FREEHAWAII.INFO PRESENTS THE TOP TEN REASONS TO JUST SAY "NO!" TO FEDERAL RECOGNITION, THE AKAKA BILL OR THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS’ ATTEMPT TO ENROLL NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

HERE'S REASON #2 -

#2 - If Hawaiians agree to federal recognition they are agreeing to give all power over their supposed “self-determination” to the US Secretary of the Interior and the US Congress FOREVER. In other words, “self-determination” as promulgated by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and others really means the Hawaiian people agree to become subject to the needs and desires of whoever happens to get elected to the US Congress, and whoever the President of the United States assigns as Secretary of the Interior. Do you want to be counted among the first Hawaiians who would willingly surrender their freedom to the United States?

SPECIAL REPORT ! -

FOR THE NEXT TEN DAYS, FREEHAWAII.INFO WILL PRESENT THE TOP TEN REASONS TO JUST SAY "NO!" TO FEDERAL RECOGNITION, THE AKAKA BILL OR THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS’ ATTEMPT TO ENROLL NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

HERE'S REASON #1 -

#1 - PASSAGE OF THE AKAKA BILL would signify the first time in history that the Hawaiian people acquiesced to the illegal, US backed overthrow of their queen and their country in 1893. Do you want to be counted among the first Hawaiians who would willingly surrender their sovereignty?

SHADES OF THINGS TO COME FOR HAWAIIANS THROUGH US FEDERAL RECOGNITION ! -

By DON THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The Interior Department and Congress' General Accounting Office said Tuesday they are launching probes into alleged conflicts of interest involving officials of the regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Interior Department investigators hope to fly from Washington, D.C., on Wednesday to begin interviews and gathering documents, after The Associated Press disclosed that regional bureau officials padded the membership roll of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and authorized a new leadership election.

As a result, original tribal members have no representatives among the tribe's new leadership, which now is seeking to build a $100 million, 2,000-slot machine casino in Plymouth, in one of California's fast-growing wine regions.

The Interior Department's inspector general conducted no significant review of similar allegations raised by four congressmen two years ago.

But the office is acting now because of the weekend AP story; a congressman's subsequent call Monday for a renewed probe; and a citizen's complaint, said Steve Hardgrove, director of the program integrity division.

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf said the General Accounting Office told him Tuesday it would open a probe at his request. Wolf, a Virginia Republican whose subcommittee oversees the budgets of the FBI and Justice Department, called Monday for investigations by the inspector general, FBI and GAO.

Acting against the wishes of original tribal members, the regional Bureau of Indian Affairs office opened the tribe's membership rolls. The then-acting regional director who approved the tribal election was then added to the tribal roll along with 68 relatives, including an uncle and a niece who also work for the bureau. A different bureau official who oversaw the election had three relatives added to the tribe.

Meanwhile, after more than a year, the FBI has assigned a new agent to review allegations of alleged bureau conflicts involving a nearby but unrelated Amador County tribe that also is seeking a casino.

The inspector general's office conducted its investigation of the Buena Vista Me-Wuk band about the same time congressmen raised questions about the bureau's involvement with the Ione band, but says completion of that probe has been stalled by the FBI's review.

ALOHA!
If this is your first visit to FREEHAWAII.INFO, welcome! FREEHAWAII.INFO is dedicated to restoring independence and sovereignty to the Hawaiian Islands.
In 1893, the independant nation of Hawai'i was illegally overthrown by rich American sugar barons and the US marines.Then President Cleveland condemned it by calling it "an act of war."

Did you know?
OVER 98% OF ALL NATIVE HAWAIIANS AND MOST NON-NATIVE SUBJECTS OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM WERE FULLY OPPOSED TO THE ILLEGAL OVERTHROW.

Today, those decendants of the Nation carry forth the voices of their ancestors and still oppose the illegal occupation of the US government in Hawai'i.

Hawai'i was a free nation - but never free for the taking!

WANT TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH REGARDING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR HAWIIAN INDEPENDENCE VERSUS FEDERAL RECOGNITION ?
HERE'S THE LATEST RESULTS OF A POLL JUST OUT !

You can also vote by visiting the website below -


http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=HawaiiNow

Independence 84.4%

Deoccupation 6.3%

Federal Recognition 3.1%

Freely Associated State 3.1%

Continued Occupation 3.1%


Don't believe the Danners, CNHA and state bureaucrats like OHA!
HAWAIIANS DO NOT SUPPORT FEDERAL RCOGNITION !

