The Decline Of Aloha

I arrived in Hawaii in 1961 as a young man to work on space projects, including John Glenn’s first orbital flight. I resided on the island of Kauai. I was struck by the beauty and friendliness of the local people. This was what I later learned was Aloha. If you passed someone in a food market and smiled you alway got a smile in return. They were accepting of strangers and tried to make you welcome. A genial and happy people.

To be clear on my perspective, I live in a family with native Hawaiian blood. My wife and, of course, our children and grandchildren have Hawaiian blood. I have enjoyed many hours with my Hawaiian relatives and friends and respect them greatly. Our family has participated in the sport of Hawaiian outrigger canoe racing and I have fond Aloha for all our paddling friends.

Fast forward to today. Unfortunately, there are a number of “local” people, some with Hawaiian blood and some not, who walk around with a perennial scowl, which intensifies in the presence a haole. This phenomenon is somewhat related to geographical location. Outer island and rural areas seem to have a higher occurrence of this social behavior.

These folks have swallowed the Kool Ade produced by so-called Hawaiian activists who have convinced them of their victim status. Anything repeated often enough eventually becomes true to the listener. For example, you have been told that you have been denied something by the actions of government, corporations or a group of individuals and you should be angry. Your land was stolen. The annexation was illegal. The Kingdom still exists. You deserve reparations.

Victimhood is powerful. If a group; racial, political, gender, etc.. buys into the victim message it has several ramifications. Primarily, it removes responsibility for their life situation. Once they can blame another entity for their problems , it removes their motivation to fix them.

Victimhood also instills a guilt complex in those assigned the blame. People who feel guilty because they, or their ancestors, may be the cause of the plight of the victim, often will treat the victim’s cause as a sacred cow, not to be challenged or discussed.

Victimhood is also a great tool for organizers and can result in creating intense enthusiasm for a particular cause. People like Al Sharpton make a living this way. It’s the “us against them” paradigm..

The selling of victimhood to Hawaiians began in the 1970s. The University of Hawaii hired a known radical to head the Department of Hawaiian Studies. Haunani Trask was able to propagandize a generation of Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians by teaching revisionist history and vocalizing her hatred of the United Sates and haoles (white people). Her hateful sermons showed no respect for leaders or anyone else. She was able to convince large numbers of impressionable students that they had things stolen from them by the United States and the haole. As the disciples moved out into the community they began to spread the message of stolen land and culture by the whites. They spoke of the “plight” of Hawaiians.

Their “plight” is no different from any of the residents of Hawaii. Hawaiians have all the advantages and rights of non-Hawaiians. All have the opportunity to succeed or fail. Importantly, Hawaiians have many more benefits and rights not available to non-Hawaiians.

Trask sign

Today, supporters of the movements appear at community meetings ready to do battle. Often in garb they believe is representative of the days before western contact.They do not permit debate and seek to intimidate those who might disagree. They have had success in sinking projects like the Super Ferry and are now working to kill the new Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea. The media and the legislators treat the movement(s) like a sacred cow and are afraid to admit that it is ultimately destructive to the social and economic fabric of Hawaii.

Many Hawaiians do not support the movement(s). They deplore the anti American rhetoric and the abject racist behavior toward non-Hawaiians, particularly the haole. There are around ten different groups associated with the sovereignty (separatist) movement. Thus, there are large gaps in opinion concerning the methodology to achieve their goals and the desired outcomes.

You can be sure the propaganda will continue. Slick TV ads. Protests with maximum coverage by the media. But I still believe Aloha exists and will one day rise up again. And I think the Hawaiians are the ones that will make it happen.


Hawaiian Sovereignty. Why you should Care.

If you are not of the Hawaiian race and live in Hawaii, you will surely be affected in some way if the Separatists get their way. There are several models being bandied about by the principles of the movement. Below you will find the responses of leaders to just one of the questions.

“What is the status of non-Hawaiians who are not citizens of the Hawaiian nation? Can they reside in Hawai’i, vote, own homes, land or businesses?”

Answers, underlining added.

