdmj

Today, everyone born or naturalized in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. with full voting rights, full property rights, and equal protection under the law. We can keep it that way only by defeating the Akaka bill. Please see “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

A letter to President Obama asks him to consider the evils of the Akaka bill in light of African-American history and aspirations. Suppose we create a government exclusively for all 40 Million Americans who have at least one drop of African blood, and empower that Nation of New Africa to negotiate for money, land, and jurisdictional authority. Would that be good for America? Would it be good for African-Americans? The impact on Hawaii of passing the Akaka bill would be far worse than the impact on all of America of creating a New-Africa tribe. That’s because only 13% of Americans have at least one drop of African blood, whereas 20% of Hawaii’s people have at least a drop of Hawaiian blood. America had a racial separatist movement, just as the Akaka bill heads the list of Hawaiian separatist proposals. But the black separatists like Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X (before his pilgrimage to Mecca), fortunately lost the battle for hearts and minds to integrationists like Martin Luther King. The letter to President Obama can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/bl9rvv

On Wednesday, June 15, 2005 the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (a local think-tank) published an advertisement in the Honolulu Advertiser that took up almost the entirety of page 14. The ad featured a huge photo of the Kamehameha Statue at Ali’iolani Hale, together with text (below). The beautiful ad, in shades of gold, brown, red, and white, can be downloaded in pdf format at:
http://tinyurl.com/agafh

Here is the text of the ad: “Kamehameha united us all. Long before he unified the islands in 1810, Kamehameha the Great brought non-natives on to his team and into his family. Ever since then, non-natives have continued to intermarry, assimilate and contribute to the social, economic and political life of Hawaii. Most Native Hawaiians today are mostly of other ancestries and Hawaii’s racial blending has become a model for the world. Akaka would divide us forever. The Akaka bill would impose on the people of Hawaii an unprecedented separate government to be created by Native Hawaiians only. It would require the U.S. to recognize the new government as the governing body of ALL of the Native Hawaiian people whether a majority of Hawaiians agreed or not—no vote, no referendum, no chance to debate. On his deathbed, King Kamehameha the Great said, “I have given you — the greatest good: peace. And a kingdom which — is all one — a kingdom of all the islands.” The Akaka Bill would divide the people of Hawaii forever and undo the unification which made Kamehameha not only the greatest of the Hawaiian chiefs, but one of the great men of world history.”

We’ve all heard the closing line spoken by ministers presiding over weddings: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

In honor of Kamehameha Day, let’s say: What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Akaka rip asunder.


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


http://boss.hawaiireporter.com/will-the-u-s-congress-succeed-in-institutionalizing-racism-where-a-monarchy-failed/
Hawaii Reporter, July 19, 2010

Will The U.S. Congress Succeed in Institutionalizing Racism Where A Monarchy Failed?

BY JAMES W. COX

For a second time in history, the government in power over Hawaii is trying to divide the people living on these small islands by race.

The last time was in January 1893 when Queen Liliuokalani permanently adjourned the legislature and tried to implement a new constitution reserving suffrage solely to persons with Hawaiian blood. The result of that attempt was civil action by citizens born in Hawaii who would have been disenfranchised by the revised constitution. Those citizens overthrew the ruling Monarchy and established a Republic. Because they believed in democratic principles and in the form of government established by the United States of America, these same citizens succeeded in having the Islands annexed to the U.S.

This past week, Senators Inouye & Akaka reached agreement with Governor Lingle on modifications to a bill for creating a sovereign Hawaiian government (commonly referred to as the “Akaka Bill”). They have reportedly decided to focus on a strong push to slip it thru Congress during the next month. With the Akaka Bill, special interests are trying to accomplish what the ruling Monarchy could not 117 years ago. Their actions are misguided and on the wrong side of history. Senator Inouye published a revealing editorial encouraging quick passage of the Akaka Bill in the July 4th Honolulu Star Advertiser equating mistreatment of Slaves, Native Americans, Japanese Americans and Filipinos with some unspecified injustice done by the United States of America to “Native Hawaiians.” The assertion is not factually correct.