NATIVE HAWAIIANS DO NOT SUPPORT FEDERAL RECOGNITION !
HERE'S AN EXCERPT FROM AN OPINION PIECE IN TODAY'S HONOLULU ADVERTISER -

The Honolulu Advertiser
Sunday, February 22, 2004 http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/22/op/op08a.html/?print=on


COMMENTARY
Akaka bill doesn't right wrongs done to Hawaiians
By Kunani Nihipali, Ho'oipo Kalaena'auao Pa and Pu'uhonua "Bumpy" Kanahele

Queen Lili'uokalani protested the overthrow of her kingdom in 1893, protested later at her trial and again against the 1898 annexation by the United States.

The Hawaiian nationals, na 'oiwi o Hawai'i and non-Hawaiian citizens of the kingdom registered their protest against annexation through the Ku'e petitions of 1897. In 1898, Queen Lili'uokalani wrote in her book, "Hawai'i's Story by
Hawai'i's Queen": "The people of the Islands have no voice in determining their future, but are virtually relegated to the condition of aborigines of the American continent...."

More than a century has passed and not much has changed. Native Hawaiians have no real say in our future as we are being told the Akaka-Stevens bill is all we can hope for, and that therefore, we should accept this process for federal
"recognition" now so that we will have a government-to-government relationship akin to that of Native Americans or Native Alaskans.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act resulted in the extinguishment of aboriginal title to facilitate oil exploration in Alaska. This was accompanied by the recognition of Alaska Native governments as corporations. It is important to
understand the underlying motivation of the United States in proposing recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as a domestic dependent nation.

Ann Keala Kelly recently wrote, "If federal recognition can lead to Hawaiians relinquishing claims to any part of Hawai'i, they could end up in a situation like that between the Inupiat and the Gwich'in, which tends to define as corporate
Natives versus cultural Natives. Right now, the acreage of Hawaiian Homestead land, which is part of the nearly 2 million acres of 'crown and government land' renamed 'ceded lands' when the United States took control, is virtually the same
amount of land the Alaska Natives ended up with after their settlement: just 10 percent of what was once all theirs."

The reality is that this is no bargain, but a path to extinction. The re-formulation of our nation to create historic legitimacy for the political economy of the United States' 50th state is nothing but a re-enactment of the betrayal.

The ramifications of the Akaka-Stevens bill are difficult to foresee, as well as to comprehend. The bill ignores the reality that today there is a continuing wrong that must be righted, in that the United States government does not recognize
the government of the Hawaiian people.

The bill does not right that wrong. It states that the U.S. Constitution "vests Congress with plenary authority to address the conditions of indigenous native people." Clearly, this is not recognition of the government of the na 'oiwi o Hawai'i;
it refers to "Indian tribes."

For purposes of the commerce clause, the kingdom of Hawai'i was a foreign nation, still is a foreign nation, and leaving aside the question of whether this is a valid statement with respect to Indian nations, it most assuredly does not apply
to us!

We cannot survive without access to and control over our 'aina (land), our wai (fresh waters) and our kai (ocean). The bill does not recognize a land base for the entity. Settlement negotiations have referred to a pro-rata share of the
so-called "public trust," the lands of the Hawaiian kingdom, the lands of the Hawaiian people.

They were never ceded! The usurpers of the Hawaiian kingdom took these lands and then passed them to the United States without consent or compensation. Stolen title was all that was conveyed! Why should we accept only a portion of
those lands?...

Internationally recognized fundamental human rights are at stake here. As we embark on unifying efforts to rebuild and strengthen our nation, we must recognize that we are being co-opted into accepting a quasi-domestic dependent-nation status rather than the status our kingdom enjoyed, independence!

Until all the steps of reconstruction and reparation are taken, meaningful reconciliation will not occur, and there should be no final settlement. Decisions are being made on our behalf without the requisite consultation and consent. We are not equal partners, our bargaining power is weak and the voice of Hawaiian independence advocates today, which echo
the queen's protests and those of her people, are most often excluded from decision-making processes and ignored.

There is no consensus....

State sovereignty in Hawai'i is built on illusions. To claim that the state's legitimacy is based on the rule of law is
hypocritical and contradicted by history. The laws and the legal system of the United States purport to create "domestic dependent nations," but even that is truly only an illusion.

We must reject assumptions that legitimatize our subjugation, and be allowed to evolve. These are necessary steps to achieving self-determination and building a sound native-governed community.

As George Jarrett Helm determined, we are in a "revolution of consciousness ... What we (are) looking for is the truth." The facts do matter! In our case, the facts are being misused to support the illusion of reality.

What do we hope to protect? What have the co-opted ones forsaken? The answer is, the heart and soul of our nation, our queen, and our kupuna (elders) and aloha I ke kahi I ke kahi, a respectful and peaceful co-existence.