Cruz sees a total paradigm shift in Hawaiian governance and in the global multi-state system in the near future. She sees the international state system of government falling. An independent Hawai’i will be less of a nation and more of a cultural lifestyle based upon community and cultural awareness. She believes those who do not wish to adapt to this change in lifestyle will not want to live in Hawai’i. Voting assumes democracy, which she does not support. The traditional Hawaiian consensus decision making process called Puwalu, where members of groups all have to agree upon decisions and make compromises for the good of the entire group, is culturally appropriate for indigenous Hawaiians and once more being practiced. Non-Hawaiians can also participate in the process, Cruz said. Non-Hawaiian non-citizens could own homes, land and businesses assuming the current state system of governance remains in place. She believes the concept of private ownership will change to a more communal based system centered on human values, such as sharing and personal responsibility.

Laenui said Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian non-citizens would have the right to live in Hawai’i provided certain qualifications are met: 1) they are not preparing to overthrow the government; and 2) the non-citizen foreign population does not exceed one-third of the total population. Non-citizens could not vote and participate in the political life of Hawai’i. They could own homes but not land, other than their home plots. According to Laenui, non-citizen residents could own businesses which would come under the jurisdiction of the nation. He adds:

Their ownership of homes and land . . . should be only for their actual residence and not for investment purposes. Their transaction of business would be permissible provided they fell within the allowable foreign activities and quotas. Disengaging non-citizens from their investment properties should be over a period of time in which they would be afforded ample notice and opportunity to relinquish such properties to citizens or Hawaii business entities.16
For Blaisdell, non-citizens residing in Hawai’i would be considered foreigners, as in any other country. They could not vote. Non-citizen ownership of homes, land and businesses would depend on the laws of the Kanaka Maoli nation. He added the primary responsibility of the new nation, as with all nations, is to its own citizens, first.
Gomes replied non-citizens residing in Hawai’i would be considered resident aliens. They would need a visa to reside in Hawai’i. Non-citizens could not vote or own homes and land. She cited the Vanuatu model where only citizens are allowed to own land. Non-citizens could establish businesses but would be screened by the government or district councils and have to obtain a special operating license. Taxes would assessed and paid to the government and district councils, Gomes indicated.

Crawford said the Nation of Hawai’i has not completely established standards for non-citizens in an independent nation. She indicated people could probably stay in Hawai’i on visas, but a Hawaiian convention would eventually determine regulations and standards for non-citizens. The bottom line for the Nation of Hawai’i is an inclusive policy for everyone. Crawford said, “We don’t want to say you can’t live here because you are not a citizen.” We need progressive policies in line with other progressive nations, she noted. Non-Hawaiian non-citizens would not own homes and land in fee simple title under the Nation’s present constitution, which calls for communal land tenure. In terms of non-Hawaiian non-citizen ownership of businesses, she replied this decision has not been determined yet. Crawford personally sees non-Hawaiian non-citizens being able to maintain small businesses, abiding by the laws of the nation. But they would probably pay higher taxes. Taxes could depend on whether a business is importing or exporting, with the former paying higher rates.

Dudley indicates:
Non-citizen residents who have lived within the territorial bounds of the new nation before the date of restoration can continue to live in the nation and to own property and businesses until the day they die. They may not vote. Children born to them after restoration may be citizens if they (or their parents for them) relinquish all citizenship elsewhere. A ratio of 20 % non-citizen residents to 80 % citizens will be the goal of the nation, however. Non-citizen residents will not be allowed to reside permanently in the nation until this ratio has been reached by attrition.17
Non-Hawaiian non-citizens would be able to own businesses as “we live in an international economic situation.” But Dudley said part of the reason for having a Hawaiian nation is “to preserve the environment and to try to get control back into local hands. . . . We need to have more control over our destiny, economically, and the only way to do that is to get land control back.”18
For Kauahi, non-Kanaka Maoli non-citizens would not be able to reside in Hawai’i, unless on work or student visas. They could not vote or own homes, land or businesses.

Agard indicated that as before 1893, non-Hawaiian non-citizens would be able to reside in Hawai’i and own homes, land and businesses. They could not vote.

Keppeler said non-Hawaiian non-citizens living within the boundaries of the independent nation would be considered resident aliens. Non-citizens could own homes, land and businesses to the extent allowed by the Hawaiian citizenry. Keppeler stressed some important attributes of gaining independence would be the ability of the citizenry to control immigration into Hawai’i, limit foreign ownership of land, and to keep profits from businesses within the Hawaiian economy, rather than off to the homes offices of multi-national corporations.