From tribal times, Hawaii openly accepted Non-Polynesians. American and other western participants provided technology, know-how and weapons that were used by Chief Kamehameha to unify the Islands in bloody and ruthless wars after the U.S. War of Independence. His winning tribe adopted a monarchy as its form of government (i.e., trying to cement its power by copying the British system) during the 1800’s. The royal families, for their own benefit, married with Non-Polynesians who instituted different concepts of land ownership and economic development. That resulted in a plantation system in Hawaii, which concentrated economic power in a handful of families. The plantations imported thousands of Chinese, Japanese and Filipinos. When the Monarchy started to lose control to the new majority, it attempted to change the rules to stay in power.

The Monarchy lost, and democracy won. For those who believe in American principles, that was a good outcome, not a bad one. Any wrong to the “Native Hawaiians” was committed by the Monarchy during their brief 83 years of ruling the Islands (73 over Kauai), not by the United States of America. Royal families lost some of their great privileges, but no citizen alive today has lost rights due to that long-ago change of government.

For recent generations, the plantation system is only history and we now live together in a more just and integrated society that should serve as a model for the World. Thanks to the foresight, the struggles and the sacrifices of Americans who came before us (on the Mainland and in Hawaii), we all share equal rights and opportunities under law. Persons who identify themselves as Native Hawaiian have experienced a rich cultural rebirth in the past few decades while fully participating in civil society without discrimination or restriction. All manner of persons living in Hawaii join in cultural activities from the many ancestries weaving the Hawaiian Quilt.

Americans are now being asked by apologists to ignore our principles and reverse our accomplishments to divide one State in the Union by race. Why do the Akaka Bill’s promoters oppose having current Hawaii residents vote on this issue? It would clearly fail. [In contrast, Governor Lingle just vetoed the State’s Civil Unions (same sex marriage) bill, asserting that Citizens should vote directly on any such momentous change.] Rather, they would force upon U.S. Citizens in Hawaii (and the rest of our Country) the granting of special rights to one group based on race.

We should not divide the State on the basis of blood or ancestry, as a matter of principle. As a matter of practicality, it will not work. [e.g., How do you define “Native Hawaiian”? How do we live on one island with two sets of governments? There are almost no “pure blood Hawaiians”; do the ones with a little Polynesian blood get to choose when to be governed under which set of laws? How can any decisions be made for the islands; by treaty? Can our society handle more radical and reckless actions with the resulting economic uncertainty right now? Where do we set the time machine: Pre-Captain Cook, Pre-Unification, Pre-Royalty, or Pre-Democracy?

Should the new Hawaiian government be a tribal system, a monarchy (which royal family), or something “new age”? Should our society be made to suffer these artificial divisions and the resulting decades of litigation?].

It is important to remember that the Akaka Bill was originally submitted to “fix” a legal case lost in the U.S. Supreme Court by the Bill’s proponents. The Hawaii State government had established The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to promote benefits solely for persons with Hawaiian blood. OHA used State of Hawaii funds but was administered by persons with Hawaiian blood, elected by persons with Hawaiian blood. Rightly, the law was struck down, but OHA still exists with slight modifications and is using State of Hawaii money to press for “Hawaiian Sovereignty.”

These special interest groups also pushed through the so-called Apology Resolution, which they tried to use as a basis to take real property away from the Hawaii State Government. That attempt was also struck down by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, the same persons who lost those cases are trying to again use the Apology Resolution to rewrite history (claiming an “illegal” overthrow of the Hawaiian government – it was clearly a political act). They proffer a carefully romanticized revision of the Islands’ history in an attempt to justify control over valuable public and private land, moneys and programs solely on the basis of their selected designation as “Native Hawaiian”. The Akaka Bill is for private benefit and will not only formalize the power desired by a small group of people; it will diminish the United States of America and reduce the rights of all U.S. Citizens.