With our thoughts, we create our reality. It would be a tragedy if after all our queen and ancestors who signed the Ku'e petitions have done to evidence their protests and the legitimacy to have our recognized, independent-nation status
restored, we allow the wrongdoing United States of America to reduce our claim for independence to a subservient
status....

Finally, as Joseph Nawahi asserted, "The cause of Hawai'i and independence is larger and dearer than the life of any man connected with it. Love of country is deep-seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station."

Kunani Nihipali, Ho'oipo Kalaena'auao Pa and Pu'uhonua "Bumpy" Kanahele are with Ekolu Wale No.

© COPYRIGHT 2004 The Honolulu Advertiser, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

HERE'S THE OPINIONS OF A KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS GRADUATE THAT THE SCHOOL DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE !

The Trouble with Kamehameha's Support of Federal Recognition
by Randall Kekoa Quinones Akee>

A recent Kamehameha Schools CEO alert dated Feb 3, 2004 by Dee Jay Mailer states that Kamehameha Schools fully supports federal recognition efforts for Native Hawaiians. This effort, undertaken by Hawai`i's Congressional delegation, governor, state agencies, and a small number of federally-funded non-profit agencies, has done little
to foster input and dialogue with the average Native Hawaiian. Indeed, the process as of late has been primarily state-driven, with OHA, DHHL, and the governor taking the lead in these lobbying efforts.

When has the will of the Hawaiian people, let alone the will of ke ali`i Pauahi, ever been well-represented by the State of Hawai`i?

It is important to note that federal recognition will not safeguard any of Kamehameha School's assets, nor will federal recognition ensure the continuance of the institution or end the potential for other legal challenges. Federal recognition deals with the political status of Native Hawaiians as a whole in relation to the federal government of the United States; this legislation does nothing to solidify or establish a relationship between private Native Hawaiian trusts or any other privately-held Native Hawaiian organizations. Particularly disturbing is the fact that Kamehameha Schools, as a trust in perpetuity, is not taking the long-run view of this situation. Endorsing federal recognition, as the Akaka bill now stands, is clearly taking the short-run perspective on Native Hawaiian self-government. The bill neither guarantees a permanent revenue stream or resource base for a Native Hawaiian governing entity, nor does it establish explicit protection of Native Hawaiian rights.

The current legislation really seeks to protect two state agencies and their public trust assets. While this is an important effort, the question still remains: what long-run benefits and opportunities are we giving up in exchange? The reality is we don't know. We haven't discussed the alternatives thoroughly enough to really get a sense of what could be or what is desired by the Native Hawaiian community. Instead, Native Hawaiians and other state residents have been told that federal recognition is the ultimate solution to the problems for Native Hawaiian programs, services, and funding. As a leading Hawai`i educational institution, Kamehameha Schools could have taken the lead in fostering community input and voice; instead, like the other institutions that are behind federal recognition, they have sought to endorse the Akaka Bill with no justification or sharing of their research and analysis of the bill. Why would a private, non-profit trust undertake such an obvious political stance on such a poorly-formed piece of legislation?

The short-sighted view taken by Kamehameha Schools really stems from a misunderstanding about the funding of Native Hawaiian programs. The CEO alert cites the fact that federal recognition will serve to secure services and programs for Native Hawaiians. Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. An important distinction must be made between Native Hawaiian entitlements and Native Hawaiian appropriations. Most, if not all, of the federal programs and legislation established for Native Hawaiians are simply appropriations. This means that funding occurs at the will of Congress. An entitlement, on the other hand, refers to funding or programs that are immune to Congressional dictates -- a good example of this is Social Security. Individuals who have participated in the Social Security system are automatically entitled to receive their Social Security payments once they reach eligibility age. This program funding does not fluctuate according to political power plays or Congressional appropriations. Most Native Hawaiian programs do not enjoy this luxury. Hence, without a solid funding guarantee or resource base, a Native Hawaiian governing entity established under the current federal recognition legislation would be forced to seek federal appropriations on a continual basis.

Kamehameha was founded by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to foster industrious Native Hawaiian men and women. There's nothing industrious about begging for federal funds for a Native Hawaiian nation for the rest of eternity.


Randall Kekoa Quinones Akee - Kamehameha Schools Alumni Class of 1990

HERE'S TWO ARTICLES THAT DETAIL THE LATEST ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE THE STEALING OF THE HAWAIIAN NATION AND THE LEGAL HOT WATER THE US JUSTICE DEPT. IS IN ! - SHADES OF THINGS TO COME FOR HAWAIIANS ?