Kame’eleihiwa responded non-Hawaiian non-citizens, as well as Hawaiians who do not swear allegiance to the new constitution and are happy with their American citizenship, would be treated as foreigners, taxed accordingly and could not vote. Non-citizens would be able to own homes, land and businesses outside of Ka Lahui Hawai’i’s National Land Trust. She believes indigenous Hawaiians living outside of Hawai’i should always have the right to return home and become citizens.

Hawaiian Separatists Have Traction

In my previous post I had talked about the underlying issue behind the protest against building the thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea. Those behind the Hawaiian separatist movement are active politically and have learned how to use social media, much like ISIS, to propagate their message. They have shown hatred and disdain for America. There are at least ten different Hawaiian groups who desire to separate from the United Staes in some way.The Akaka Bill was one of the first serious attempts at achieving separation. Anti America sign1 These signs make their intentions clear. As they continue to gain followers and advocates we must ponder what effects they will have on future investment, tourism and military operations in Hawaii. Anti America sign3 I am taking the liberty to include a quote from William Burgess regarding the Akaka Bill. Although his comments are on that bill they apply to all efforts to establish a race based system. William is a student of Hawaiian history and an opponent of the separatist movement. I think he nails it here:

“Where does it end? Abandonment of the long-standing mandatory criteria for tribal recognition, would open the floodgates for the proliferation of tribes. Anthropologists estimate there are some 15 million people who have a discernible degree of Native American blood but have no tribal connection. Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida, New York, Connecticut, Kansas, Virginia, indeed every state, would be at risk of being partitioned into multiple racial enclaves.

Rejection of democracy. The bill is a frontal assault on the American ideal of equality. It would elevate Native Hawaiians to the status of a hereditary elite to be supported by citizens who are not of the favored race. It is almost certainly unconstitutional.

The claimed justifications are invalid. The U.S. stole no lands from the Hawaiian people and it did not deprive them of their sovereignty. The ceded lands were government lands under the Kingdom held for the benefit of all citizens without regard to race. They still are. Upon annexation, ordinary Hawaiians became full citizens of the U.S. with more freedom, prosperity and sovereignty than they ever had under the Kingdom. Hawaiians today are no different, in any constitutionally significant way, from any other ethnic group in Hawaii’s multi-ethnic, intermarried, integrated society. Like all the rest of us, some do well, some don’t and most are somewhere in between.

Ms. Schlafly, your essay “Is it Assimilation or Invasion?” dovetails perfectly with our opposition to the Akaka bill. If it becomes law, Hawaii will be divided up into a patchwork of quasi-sovereign governing entities, led or influenced by people some of whom seem to see themselves as Americans only second and something else first.

Unfortunately, the Akaka bill does not seem to even be on the radar screen of most members of Congress. With Senator Inouye’s power and legendary skills there is a clear danger that it will be tacked on to a major bill and passed by unanimous consent. We in Hawaii encourage you to use your nationwide influence to alert the national public, Congress and the Administration that support for the Akaka bill is support for la reconquista.

Imua, keep up the good work and Aloha for all, Bill & Sandra Burgess”

About the Big Island’s Water Quality

Blogger and farmer Richard Ha writes about the recent study on water quality.

About the Big Island’s Water Quality (Ha Ha Ha!): “About the Big Island’s Water Quality

Richard Ha writes:

The State of Hawai‘i tested 24 sites throughout the islands for pesticide residue, and the Big Island tested the lowest. Of all the islands, we had the lowest amount of pesticide residue.

It’s interesting to note that ‘the USGS laboratory methods used for this study measure compounds at trace levels; commonly 10 to 1,000 times lower than drinking water standards and aquatic life guidelines.’

The document is called the 2013-14 STATE WIDE PESTICIDE SAMPLING PILOT PROJECT WATER QUALITY FINDINGS, A Joint Investigation by the Hawaii State Departments of Health and Agriculture.

From the executive summary (there’s lots more detail within the study itself):

Surface water samples collected from 24 sites statewide were analyzed for a total of 136 different pesticides or breakdown products. All locations had at least one pesticide detection. Only one pesticide, a historically used termiticide exceeded state and federal water regulatory limits. Five other pesticide compounds were detected at levels exceeding the most conservative EPA aquatic life benchmark. All other pesticides detected were lower than the most stringent aquatic or human health guideline value.