My adult son was born here well over half a century after his Grandparents came to the Islands to work on the plantations. Those who support the Akaka Bill would allocate some of his rights and benefits of citizenship to other persons, simply because his ancestors are from Asia, North America and Europe, but not from Polynesia.

The Monarchy is gone…the plantations are gone. Hawaii has been an integral part of the United States for a long time. We should not be mislead by those who would go back 117 years to assert claims against the United States in order to obtain special privileges for some undefined group based solely upon race.

James W. Cox is a resident of Kailua, Hawaii.


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


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38097
Human Events, July 19, 2010; excerpts related to Akaka bill

Thank You, President Obama (Part II)

by Brian Darling

On September 21 of last year, in an article titled “Thank You, President Obama,” I wrote: “I love President Barack Obama. No kidding. I love the guy. Barack Obama is the best community organizer of conservatives since Ronald Reagan.”

It’s time to amplify that point. In 2010 President Obama has done even more to unify Democrats, Republicans and Independents into a coalition against his policies. The Tea Party movement should thank you, Mr. President and all the rest of us conservatives, thank you for your excellent work. We could not have done this without you.

Racist Bill for Native Hawaiians

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D.-Hawaii) is working feverishly to pass a bill, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D.-Hawaii) that would set up a race-based government for Native Hawaiians. The legislation, (S. 1011), has passed the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and is sitting on the Senate calendar. This bill would set up a separate government entity to govern the “indigenous, native people of Hawaii.” Prior attempts by the proponents of a race-based government for Native Hawaiians have been struck down by the Supreme Court and many conservatives believe that this bill is yet another unconstitutional separation of races in the United States.

Hill sources tell HUMAN EVENTS that Sen. Daniel Inouye is actively courting the four women Republican senators to get their support for the highly controversial, race-based, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 (a.k.a. the “Akaka Bill”). For Inouye and Akaka, it’s ‘do or die’ time. They have to pass this bill before the August recess, or it really dies and becomes their albatross. Conservatives worry that Inouye will use his power as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee to hide this bill in one of the appropriations measures scheduled for approval this fall.

The President’s actions in pushing an extremist to run Obamacare and letting his congressional allies press to create race-based government for native Hawaiians is further evidence that President Obama does not get it. This President has been tone-deaf to the needs of the American people and his actions may soon lead to his being considered, effectively, a lame-duck President who is steering the Democratic Party to political disaster this fall.

Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.


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


Ryan William Nohea Garcia, "Who Is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters." Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2010, pp. 85-162.

The entire article can be downloaded directly from the journal's website -- click here

http://www.hawaii.edu/aplpj/articles/APLPJ_11.2_garcia.pdf

Here are the abstract and the conclusion as published in the article.

ABSTRACT

The Akaka bill proposes to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity similar to those of federally recognized Indian tribes. As the Akaka bill will institutionalize a political difference between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, who is Hawaiian is a timely, and controversial, issue. Also controversial is whether Congress possesses the authority to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity. This article addresses three questions that probe the heart of the controversy surrounding the Akaka bill: who is Hawaiian, what begets federal recognition, and how much blood matters. After analyzing relevant Indian jurisprudence, this article demonstrates that political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As such, it is the political-historical, not racial, definition of Hawaiian that is legally significant to the Akaka bill. Since, however, the Akaka bill utilizes an ethnic Hawaiian blood eligibility criterion, another important question – and one Justice Breyer raised in Rice v. Cayetano – is how much blood is necessary to distinguish ideological self-identification from legitimate racial identity. To the extent racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, this article contends that a preponderance of preferred blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.

CONCLUSION

The Akaka bill is novel in that it is the first Congressional attempt to federally recognize a non-Indian entity, and to do so in a fashion inconsistent with the political history of the former governing entity it is ostensibly recognizing. Under a different view, the Akaka bill is novel in that it endeavors to federally recognize a government to collectively represent an entire ethnic group based upon shared indigeneity, rather than political history. But political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As a result the Akaka bill faces invalidation because its political-historical inconsistencies – most of all with regard to who is Hawaiian – raise a number of cognizable legal issues potentially fatal to the bill. Its blood-based eligibility criterion further raises the question of how much ethnic blood is necessary to distinguish legitimate racial identification from ideological association. To the extent that racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, a preponderance of blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.