Fine-tuning of Akaka Bill for Native Hawaiian recognition

by: Jerry Reynolds / Washington D.C. correspondent / Indian Country Today

HONOLULU - Interior Secretary Gale Norton has acknowledged that Bush Administration officials at Interior and the Department of Justice are discussing a proposal for federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity with the
Hawaiian congressional delegation.

Honolulu newspapers and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs report that Norton made the acknowledgment in answer to a question following her speech to the American Farm Bureau Federation convention Jan. 11. In the administration's first
direct public statement on Senate bill S. 344, the so-called Akaka Bill, Norton said her department is primarily concerned with practical matters, such as the relationship between the state and the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

As outlined in the bill as written, she said, the entity could invite the kind of disputes over taxation, criminal jurisdiction and other matters that have become all too common between states and tribes, or for that matter between states and
Alaska Native villages. A priority should be to make sure the Native Hawaiian governing entity can function properly once it is in place, she added.

Others within the administration are concerned with the constitutionality of the bill as written, Norton said.

Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, noted in February 2003 that Norton was supportive of the Akaka Bill. Later on the legislative calendar, the committee passed the bill. It has
not yet come up for a vote of the Senate.

Paul Cardus, press secretary for Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the bill's leading sponsor along with fellow Hawaii Democrat Daniel K. Inouye, said no voting date has been set but the senator has asked Senate leadership for an hour in a crowded schedule to vote on the bill in the current congressional session, which opened Jan. 20. "His commitment is to push S. 344."

Cardus added that discussions between Akaka, Inouye and the Interior Department on S. 344 are numerous and ongoing. "If it would reach the point where changes would be made that everyone agreed on, he would share that with the [Hawaiian] community."

Gov. Linda Lingle, a popular Republican in the Democratic stronghold of Hawaii, has drawn Republican attention to the bill and continues to advocate for it. She met with the Hawaii congressional delegation shortly before Norton's
remarks.

Not all Native Hawaiians favor S. 344. Significant groups of independence-minded Native Hawaiians argue that old Hawaii was a monarchy illegally deposed, in part by U.S. forces, and that resistance to the overthrow and subsequent
forms of statehood has been uninterrupted ever since. (In 1993, 100 years later, Congress formally apologized for the U.S. role in the overthrow.

But for those willing to work within the framework of U.S. federal law, much hinges on S. 344. Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2000 that found a long-established Native Hawaiian voting preference unconstitutional on racial grounds, many Native preferences in Hawaii have come under attack in the courts. The Supreme Court precedent in the voting rights case has encouraged court challenges to vital Native interests in Hawaii, involving many millions of dollars in support of Native needs and challenging the viability of key Native-specific institutions, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and Kamehameha Schools.

Many of these challenges have been turned back. But only one proposal has made public headway on resolving the problem: formal federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian government for purposes of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. As proposed in the Akaka Bill, federal recognition would extend the same preferences to Native Hawaiians that Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages now enjoy, but without breaking altogether new ground because federal recognition has always extended to Native Hawaiians in some form. The preferences of a more formal federal recognition would derive not from membership in a minority, but from status as indigenous peoples under self-determined governance - that is, from a political rather than a racial classification. This status would be based on the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which has been upheld many times by the Supreme Court, and on the historical
relationships of the United States with indigenous peoples within its borders. As Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the bill's sponsor, never fails to point out, federal recognition for Native Hawaiians would complete the political and legal relationship of the United States with its indigenous peoples.

Department of Justice in trouble again
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Jan. 23 issued an order demanding that Department of Justice attorneys explain themselves or face contempt of court proceedings in a case involving Native Americans.

Pursuant to a report in the Jan. 24 Washington Post, the chambers of District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan confirmed that the order had been issued because DOJ attorneys had instructed court-subpoenaed witnesses not to appear for
testimony. The case in question involves Native American allegations of discrimination in farm lending and technical assistance at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA has settled asimilar lawsuit by black farmers. The Post report
described Sullivan as "furious" while he addressed a DOJ lawyer from the bench on Jan. 23.

This is not the first time the DOJ has been in hot water with a district court judge in a major Native American case. In the Cobell litigation over Indian trust funds, District of Columbia District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has found a "pattern and practice of litigation misconduct" in the proceedings of DOJ attorneys, according to Keith Harper, the Native American Rights Fund attorney who has taken a prominent role in the Cobell class action lawsuit. In addition, he said, in March 2003 Lamberth referred DOJ attorneys to the disciplinary committee of the D.C. bar over a deposition.

"Whenever a Native American claim is brought, the Ashcroft Justice Department thinks it can set aside the rules," Harper said (in reference of course to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft). "I think the country should expect more Š It's a sad day when Department of Justice attorneys stand by and throw sand in the wheels of justice."

This article can be found at http://IndianCountry.com/?1075858075