These findings represent a snapshot in time from a single sampling event within watersheds with multiple upstream inputs. While they provide useful information about pesticide occurrence across different land uses, they may not be representative of typical conditions or identify specific sources.

Key findings:

Every location sampled had a trace detection of one or more pesticides; however, the majority of these represented minute concentrations that fall below state and federal benchmarks for human health and ecosystems.
Land use significantly impacted the number and type of pesticides detected. Urban areas on Oahu showed the highest number of different pesticides.
Oahu’s urban streams had the highest number of different pesticides detected. Manoa Stream at the University of Hawaii showed 20 different pesticides and breakdown products.
Dieldrin, a termite treatment that has been banned from sale in Hawaii since 1980, exceeded State and Federal Water Quality standards in three urban locations on Oahu.
Fipronil detected in Manoa Stream and Waialae Iki Stream exceeded aquatic life benchmarks for freshwater invertebrates. Fipronil is an insecticide commonly used in residential settings and applied by commercial pest companies to treat soil for termites.
Atrazine and metolachlor, two restricted use herbicides, were detected on Kauai at agricultural sites downstream of seed crop operations. One location had levels that exceed aquatic life guidelines, but remain below regulatory standards.
The number of pesticides detected in water samples on Hawaii Island was lower than that of Kauai and Oahu.
Atrazine, a restricted use pesticide, was the most commonly found pesticide in the study. Of the sites tested, 80 percent had atrazine detections. Only two sites, one on Kauai, and one on Maui, reflected elevated concentrations suggestive of current use of atrazine. All of the remaining detections were trace level concentrations far below state and federal benchmarks.
The pilot study tested stream bed sediment at seven sites and found glyphosate, in all samples. Glyphosate (trade marked as Roundup) is widely used for residential, commercial, agricultural and roadside weed management.
Read the rest”

(Via .)

Reducing the amount of choking government regulation

Most of us eventually come to the realization that we have too much stuff. We have too much stuff in our homes, we have too much stuff on our computers, we had too much stuff on our smart phones.

So, eventually we must come up with a means to get rid of the worthless useless stuff on our computers in our homes and our smartphones. Now, this does take some time and it takes an effort to sort through the stuff to figure out which is good stuff and which is stuff to throw away.

The problem with legislation, rules, regulations and laws is that there doesn’t seem to be a method to sort through them and get rid of the ones that we no longer need. Regulations that are ill-conceived, discriminatory, unenforceable, too costly, or simply no longer needed must be repealed.

This might lead to a new type of political promise. Right now, we seem to rate legislators on the number of bills they sponsor and get passed. What about a new criteria? How about grading performance on the number of regulations repealed or otherwise killed?

Or, we might modify procedure to allow that for a new law to pass, there must be three repealed in the same section or area.

Here is a comment by a former member of the New Zealand parliament:

— E. Donald Elliott is a Professor (Adjunct) of law at Yale Law School and a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the international law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

For a number of years I was a Member of the New Zealand Parliament, during which time New Zealand, facing the same problem of obsolete and contradictory law, set out to clean up its statutes. The process we used was to systematically re-write the corresponding statutes of each sector of the economy we reformed – such as the tax code and health care – so that the laws were clear and unambiguous, and reflective of the needs of contemporary society. These re-written statutes were then passed by Parliament and all the related old ones were repealed. In my view this was a very effective process. New Zealand’s environmental laws, for instance, went from being 25 inches thick to just 348 pages. The action of repealing all the old laws also automatically repealed all the regulations built on those laws so the regulatory code was cleaned up at the same time.

And here is the full article from The Atlantic.

Department of Transportation | Hawaii’s Legal Presence Law

Do any of these requirements have anything to do with the ability of an individual to operate a motor vehicle?


Effective March 5, 2012, anyone applying for an original or renewal of their Hawaii driver’s license or permit must show proof of legal presence in the U.S.

Legal presence means that a person is either a U.S. citizen or is legally authorized to be in the United States.

Act 38, Session Laws of Hawaii 2010, prohibits the issuance of a Hawaii driver’s license to any person that is not legally in the United States and limits the term of the issued licenses only for the period that the applicant is temporarily authorized to be in the United States.

Legal Presence Affects Everyone

Legal presence requirements affect anyone applying for a Hawaii driver’s license, including U.S. citizens and foreign-born applicants, those applying for a learner’s permit, and permit holders passing their road test to obtain a driver’s license. Legal presence also applies to anyone who has just moved to Hawaii from another state or country, and anyone renewing their Hawaii driver’s license or permit.