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


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/equality-for-native-hawaiians-and-all-other-americans
Hawaii Reporter, October 25, 2010

Equality for Native Hawaiians (and all other Americans)

BY JERE HIROSHI KRISCHEL -

In a recent debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9d_p7uLfVw
our local politicians once again deceptively framed the Akaka bill as one that would provide some sort of "parity" between Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians.

Djou stated, "I think Native Hawaiians should have the same self-determination rights as Native American Indians." Hanabusa identified herself as one of, "those who feel that Native Hawaiians should at least have the same rights as Native Americans and Native Alaskans."

The problem is, they simply gloss over exactly what "rights" they're talking about. My cousin is part Native Hawaiian, and not part of any tribe. My son is part Cherokee, and not part of any tribe. Exactly what "rights" do Djou and Hanabusa think my son has that my cousin doesn't?

Neither my cousin, nor my son, get any tribal benefits. Neither of them have any inherent right to tribal lands, or casino income. Neither of them have any right to tribal membership, or tribal governance. But somehow, the Akaka Bill is supposed to bring the "rights" my son has as a Native American to my Native Hawaiian cousin.

Maybe what they really mean to say is that all Native Hawaiians, of even the smallest degree of ancestry, deserve parity with *tribal* members. Maybe they believe that every Native Hawaiian deserves to have a stake in a tribal casino, and a stake in tribal lands, and a tribal leadership which can remove them from the tribe for any imaginable pretext without any constitutional protections whatsoever. Maybe what they're really saying is that Native Hawaiian blood alone should confer rights that Native Americans and Alaskans by blood alone don't have.

There are two problems with this position. First off, they're not really promoting "parity" with Native Americans and Native Alaskans at all – they're saying that Native Hawaiians, by blood, deserve special treatment compared to Native Americans and Native Alaskans who aren't tribal members. By creating a special bit of legislation to bypass the standard tribal recognition process, they're establishing a brand new set of rights, conferred simply by racial background, to Native Hawaiians with even a single drop of Native Hawaiian blood.

The second problem is particularly pernicious – if the precedent is set that unrecognized indigenous people deserve a separate sovereign government, without the protections of the U.S. Constitution, what is to stop every person in the United States, with even the smallest drop of native blood, to demand a "reorganization" into their own new, sovereign government? As dangerous as U.S. Tribal law currently is, opening the floodgates to rights determination simply on the basis of race, rather than political history, can only be seen as even worse.

If Djou, Hanabusa, and Case really believe in equality, they should be working towards is ensuring that *all* Americans have the same rights, regardless of ancestry.

What this means is not an extension of existing tribal governments, but a dissolution of them.

It means writing a bill that explicitly declares that all citizens of the United States must enjoy the same rights of self-determination, neither more nor less than their neighbors.

It means ensuring that that a pure Cherokee born in the U.S., and a Native Hawaiian born in the U.S., get the same rights and protections as a first-generation Nigerian who was just naturalized yesterday.

It means not having to ask someone what race they are before deciding what rights they have.


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


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/one-nation-one-people-one-law-e-pluribus-unum
Hawaii Reporter, November 1, 2010

One Nation, One People, One Law: E pluribus unum.

BY JERE HIROSHI KRISHEL –

Present on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782, its meaning is both simple and profound – “Out of many, one.”

Originally it may have been but a literal acknowledgement of the Union of the thirteen colonies, but as the years have gone by it has become a philosophical premise which we apply as a standard of morality.

It is today a clarion call for the respect of diversity, an acknowledgement that while we may have our differences, we are one people, under one law. Each citizen of the United States takes for granted that regardless of their racial background, cultural background, or family history, they are endowed by their Creator, the same unalienable rights as all their other fellow citizens.

The startling truth, however, is that we have a lot further to go before our laws and our country are aligned with this noble motto. Just as the institution of slavery stood as a stain against the noble ideals upon which our constitution was based, today we live under a government which has yet to make good on the motto, ‘E Pluribus Unum.’

While our constitution expressly prohibits denying people equal treatment under the law with the fourteenth amendment, our government has often both willfully and woefully ignored this basic guarantee.

The race-based quota system of affirmative action is perhaps the most visible example of this violation of constitutional rights (with a low point in Grutter v. Bollinger, and some progress recently with Ricci v. DeStefano). The idea of treating people differently because of their racial background is anathema to the concept of civil rights, and the “fighting fire with fire” philosophy of fixing racial discrimination by using more racial discrimination is hypocrisy at its worst.

However, an even more egregious violation of the principle of equal treatment exists in current Indian law, and an even greater danger is presented to us with the Akaka Bill that has been proposed in various forms for the past ten years.

As it stands today, we have three distinct classes of citizenry in the United States – tribal leaders, tribal members, and non-tribal citizens. Tribal leaders stand generally above the law, with no constitutional checks on their power. The Supreme Court in its Nevada v. Hicks (2001) case stated, “it has been understood for more than a century that the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment do not of their own force apply to Indian tribes.”

This exemption from the basic protections afforded to other citizens places tribal members in the most disparaged class of the three, leaving them at the whim of their tribal governments.

While under tribal jurisdiction, non-tribal citizens fare just as poorly, but they at least have the wherewithal to escape from the reservation, while tribal members face the threat of tribal expulsion, confiscation of the lands their family may have lived on for generations, and even loss of custody of their own children.

Today, there are 565 federally recognized tribes which may freely violate the constitutional rights of their members. The Shinnecock Nation, backed by Gateway Casino Resorts, with only 1,292 members, became number 565 on October 1, 2010, after all appeals to their recognition (including objections from other already established casino tribes) were exhausted.

The Shinnecock, and the other 564 federally recognized tribes, are granted exemptions from state and local jurisdictions, creating a special class of citizenry not subject to the rights and laws of their peers.

These federally recognized tribes also have access to lucrative federal assistance programs (regardless of any tribal casino income), funded by non-tribal taxpayers and controlled exclusively by tribal leaders. So instead of ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ the truth is that today we live in a country governed by ‘E Pluribus Pluribus,’ with a constant, yet often overlooked, division of people into different strata of citizenship.

The Akaka Bill serves as yet another continuation of that deplorable trend, promising to “reorganize” everyone with the smallest drop of native Hawaiian blood into an Indian tribe, with all the equal protection problems that come with it.

Specifically constructed to protect current race-based programs targeted at native Hawaiians, the Akaka Bill is a headlong dive into the constitutional loophole provided by Indian Law, and promises to divide the State of Hawaii in the most wrongheaded manner imaginable.

From a purely self-interested point of view, it’s no wonder that future Akaka Tribe leaders want to get in on the Indian Tribe game – between the casino money, and the federal dollars appropriated (regardless of whether or not a tribe is economically self-sufficient), even the most reasonable and rational person might be sorely tempted.

An investigation into recent native Hawaiian grants handed out by the government at
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html
identified 856 grants totaling approximately $322,220,808 during a few years ending April 2011, plus others now totaling into the Billions of dollars.

While only a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 4 billion spent on Indian tribes every year (the BIA is unable to give any exact number), there is no question that we’re talking a lot of money, and a lot of temptation. It will be a long road for our country, to repair the self-inflicted wounds of ‘E Pluribus Pluribus.’

Ending the second and third class citizenship status of existing Tribal Law, and preventing the enactment of further injustices like the Akaka Bill will not be easy – the forces arrayed against a nation of one people, under one law, have resources common citizens simply cannot match.

But in the end, no matter how long or difficult the struggle, the United States will one day live up to its noble ideals of its founding – E Pluribus Unum.