Proof of legal presence will be required from:

Applicants applying for an original Hawaii driver’s license.
Anyone who has never held or is re-applying for a Hawaii driver’s license must provide proof of legal presence in the U.S.
Applicants renewing their Hawaii driver’s license.
Anyone who renews their Hawaii driver’s license must provide proof of legal presence in the U.S. Applicants who are U.S. citizens and aliens admitted for permanent residence status in the U.S. will need to provide proof of legal presence documents every second renewal.
Drivers reinstating their driving privilege because of a license revocation or cancellation.
Customers whose license or permit to drive has been revoked or cancelled must provide proof of legal presence in the U.S.
Drivers who have allowed their license to expire.
Anyone who lets his driver’s license expire, even by just one day, must provide proof of legal presence in the U.S.
Permit holders when they pass their road test and obtain a Hawaii driver’s license.
All permit holders must provide proof of legal presence in the U.S.
Drivers converting their Hawaii provisional driver’s license to a full driver’s license.
All license holders who convert from a provisional to a full license must provide proof of legal presence in the U.S.
Proof of legal presence will NOT be required from:

Applicants applying for a duplicate Hawaii driver’s license or permit.
Temporary Legal Length of Stay – Limited Duration Driver’s Licenses or Permits

Persons who are authorized by the federal government to be present temporarily in the U.S. will be issued limited duration driver’s licenses or permits.
Applicants who are temporarily authorized to be in the U.S. are required to present proof of legal presence when applying for an initial or renewal of a Hawaii driver’s license or permit.

Now, check this link and see if any of these requirements have to do with the operation of a motor vehicle.

Big brother adds more control.

These changes add to the already onerous requirement to get a license renewed in Hawaii. ACLU, where are you?


Posted on Apr 16, 2014 in Highways News, Main, News
HONOLULU – Beginning May 1, 2014, the cost of a state identification card and the documents required to obtain a driver’s license will change.

State ID’s will cost $32.00 in Kauai County and $40.00 in Honolulu, Maui and Hawaii counties. The state ID is good for 8 years, and a duplicate will cost $7 in Kauai County and $6 in Honolulu, Maui and Hawaii counties.

Those obtaining a driver’s license will be required to present two forms of proof of principal residence in Hawaii. Principal residence is defined as the location where a person currently resides even if the residence location is temporary. Any two of the following documents (original or copy) with the applicant as the addressee and stating the applicant’s principal residence will be acceptable proof:

1. A current valid Hawaii driver’s license;

2. Vehicle registration or title;

3. A current voter registration card or other mail addressed to the applicant from a government or medical entity that is not more than two months old;

4. Utility bill that is not more than two months old with applicant’s name and address;

5. Checking or savings account statement not more than two months old;

6. Payroll check or check stub issued by an employer within two months of the application date;

7. Current mortgage account or proof of home ownership;

8. Residential rental or time share contract for six months or more;

9. United States income tax return, W-2 form or 1099 SSA benefits form from the previous year;

10. Hawaii income tax return from the previous year or W-2 form;

11. Receipt for personal property taxes paid to a county within the State of Hawaii within the last year;

12. Medical card issued by a health insurance agency with principal residence address printed on it;

13. Documentation dated not more than ninety days prior to making application that the individual is receiving State of Hawaii public assistance;

14. Current property tax assessment bill or statement;

15. A stamped department of taxation form A-6, application for tax clearance that is not more than six months old;

16. Homeless applicants may use the address of their current shelter agency, or if not staying in a shelter, may use the general delivery of the post office nearest where they spend most of their time;

17. Applicants documenting enrollment in a State or Federal address confidentiality program which allows an applicant to obtain and use alternative addresses may use an alternative address on the card but must provide the applicant’s permanent address for file purposes;

18. P.O. Box numbers are not acceptable to indicate principal residence address unless a number and street name have not been assigned for U.S. mail delivery. An address convention used by the U.S. Postal Service is acceptable;

19. Affidavit indicating that the applicant currently resides with the affiant, provided the affiant’s address can be verified and the affidavit is notarized within two months of the application date; or

20. Other documents the examiner of drivers accepts as proof of principal residence in the State of Hawaii.