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


December 1 Website publication
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaAttachOmnibusDec2010.html
December 2-3 overnight online newspaper publication:
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/3563

Akaka bill now being attached to "must-pass" legislation despite Akaka and Inouye previously deploring such a maneuver.

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

Sources in the Senate report that Sen. Inouye is personally working to jam through the Akaka Bill this month. He would do it by attaching the bill to an omnibus spending bill that his staff is writing in secret. According to Senate sources, Inouye would wait to offer that secret bill until just before the "continuing resolution" funding the government is set to expire. His colleagues would then be forced to either vote for the porked-up omnibus bill (with no public comment, little opportunity for debate, and certainly no chance of amendment) or reject the whole bill and deny the government the funding it needs to stay open. It's a game of chicken.

Every lame duck session features an omnibus spending bill, sometimes called "the Christmas tree," used by Senators and Representatives to give expensive gifts to their campaign contributors in the form of earmarks and riders. But attaching controversial and dangerous new policy legislation to an appropriations bill is unusual and unethical, especially when there's no floor debate on it.

It's unclear which version of the Akaka bill Sen. Inouye plans to sneak through. The so-called Lingle compromise bill S.3945 was promised for several months but never delivered to the Senate until November 15. S.3945 has never had a hearing in any committee or on the floor of either the House or Senate.

The most recent previous version H.R.2314 actually passed the House. If the Senate passes it by itself or as an attachment, President Obama will sign it. H.R.2314 is so radical and dangerous that even Governor Lingle, who had aggressively supported the Akaka bill for seven years, sent a letter to all 100 Senators asking them to oppose it.

The long delay in introducing the Lingle compromise S.3945 confirms suspicions that it is merely a decoy to lull Senators into thinking Lingle supports the Akaka bill H.R.2314 which is the version likely to be actually attached. The decoy theory is bolstered by the fact that Hawaii's powerful race-based institutions strongly preferred the radical H.R.2314 but reluctantly acquiesced in the compromise when told there were not enough votes for cloture.

The new Governor Abercrombie takes office December 6 -- the same Congressman Abercrombie who pushed H.R.2314 through the House. He dreams of becoming the "Great White Father" of the Akakakanaka Tribe. It's easy to imagine Abercrombie asking his friends in the Senate to hold their noses and let the House bill go through. "Forget about the issues raised by Lingle; she's now merely a worn-out former Governor."

This is the time of year when Inouye likes to make sneak attacks through stealth maneuvers. On December 15, 2009 an article in the Honolulu Advertiser reported on accusations by Hawaiian sovereignty activists that Sen. Inouye "is trying to avoid public scrutiny of legislation that would grant them historic new status by hiding it in a defense bill." Sen. Inouye was quoted in that article as responding "I have never suggested that the Akaka bill be passed and adopted as part of the defense appropriations process. I don't know where this nonsensical suggestion originated." The article said Akaka was as unhappy as Inouye about the accusations. "'It is very frustrating that opponents intentionally seek to spread misinformation about the bill,' Akaka said last night. 'This should call their credibility into question once again.'"

But it's the credibility of Akaka and Inouye that is really destroyed by their track record of stealth, deception, and outright lies. Despite Inouye's claim in the above quote that he never suggested passing the Akaka bill as an attachment to a defense appropriations bill, that's exactly what he tried to do on several occasions going back to 2000. Even the concept of using a decoy is not new. In 2006 a decoy new version of the Akaka bill was introduced only 9 days before a cloture motion was filed for a different previous version of the bill! For documented proof of these things, and predictions by this writer four months ago which are now coming true, see "Akaka bill maneuvers coming up from September through December 2010" at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaManeuversSeptDec2010.html

That webpage includes much more besides proof of Sen. Inouye's abuse of appropriations bills in several lame duck sessions. It also includes Congressional Record quotes of Senator Inouye's lies on the Senate floor when he told his colleagues that U.S. troops invaded 'Iolani Palace in January 1893, arrested the Queen, and imprisoned her there; and also another time when he told his colleagues that in 1898, when the Hawaiian flag was hauled down from the Palace at the ceremony of Annexation, the flag was publicly cut into pieces which were distributed to the annexationists as souvenirs of their final victory over the Hawaiians.

It's especially shameful when a Medal of Honor recipient behaves so dishonorably. Let's hope that his colleagues will call him to account without excusing him on grounds of age, infirmity, or ignorance.


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


DECEMBER 2, 2010 PRESS RELEASE FROM SENATORS KYL, ALEXANDER, CORNYN, COBURN DEPLORING INOUYE STEALTH MANEUVER ON AKAKA BILL

For Immediate Release: December 2, 2010

Contact:
Ryan Patmintra (Kyl) (202) 224-2206
Jim Jeffries (Alexander) (202) 224-7154
Charles Chamberlayne (Cornyn) 202-224-0703
John Hart (Coburn) 202-228-5357

Kyl, Alexander, Cornyn, Coburn: Don’t Slip Controversial Measure Into Bill to Keep the Gov’t Open and Funded

GOP senators respond to reports that Native Hawaiian Gov’t Reorganization Act may be added to Omnibus or CR

WASHINGTON – Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) today released the following statements in response to reports that the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act – legislation that would establish a new governing entity for individuals of native Hawaiian descent – may be added to an Omnibus Appropriations Bill or a Continuing Resolution, one of which must pass Congress and be signed by the president this month, or the federal government will not have the funding to operate.

“Legislation as highly complex and divisive as the native Hawaiian bill requires vigorous discussion, debate, and amendments,” Kyl said. “An attempt to include it in unrelated legislation to keep the government operating is a breach of process and is an example of what the American people are tired of – back room deals that are inserted in secret packages written behind closed doors.”

“I’m concerned by reports that a special Native Hawaiian bill, or any other controversial measure, might be quietly inserted into must-pass legislation that’s needed to keep the government open,” Alexander said. “If the Democratic majority wishes to pass legislation that would create a new, sovereign government within our borders based solely upon race, it should be brought up separately and debated openly on the Senate floor with the opportunity for amendment.”

“This November, Americans spoke and we listened,” said Cornyn. “Unfortunately, some of my Senate colleagues did not hear the resounding message that rejected secret backroom deals and controversial legislative distractions like this, which have no place in important bills that we need to pass keep our government running. I sincerely hope that Senator Reid will not slip this bill into the omnibus bill and reassess his legislative priorities to reflect the wishes of the American people.”

“Any efforts to circumvent the thorough vetting process of Congress to pass Native Hawaiian legislation is an affront to taxpayers and the U.S. Constitution,” Coburn said. “The federal government has already established a process for recognizing tribal groups. Recognizing Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe and sovereign entity by circumventing the established process not only creates a parallel sovereign government in the State of Hawaii, but will set a dangerous precedent that could threaten the framework of our nation.”

# # #


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


http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20101202_The_idea_of_a_race-based_sovereign_nation_within_the_bounds_of_a_US_state_should_never_have_been_taken_seriously.html
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 2, 2010

The idea of a race-based sovereign nation within the bounds of a U.S. state should never have been taken seriously

By John S. Carroll

Recognition of native Hawaiians is the primary stated purpose of the Akaka Bill -- but the Hawaiian Kingdom was already "recognized" by at least 21 sovereign nations by 1840.

The kingdom had ejected the British, in 1836, who were attempting a move that appeared to be an attempt to annex Hawaii as a new colony. The ejection was ultimately achieved with assistance from a British admiral. This illustrates the point that the native Hawaiians were far beyond tribal status prior to the Civil War.

By 1850, the kingdom had a bi-cameral legislature and a tri-level court system, and by 1847 the Hawaii Supreme Court was issuing its decisions in what later became the first volume of the Hawaii Reports.

Hawaiians were trading vigorously in international commerce while American Indian "tribal" members, still surviving on subsistence hunting and gathering, were puzzled why their tribal shamans weren't able to protect them from being overwhelmed by the inexorable westward expansion of an industrialized America.

The 1840 Constitution of the kingdom clearly stated that "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth in unity and blessedness ... " -- a clear statement of equality indicating that any attempt to use race or class to create dissension or advance personal agendas would be not be tolerated.

The language of later written case law reflects this concept of "equality" over and over again, right up to the time of the overthrow in 1893.

An inevitable aspect of restoring Hawaiian sovereignty would mean elimination of U.S. control of Hawaii. Assuming such a utopian scheme were successful, all persons capable of proving ancestry dating back to 1898 would be citizens of this new utopia.

It follows that with a reversion to Hawaiian law of 1893, since equality was already encoded in the laws of the kingdom, all citizens, regardless of race, would be eligible for homestead land.

This would leave no room for racial supremacism or irrational expectations of preferred entitlement to any benefits provided by the kingdom government.

If the Akaka Bill should become law, Hawaii would be divided into two sovereign entities. Citizenship would be based strictly on proving possession of a single drop of Hawaiian blood. Such a sovereign entity, as is the case with the current tribal designations, would therefore, like Islamic law, not be subject to criticism, or accountable to any law other than group interest. Said tribe would be empowered to rule according to whatever laws this separate sovereign government saw fit to enact.

U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka is one of the finest persons I have ever known. His intentions, as well as those of most proponents of the bill, are worthy and humane.

Nonetheless, the idiocy of creating a race-based sovereign nation within the 11,000 square miles of these islands, quite frankly, will inevitably be dystopian. It defies logic.

It is alarming that Republican leadership in this state has not been able realistically to assess the damage to individuals and society at large that this bill would wreak, should it ever become law.

------

John S. Carroll, a Honolulu attorney, is a former state legislator and recently ran unsuccessfully for governor.


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


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254472/discriminatory-akaka-bill-infamous-indeed-hans-von-spakovsky
National Review Online, December 3, 2010

The Discriminatory Akaka Bill: ‘Infamous’ Indeed

By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Yesterday in the Corner, Roger Clegg termed the Akaka bill “infamous.” And rightly so. This odious legislation is nothing more than an attempt to institutionalize outright racial discrimination in Hawaii. How? By implementing a “Native” Hawaiian government.

U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner and Corner regular Peter Kirsanow calls it “the worst piece of proposed legislation ever reviewed by the Commission.” The purpose of the bill is to shore up the Hawaiian government’s ability to discriminate in favor of — and confer special benefits on — those it considers to be “ethnic” Hawaiians. Of course, this would all be to the detriment of Hawaiians of African, Asian, European, or other descent. (How many drops of ethnic blood must one have to be considered an eligible “Native”? The bill doesn’t stipulate, but I am sure there are some old laws from the time of the Confederacy that the “Native” Hawaiian government could use to help make that determination.)

The bill is intended to do an end-run around court decisions and preserve Hawaii’s current practice of conferring government benefits on “Native” Hawaiians, including special home loans and business loans, as well as housing and educational programs. As one witness testified at the Commission hearing, the Akaka bill would permanently segregate the state of Hawaii and its people. It would legalize discrimination between citizens of the United States based solely on ancestry.

I find it simply amazing that in 2010, such a morally indefensible bill could even be considered by the United States Congress, much less be close to passage. But Sens. Daniel Akaka and Dan Inouye (both D., Hawaii) have helped it along by short-circuiting the normal legislative process and trying to stick it into a “must pass” appropriations bill.

Then again, desperate times call for desperate measures, and the two senatorial Dans seem hell-bent on pushing this bill through during the lame-duck session. But if truth in advertising laws applied to legislation, the bill’s sponsors would be required to begin any floor remarks about the bill by saying “Discrimination now, discrimination tomorrow, discrimination forever,” because that is exactly what the Akaka bill represents.


================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

GO BACK TO THE INDEX OF ALL MAJOR PUBLICATIONS OPPOSING THE AKAKA BILL FROM 2000 THROUGH NOW (with links to subpages for specific time periods)

or

SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL

or

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE