Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Random Shots! Honor Student Jailed, Chris Hayes, New Black Panthers Party, and More!


Texas Honor Student Jailed For Missing Too Much School

Houston's KHOU 11 News reported that Diane Tran, 17, an 11th-grade honor student at Willis High School, was sent to jail for 24 hours by Judge Lanny Moriarty.

It’s unclear how many days Tran missed, but state law permits only 10 absences in a six-month period. But either way, this is insane!

Putting an Honor Roll student in Jail! Jail, because of missing days at school? My first reaction, whoever came up with this should be tar and feathered!

This is completely outside agreed standards of decency!
Houston's KHOU reports that Diane Tran works full-time at a dry-cleaning business and part-time for a wedding planner. And what's more, this youngster has been supporting her brother and sister since her parents separated and her mother moved away. Her father often works too late to come home.

Houston defense attorney Ned Barnett called the ruling "outrageous" and said "a little discretion should have been used" in the teenager's case.

"It doesn’t take much discretion to have sympathy for Miss Tran," Barnett said. "To lock her up is just outrageous."

Barnett, who is not defending Diane Tran, said the girl likely spent her 24-hour jail sentence at Montgomery County Jail surrounded by suspected murderers, drug addicts, and prostitutes.

"It's hard-core," he said of the jail, noting that past clients whom he has defended described it as "the worst experience of their life."

Diane Tran, who is considered an adult under Texas state law, was issued a summons last Wednesday for truancy after she missed classes. She was arrested in open court and ordered to spend 24 hours at the jail for truancy, which is considered a misdemeanor. The ruling came after the teenager was issued a warning by a judge last month about her absences.

Judge Moriarty told KHOU 11 News that he intended to make "an example of Tran by placing her in jail."
Showing a complete lack of common sense, Moriarty had the nerve to tell the station, "If you let one run loose, what are you going to do with the rest of them? Let them go, too?"

Yes, besides not having a bit of common sense, his statement shows he does not concern himself with reason or circumstance or the background of the case at hand.

Judge Lanny Moriarty
Folks, we're not talking about some dope smoking druggie or gang-banger - this is a student who is holding down two jobs while being an A-Student.

What's absolutely pathetic is that this Judge Moriarty can't see the difference between real truants who skip classes out of laziness or a desire to get into trouble or break the law - and an Honor Roll student holding down two jobs to help support her family!

Mary Elliot, owner of Vineyards of Waverly Manor, where Tran works, told Fox News that Diane Tran is a "straight-A student" and "exceptionally good kid" who takes college-level courses and has a strong work ethic -  but yes, she sometimes oversleeps because of her hectic work schedule, and subsequently misses class.

Elliot said the teenager should never have been arrested and forced to spend the night in jail.

"I can understand if a child is staying out of school, running around, a bad kid, getting into trouble, taking drugs," Mary Elliot, one of Diane Tran's bosses, told ABC News. "I can understand why he would slap them into jail for 24 hours. But Diane doesn't do that. All she does is work and go to school."

"Her family has taught her a good work ethic," Elliot said. "Her brother was No. 8 in his class. She wants to do better than that."

"We need to change what they do to these kids in the school," she said. "They need to look at their records instead of just judge them as bad kids."

Since the girl's story went viral, hundreds of people have rallied to raise money for the teen. One group, called the Louisiana Children's Education Alliance, set up a website named helpdianetran.com that reported it had raised nearly $40,000 for the girl.

Houston Councilman Al Hoang said what he worries about most is Diane Tran's record.

"I’m going to ask the judge to expunge the record," Hoang told Fox News. "The truancy laws should be applied case by case and in this case, it should not be applied. I believe Judge Moriarty should have used his discretionary power to excuse her from this matter."

So what's the lessons here? What has one Judge taught kids who hear about this?

Lessons from Judge Lanny Moriarty:

One - If you work hard, extremely hard, hold two jobs, help support your family, and study so diligently that you become an Honor Roll Student - your rewards may be nothing at all - in fact, all of what you are doing might not matter to a system set up where just one person has it in their power to ruin your life.

Two - Power can blind those in power to such an extent that they become over zealous uncaring insensitive individuals who do not understand the difference between using absolute authority and common sense discretion.

Thanks to the short-sighted judge in Texas, kids across the nation are now learning these lessons.

But not all is lost to the negative here because there is hope. Fact is that there is a bigger lesson that can be gleamed from this tragic event:

It is the fact that with this horrible thing happening to Diane Tran, Americans can see that authority in the hands of Judges like Lanny Moriarty will be looked at, and more importantly - this should show people that wrongs done in the administration of justice can be righted and corrected by those who care enough to get involved.

Hopefully, Houston Councilman Al Hoang who worries about what this will do to Diane Tran's record, can get a smarter more knowledgeable judge to expunge her record.

Yes, this whole thing shows that people will rally to the defense of someone wronged. And yes, that is good to see.


Chris Hayes, Host of MSNBC's "Up With Chris Hayes," Apologized After Saying He's "Uncomfortable" Calling Fallen Soldiers Heroes
The incredible insensitive stupidity of MSNBC's Chris Hayes.

It started when MSNBC host Chris Hayes said that he's "uncomfortable" calling America's fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines "heroes.'

Hayes thinks the term is "problematic."

It seems that Hayes feels that by honoring those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, that he is in fact legitimizing the US effort against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, he is anti-War to the point where he feels that we should do nothing as a first strike against the terrorists who are our enemies.

Hayes is typical of the liberal left who really control the national news media. His words reflect the train of thought common to the liberal ilk.

He obviously disregards the service and sacrifice of the men and women who have fought and died for his right to be a jerkweed!

He doesn't understand that lip service from a college boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, whether that be him or Chris Matthews or Barack Obama, is not what ensures our liberty and safety. They never seem to be anywhere when the check is due, they never seem to pay the ultimate price while defending our nation.

To call Hayes statement callous, uncaring, insensitive, especially during Memorial Day observances around the nation is too easy. It's too easy to say that he just doesn't get it, after all, most liberals don't get it.

On Memorial Day, our nation takes time to reflect, praise, remember, and honor those who have done so much more than the Chris Hayes of the world. The Chris Hayes of the world reap the benefits, they strut like peacocks and pontificate has if they really think what they say matters. They have no class, or at least not enough to simply bow their heads in silence and give thanks for our nations' fallen heroes.

Here's exactly what Hayes said, "Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that'll be happening tomorrow. Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible]. Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that."

Hayes and MSNBC needed to make an immediate apology.

And now, well now Chris Hayes who on the eve of Memorial Day said it makes him “uncomfortable” to describe fallen soldiers as heroes has apologized.

Here's his apology, "On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that."

His very stupid comment was made while starting a panel discussion on his show. As noted before, he said that it's "very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words 'heroes.'"

Because Hayes is so anti-War, so left of the rest of America, Hayes has shown that his anti-War position can also translate into an anti-Military position - especially on the ultra-liberal MSNBC. This is very evident when he said, "I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war."

Veterans, and families of the fallen, as well as veterans groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, voiced their shock, anger, disgust with Hayes for his finding it "problematic" to use the term "heroes" to describe our military.

In his statement of apology, he went on to say, "In seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry."

This is shameful, but sadly typical from the liberals on MSNBC. Their incredible insensitive stupidity, their open bias, their lack of impartiality, it's legendary among those of us who have tried watching their network.

They routinely attack anyone who has the slightest disagreement with the Obama administration, or Democrats in Congress, or might question say for example racial and fiscal problems that have arisen since Obama has taken Office.

They find no problem attacking Americans who participate in peaceful protests at Tea Party rallies, and they take any opportunity to assail our active military personnel in harm's way, our veterans, and yes even our fallen heroes.

All, while vehemently supporting rampaging Occupy Protesters, corrupt Democrat politicians, and even Code Pink who had the nerve to call our troops murderers.

Yes this is shameful, but sadly not out of the ordinary for MSNBC. No, this is no surprise coming from MSNBC.


New Black Panthers Not Happy With Obama 

The New Black Panther Party (NBPP) is extremely disappointed in Barack Hussein Obama, and is now openly saying that the best way to reach its goals is no longer "the ballot" - but instead "the bullet."

In the Spring edition of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) newspaper, its cover reads "The Ballot or The Bullet: which way for black people?"

NBPP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz says the Democratic Party is the "institutional pimp of Black peoples and the Black Nation" and that Obama has "been a real disappointment."

"Black peoples are the whores and prostitutes of the Democratic Party, and mistreated mistress that is courted in the late of night, but left hanging when it is time for real change in the light of the post election day," Shabazz wrote, following a dissertation on the need to "Vote for Revolution."

Shabazz detailed his past hopes for Obama as the first Black president, noting that Obama has not lived up to them - specifically by continuing the policies of the Bush administration in the so-called war on terror and supposedly ignoring the economic plight of black Americans.

"The black community is at large no better off that before he was in office. We are curious as to what his agenda is for Black people in America and if he even has one," Shabazz added.

The lead editorial in the 36-page publication is written by the paper’s editor, Chawn Kweli, entitled "4 years and a Bucket of Hope: The Change That Never Came," which describes the group’s excitement, and subsequent disappointment, after Obama was elected.

"Mr. Obama’s policies have not corrected the economic troubles of America, they have gotten worse," Kweli wrote. "The debt continues to expand [into the trillions], and the administration's handling of international relations has hardened dialogue with foreign nations. Mr. Obama’s policies have been especially harsh to us the Black community. He [Obama] bailed out Wall Street and the auto makers but kept us at the top of the unemployment ladder."

Black unemployment in America currently stands at 13.0 percent.

"With strategy, Obama will sing a little Al Green, do a little dance, and win black votes. Sadly like obedient sheep's, we go to the polls and vote for 'Black skin,' no matter how destructive the policies," Kweli added.

Of course I can't understand why the New Black Panther Party leader has a problem with Obama since even Shabazz admits that Obama did good by them when he dropped the 2008 Voter Intimidation Charges against the New Black Panther Party.

And of course, the militant black leader makes no mention of the Obama administration's $1.2 Billion deal that was restricted to be only for Black farmers. Obama pushed it and the Democrat controlled Congress passed it before leaving power in December of 2010.

Yes, I think it would have been cut to the original $100 Million sum that was first agreed upon - the sum that Obama thought was too low and added another $1.15 Billion to it. And yes, restricted it to only Black farmers.

The $1.2 Billion of Taxpayer money went to compensating Black farmers for supposed discrimination, even as many charged that the deal is riddled with fraudulent claims.

The long-delayed package, negotiated by the Obama administration, could award some $50,000 each to thousands of Black-Americans who claimed they were unjustly denied loans and assistance from the Federal Department of Agriculture in the 1980s and '90s.

There are still calls for an investigation of the settlement, known as Pigford II, which completely excluded claims from White, Asian, and Hispanic farmers.

Following Obama's election the group was charged with voter intimidation when their members were seen standing outside a Philadelphia voting precinct dressed in paramilitary garb, one welding a nightstick in what a witness and former civil rights lawyer described as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen."

The Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder who openly has stated that some in Congress don't understand "my people" was supposed to head the Voter Intimidation Case.

He dismissed the intimidation charges against the group in 2009, a decision which lead to a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigation. Of course, President Obama's direct involvement in the case’s dismissal has not been investigated - but should.


More on the New Black Panther Party as the Chairman Calls Repubulican Black-Americans "Bootlicking Uncle Toms"

Republicans, according to Shabazz, are undeserving of African-American votes.

He wrote, "Only bootlicking Uncle Toms such as Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain pledge loyalty to this racist party that is overtly contemptuous and hostile to poor and working people, unions, and the like."

I find it interesting that Black-Americans have so little information when it comes to what Political Party has really fought for their best interest.

It seems many that the majority of blacks in America have no knowledge of went occurred, our history, in Pre and Post Civil War America. The fact that Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan, and the terror and the lynching of blacks and Catholics were a direct result of the Ku Klux Klan who were indeed a product of Democrats is conveniently forgotten today.

They forget, or refuse to hear, who voted for and who was in reality against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a fact that Democrats have traditionally fought against Civil Rights Act for black Americans starting way back in the 1860s. Fact is that if it weren't for Republicans, who were founded as an anti-Slavery Political Party, Civil Rights Acts would not have been passed.

Black Americans, like those associated with the New Black Panther Party, refuse to acknowledge that it has been Republicans who have tried to make them less dependant on the Federal Government. It has been the Republican Party who in reality has tried to make them more equal, independent, and economically successful.

This ad from the 1860 Presidential Campaign tell them nothing at all. Why, because they refuse to see the truth!

And who were Republicans? You know, those "bootlicking Uncle Toms such as Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain pledge loyalty to this racist party that is overtly contemptuous and hostile to poor and working people, unions, and the like"?

Who belonged to the Republican Party, the political party that originated as an Anti-Slavery Party?

 Well, it is a fact that besides great Black-Americans like Supreme Court Justic Clarence Thomas and successful businessman Herman Caine, there has other prominent names of black Americans which have been, or still are Republicans.
Are all of these black-American men and women, "Bootlicking Uncle Toms" and "Aunt Jemimas"?   

Frederick Douglass, abolitionist, editor, orator, author, and statesman

Condoleezza Rice, political scientist and diplomat, the 66th United States Secretary of State, and was the second person to hold that office in the administration of President George W. Bush. Rice was the first female African-American secretary of state, as well as the second African American (after Colin Powell), and the second woman (after Madeleine Albright). Condoleezza Rice was President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term, making her the first woman to serve in that position. Before joining the Bush administration, she was a professor of political science at Stanford University where she served as Provost from 1993 to 1999. Condoleezza Rice also served on the National Security Council as the Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor to President George H.W. Bush during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification.

Booker T. Washington, civil rights activist, educator, author, and advisor to Republican presidents.

J. C. Watts,  Baptist minister and former U.S. Representative from Oklahoma

The picture above is that of the First Black American Senator and Representatives to the Untied States Congress. Yes, all Republicans.

Included in the picture is Sen. Hiram Revels (R-MI), Rep. Benjamin S. Turner (R-AL), Robert DeLarge (R-SC), Josiah Walls (R-FL), Jefferson Long (R-GA), Joseph Rainey and Robert B. Elliott (R-SC), in 1872.

I take great pleasure in educating New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz in that after looking over the above list of the First Black American Senator and Representatives, I couldn't find one "Bootlicking Uncle Tom" among them!

I would like to also inform the militant jerkweed that in fact none in the above list, none in office today, and none of the many Black-American Republicans and Conservatives out in America are "Bootlicking Uncle Toms" - or "Aunt Jamimas"!

I find that as just offensive, or even more so, than if he called them "Niggers." It should be reported on every News program out there, and friend of Obama or not, New Black Panther Party's Shabazz should apologize.


My Last Shot Regarding The New Black Panther Party: They Are Now Threatening America

The Same idiot who called Back-American Republicans "Bootlicking Uncle Tom's" say that the since the ballot box hasn't worked out the way that radical group has wanted - that now they should resort to "the bullet"!

Imagine that, "the bullet"!

"Black America, you must decide who will best represent you in 2012. You must decide if you will choose the ballot as a means to change, or the bullet," New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz wrote, adding that "demanding change does come by any means necessary."

In late March the New Black Panther Party offered a $10,000 bounty for George Zimmerman. Though the bounty was essentially a "Murder For Hire contract, no legal action has been taken against the group.

Some question if the reluctance to pursue legal action against the militant group is because the group has support from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama -  who dropped the 2008 Voter Intimidation Charges against the group in 2009.

Thought the Southern Poverty Law Center considers the New Black Panther Party a "hate group" in the same vain as the Ku Klux Klan, the New Black Panthers Party seems to be above the law.

I can't help put wonder how their threat to use "the bullet" will turn out in the future?

Let me give them some advice, the New Black Panther Party may find themselves in a world of hurt if they pick a fight with the wrong individuals who may also be armed. They may get something in return - various full metal jacket calibers.


Hawaiian History - No, I'm Not Making It Up!

I have received a lot of e-mail about my article: When King Kalakaua Needed U.S. Marines in 1874

Many are absolutely great, and I can only say thanks for the great words of encouragement. I'm very happy that you like my work.

Some of the responses have not been all what I expected saying things that I can hardly believe - and really they give me too much credit for. Some have actually wrote me saying that I made up the whole thing to discredit the Kingdom of Hawaii for some reason. Some have written saying that I'm simply trying to rewrite history.

First things first, to those out there saying that I made up the story. No, I did not make it up! I'm simply not that creative.

Second, I love Hawaii and would never try to discredit Hawaii for any reason. My family originates from Hawaii. I have many many relations, grandparents, great-grandparents, even great-great-grandparents buried there.

When my family left Portugal back in the mid 1800's, they went to Hawaii. They went there as contract labor, indentured servants, as sailors, plantation workers, when the great Kingdom of Hawaii brought them there.

My family arrived during the times of Kings and Queens, and were in fact Hawaiian Subjects. Not Hawaiians by blood, but Hawaiians as subjects under the Monarchy. Because I can trace my roots to those Hawaiians, I treasure my Hawaiian heritage no less than someone of Hawaiian blood.

As for those saying that I'm trying to rewrite Hawaiian history, you're a fool if you think so!

My interest in history goes back to when my grandfather, and even my great-grandfather would tell me stories about the way things once were. Because of that, I hate those who rewrite history to benefit themselves or their cause.

Portuguese immigrants Hawaii 1878
Anyone who has read my articles, especially those on Old West and other American history topics, knows that I do a lot of research to give you my readers the real story and not the fabrication that many of us are lead to believe is true.

I was called all sorts of things when I wrote about Wild Bill Hickok back-shooting McCanles. I was told that Wyatt Earp couldn't have been a pimp, and arrested as a pimp at the time when many say he was supposed to be a Buffalo Hunter. I can deal with name callers. They mean very little to me.

Like it or not, it is an historical fact that as a result of the Hawaiian government's request, two Marine Detachments were landed to restore order to the rioting in Honolulu, fight a rebellion instituted by the opposition candidate, and assist with the orderly coronation of King David Kalakaua in 1874.

During the fighting, U.S. Marines actually seized government buildings. They occupied the Palace grounds, the city armory, the Hawaiian treasury, the Police station house, the Honolulu jail, and the Honolulu Courthouse which was there main objective. All in just a few days, and in just over a week - order was restored.

Lately, I've been told that a plot to over-throw King Kalakaua in 1888 and a revolt in 1889 never took place. I'm told that Liliuokalani, who planned an insurrection against her own brother King Kalakaua never happened.

But facts are facts, and in July of 1889, Robert Wilcox and 150 armed men occupy the Palace and attempts to have King Kalakaua either abdicate or proclaim that the 1864 Constitution was to replace the 1887 Constitution.

Fact is, supporters of King Kalakaua did in fact take up arms against those insurgents. Volunteer riflemen turned out to support the Government in what was called the Missionary Party. A legation was on hotel premises where Mr. Merrill, the U.S. Minister requested a body of Marines to be landed for a day.
A duel between the insurgents and volunteers begins with artillery and rifle fire, by evening the fighting ends and the insurgents surrendered.

King Kalakaua reigned for 17 years until his death on 20 Jan 1891. He decided to take a trip to San Francisco to visit America and improve his health. The great King died of a stroke, kidney failure, and liver cirrhosis.

In keeping with King Kalakaua's wishes, his sister Liliuokalani ascended the throne becoming Queen.

On January 29, 1891, Liliuokalani becomes Queen. And whether people want to accept it or not, it's true that her monarchy would be faced with scandal, attempted coups, revolution, all one after the other.

Like it or not, her reign reads like a road map to abdication. And as I said before, the only question is - to who?

I'm told I'm making it up, but the facts don't lie. On March 1892, an abortive revolution was led by the Ashford brothers and R.W. Wilcox of the Liberal Party. The objective was to establish a Republic and then educate the people for future annexation to United States.

The very same conspirators who were willing to help her over-throw her brother then wanted to over-throw her - a month later all charges were dropped and the conspirators were released.

I love history. I think movie makers and writers can do more with real history. I think the real story is in most cases a lot more fascinating than the legend and the made-up.

In the case of the Old West, many of the colorful personalities of the times were made even more colorful by way of bullshit artist called Dime Novelists. I  find that today's movie makers are full of those same Dime Novelists who it seems can't tell a the truth if their life depended on it. 

But friends, my grandfather was right when he said, "tell the truth, people won't believe it anyway - and besides it will probably make a better story." I believe real history makes a better story.

And yes, I love history's ironies. I find it an irony that Queen Liliuokalani supported the same Wilcox in an attempted coup against her own brother King Kalakaua - only to have the same man attempt one against her.

It seemed as though karma came around full swing.

Less than a year later, on January 14, 1893, Queen Liliuokalani proposes to promulgate a new constitution that would give her powers of virtually absolute monarch not seen since Kamehameha The Great. She would take control of legislative, judicial as well as executive branch of government.

Many in Hawaii, including many in the government, saw this as too much intrusion by the Queen. That was when a group of mostly European, American, Hawaiian business leaders, and other Hawaiian subjects who formed a "Committee of Safety" over-threw the Kingdom to seek annexation by the United States.

United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, responding to a request from the "Committee of Safety," and requested that the a company of Marines aboard the USS Boston be sent to the palace.

From January 16th to April 1st of 1893, the U.S. Marines were back in Hawaii.

Fact is that the Marines again landed to protect American lives and property there, and at the request of the Hawaiian government. Yes, it was the government that requested the Marines.

Unlike in 1874, this time the Marines did not fire a shot. They did not take control of any government building, seize any property, jail anyone, or conduct any Combat Action.

The fact is that they were there because of the potential unrest as the internal crisis within the Hawaiian government continued. About 160 Marines landed, and were given specific orders by Captain G. C. Wiltse to "land in Honolulu for the purpose of protecting our legation, consulate, and the lives and property of American citizens, and to assist in preserving public order."

The Marines had seen the riots and rebellion of 1874 in Hawaii, and it was less then 20 year past that they had to "preserve public order" in Honolulu. They understood very well just how bad it could get.

Like it or not, from what I've read, the Marines were there as U.S. Peace-Keepers only.

Marines were at the time stationed at Arion Hall, the U.S. Consulate, and the U.S. Legation, under orders of strict neutrality and out of any potential line of fire between the Provisional Government and Royalist Forces. They were not to take sides and wait for the outcome.

Hawaiian History says that the Queen surrendered to "the superior force of the United States of America," but what did the Marines do? Well, they didn't do anything.

The Marines positioned themselves at the legislation building across from Iolani Palace and camped out. They sat and waited for orders, and when they were told to return to their ship - they returned to their ship the USS Boston.

On January 27th, 1893, following the overthrow of the monarchy, the Provisional Government created Hawaiian military forces and it put under the command of Colonel John Harris Soper.

The Hawaiian military forces consisted of four Infantry Companies: three National Guard companies and one Regular Army company.

The national guard companies were: Company A was made up of ethnic German volunteers, commanded by Charles W. Zeiler; Company B was made up of members of the Honolulu Rifles, commanded by Hugh Gunn; and Company C was made up of ethnic Portuguese volunteers, commanded by Joseph M. Camara. The regulars were Company D, made up like B Company, from the Honolulu Rifles, commanded by John Good.

I'd like to see the look on the face of some of my relatives when they find out that the Provisional Government who over-threw Queen Liliuokalani actually had formed an Infantry Company made up of ethnic Portuguese volunteers - to ensure they stay in power.  

All of the Hawaiian military was active under the Provisional Government of Hawaii, used in the Leprosy War in 1893 - and they were also used under the authority of the Republic of Hawaii during the 1895 Counter-Revolution lead by Robert Wilcox and the former Queen.

After Hawaii was annexed becoming the Territory of Hawaii in 1898, all of the Hawaiian military forces entered service in the Army National Guard system and became part of the Hawaii Army National Guard there.

 Am I making this up? No. This is all a matter of historical record.

The rest of the story is that the President of the United States Grover Cleveland at the time wanted nothing to do with Hawaii as a territory. He wanted the Provisional Government of Hawaii to give the government back to the Queen.

Yes, it's true.

In 1893, James H. Blount, newly appointed American minister to Hawaii, arrived representing President Grover Cleveland. Blount listened to both sides, annexationists and restorationists, and concluded the Hawaiian people aligned with the Queen.

Minister Blount and President Cleveland agreed the Queen should be restored. Blount's final report implicated the American minister Stevens in the illegal overthrow of Liliuokalani. Albert S. Willis, Cleveland's next American minister offered the crown back to the Queen on the condition she pardon and grant general amnesty to those who had dethroned her.

She initially refused but soon she changed her mind and offered clemency. This delay compromised her political position and President Cleveland by then had released the entire issue of the Hawaiian revolution to Congress for debate.

That was not a good thing because the annexationists in Hawaii promptly started lobbying Congress against restoration of the monarchy.

On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaii with Sanford B. Dole as president was proclaimed. It was recognized immediately by the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Germany, and other governments.

Upon the inauguration of William McKinley as president of the United States on March 4, 1897, the Republic of Hawaii resumed negotiations for annexation with the United States. The negotiations continued into the summer of 1898. By this time, President McKinley saw the islands as having gained a new strategic relevance in the wake of the Spanish-American War.  

But that was not all that was happening at the time, fact is that at the very same time, Britain, France and Japan had shown interest in annexing the islands for themselves. And yes, there were those who wanted Hawaii to be part of the Japanese Empire because Japan's Empire stretched far into the Pacific.

On June 16 of that year, a new treaty of annexation was signed with the United States.

As the Senate appeared uncertain to ratify the treaty, its supporters took extreme measures by passing the Newlands Resolution through which the cession was accepted, ratified and confirmed by a vote of 42 to 21.
The House of Representatives accepted the Newlands Resolution by a vote of 209 to 91.

President McKinley signed the bill on July 7, 1898.

The formal claim of transfer of sovereignty took place on August 12, 1898 with the hoisting of the flag of the United States over Iolani Palace.

This is all history. And no, I don't have make it up - it's all there for anyone to find!

And yes, that's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa

Sunday, May 27, 2012

RANDOM SHOTS! Local News, Obama a Statist, Awake, and Much More!


Local News - About my dog Jake

Yesterday was the 25th of May, 2012. It's the day that I realized that I really don't know why God created dogs?

Most are great, but then there are those that go far beyond great. They go far beyond the expected. They simply have that "way" about them. Those are the ones to watch out for.

One such dog is my boy Jake. Almost two and a half years ago, my wife and I said that we should get a dog to replace Baby, who we lost a few months before in 2009. We agreed to go down to the Animal Shelter, Animal Control, and see about adopting one from there since they're always looking for good homes for strays.

I went down and found Jake sitting in a cage. He was what I was looking for, just a big brown dog like the one that my grandfather had when I was a kid.

Jake, part lab and your guess is as good as mine, turned out to be exactly what we needed. All personality, he fit in perfect around here. He came to a place where he could run - where the house is two football fields away from the front gate - where the nearest home is not near at all.

I had no worries about him getting out on the road and getting hit by a car. I was really more worried about him getting kicked by a horse.

When I came home today, my father-in-law said that Jake was playing with his dog Oliver and then just laid on the floor in a spot where he usually lays - and he died. I ran in to see, and yes, in fact my Jake had died.

I went outside and dug a grave and buried him near my horse Murphy who died last year.

No, I don't know why God crates dogs - especially dogs like Jake.

He would jump and whirl around 360 degrees if he thought I had a treat for him. He would lay his head on my lap and look at me - into my soul - and feel at ease when I'd stroke his forehead.

He was a big dog and would wait out side atop our long driveway, and there he'd sit and wait for me to come home after volunteering at the Legion up the road. And when I did, he would act as thought he hadn't seen me in weeks. He loved me like no other dog that I've ever had in my life.

I can't help but believe that God has a sick sort of twisted sense of humor at times. It's a belief that I've had since my days in the Marine Corps when I saw things that made me ask why would God allow certain things to happen? It was only later that I found myself believing that some of us are tested more than others.

Why would God allow a dog a great home and family, allow for us to love one another, then watch as I openly cried as I dug his grave? And if I'm wrong, than it must purely be fate. And yes, fate can be a cruel master.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Jake never hurt a soul. He only protected and loved us as he did - fully.

This morning was the first day that didn't have him nudging the bathroom door to check on me. Today, there were no more early morning belly rubs, no more greeting me at the door or in the driveway, no more running ahead of me at the house and waiting for me atop the steps, no more reaching down to take my hand as if helping me up the steps.

Today, there was no more waiting for me beside my chair, or as I'm sitting here writing.

Today, I didn't need to close my eyes to remember how he would act. I felt as though I saw him all day today. I saw him clown around with his favorite chew toy. I saw his brown eyes look at me and wag his tail knowing my thoughts. I saw him sit at the top of the driveway when I came home from the range today.

I know real well that tonight there will be no more getting up and going to bed at eleven on his own. And yes, there will be no more waking and coming to get me at 2am when I'm sitting here at this computer trying to write an article about this or that.

From yesterday afternoon, I knew that I would have no more unconditional love in just a look.

If my wife wants another dog, then she can go find a small dog for her. A dog that I won't want to get close to. A dog who won't lean into my chest as we drive down the road in my truck. A dog who won't treat me special, and become essentially mine. A dog that I won't ache over as I do right now.

Poor Jake, he was only four years old. He was too young, too athletic, and way too lovable to just suddenly die for no apparent reason. It doesn't seem fair. This is not right.  


Elections at the Legion - Lessons Learned!

The annual election at the American Legion Post here in Glencoe was held on Wednesday. We had 19 members show up for the election, and that ain't bad for a small post like ours.

The election was talked about for months because a past commander wanted to run for the position again. And yes, like any organization, there was all sort of gossip as to why and what for?

Our post is doing really well these days. We are having a lot of new folks showing up, and our monthly events are pulling in enough folks to make it a real good time. Actually, the post has gotten a great reputation for having a lot of fun and laughs with a great sense of camaraderie. Among Vets that's a real big deal, after all that is the one thing most of us really miss from our time in the Service.

There are great folks up here. And among those who support our post who were never in the service, it's always great to see the community support our post - especially when our little town doesn't have much more than the post to call our own.

Lessons Learned!

The past commander wanted to take our post in a direction that most didn't want it to go, and because of that Tony Atnip is now our new commander. He won overwhelmingly because he is a good man who everyone respects and knows as an honest man.

But of course there is that other thing, Tony doesn't want to change what isn't broken. And yes, he sure wasn't trying to run around convincing others that our post was broken when in fact everyone can see with their own eyes that the opposite is true. We are seriously doing great these days.

It sort of like what's going on Nationally between Obama and Romney, folks can see the reality of what's going on in the country - unlike how good the post is doing these days - America is not doing too great these days under Obama. Folks are looking at the direction that Obama wants to move us - and more and more people see that it's a path to more hardship, despair, regulation, and loss of personal freedoms.

Besides the loss of liberty going on under Obama, the real threat of a Big Brother with limitless power over the American people - we all see the reality of how were doing economically and culturally as a nation.

We all see the foreclosure signs on more and more homes. We all know of more and more people out of work, or having their jobs close to move out of state or to another country. We all know folks who have been out of work so long that they are no longer on the unemployment rolls.

We don't need Obama telling us that things are getting better when we can all see with our own eyes that things are in fact not what he's telling us.

We know it takes more money to fill our gas tanks at the pump. We know that food prices, electric and gas bills, that the cost of living is going through the roof. We can see that our Federal Government under Obama is doing nothing to keep businesses in America, to drill for oil here for American energy  independence, or to stop foolishly spending money on things that we cannot afford as a nation.

We don't need Obama telling us that we need a sharp stick in the eye, tell us that it's good for us, and then tell us that it's really our duty as good citizens to enjoy it.

After the election at the post the other night, some said that is was a great look at what needs to be done to stop someone who is out of touch with what's going on around them. Some said that it was great to see people come out and vote - members who don't normally attend meeting or really get involved.

I find it interesting that someone would actually run on a campaign of "Change" when change wasn't needed. That's what the old past commander was doing. It seemed as if he wanted others to believe what wasn't true. It was as if he wanted us to believe something other than what we were seeing for ourselves.

Nationally, I can't help but wonder how Obama feels these days knowing that people now want a "Change" in the White House because of the very type of "Change" that he himself has instituted.

I can't help but wonder how it feels for Obama to realize that Americans are not as stupid as he might think they are - that we really know that Obama wants us to believe what isn't true. And yes, Obama wants us to believe something other than what we were seeing for ourselves.

More Local News, Bears and Big Cats!

A couple of weeks ago, Doreen came into the American Legion and showed all a picture of a pretty good size cinnamon bear near her home off of Independence Road. When I say "pretty good size," I'd say looking at the picture that that bear was at least a 400 pounder.

Last Monday, I was sitting here at my desk and saw a Big Cat - aka Mountain Lion - walk out of the trees behind my home and towards my garage. I got up and grabbed my shotgun to go out and meet him before he would meet up with my horses that are right now roving our property.

When I turned the corner of my garage, he was less than 20 feet away so I cut loose with a round in the air. It was good that he turned and headed back up into the trees. I cut loose with another two rounds to make sure it kept going and didn't circle back.

Of course there is no certainty he, or she, wouldn't anyway - but it is always worth the try. And after all, it is always better to try what you can than no try anything and have something happen later.

As the picture above shows, they are certainly big. And yes, I have seen what a Mountain Lion can do to cattle, horses, deer, a domestic dog. Its not pretty at all.

The picture below are two I got off the Internet, both are severe - but one is a lot worse than the other. This is just a sample of what those big cats can do.

As I said, it's not very pretty at all. Maybe after seeing those pictures, you can better understand what I mean by making sure I stay vigilant and protect our horses.
Besides, I hate the feeling of not doing something when I know that I could have done something in any given situation. I hate feeling guilty when I see something happen, and know full well that I really should have gotten off my ass and done something to change that outcome.

And no, I'm not talking about what happens with sitting out the election and not voting to make sure some jerkweed like Obama stays out of office - but that is a good example of making sure we have to get off our asses and get out the vote.

Unless of course, you are happy with Obama. If that's the case, then I would rather you sit on your ass at home while the rest of America shows up at the polls to vote him out of office.


Is Obama a Socialist or Statist?

God knows what he'll try to get away with if he's re-elected?

I have a feeling that once re-elected, he will have a feeling of empowerment. Empowerment that will justify his sense of twisted logic that says he is indeed "the One," and yes he should stay on course in his mission to turn America into a Statist State.

Statist State? I thought Obama is a Socialist?

Well, I believe that Obama is a Socialist in his core beliefs - but I believe that he has demonstrated a preference to be a Statist.

So what's the difference?

Socialism is defined as a theory, or system of social organization, that advocates the government taking ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, the wealth, of a nation as a whole.

Socialism is where the government owns all business and cares for its people - yes, in the same way that a ranched feeds and cares for cattle. It goes to Obama's believe in an "equal" distribution of wealth.

Statism is defined as the principle of concentrating extensive economic and political controls in the state at the cost of our individual liberty. The real power in a country is controling the politics of money. If the economics of a country can be controled. Power can be obtained and held.

The difference is that Socialism has the pretense of acting as though everyone is equal and cared for. In comparison, Statism is very up front with the fact that the government has all the power and we are essentially slaves of the government - the state.

It is the practice or doctrine of giving a Centralized Government control over economic planning and policy. Yes, Statism is the practice of concentrating all economic and political power in the government.

This goes against our form of government. The reason is that it weakens the individual citizen. It makes us subjects and slaves with no rights and freedoms, instead of citizens with rights and freedom. 

Some statist view "the state" as a homogeneous institution capable of using political power to force policy on passive or resisting citizens. That is why the Tea Party is seen as such a threat to the Obama and the Democrat Party who have been in control since 2007.

It goes to the idea that the state, in our case the Federal Government through Executive Directives and policies of the President, can have so much power that it can legislate and enforce morality and cultural changes. Morality and changes that go against the desire of the majority - to please a small minority of people who are in power.

The ideology of statism espoused that the basic sovereignty of the state is not vested in the people like a democracy, but in the national government - in our case the federal government- as a nation state.

It is the belief that all of us, all of our towns, communities, and even associations, only exist to enhance the power, prestige and well-being of those who control "the state" - the government.

It is completely opposite of basic American philosophy of individual freedom. It repudiates individualism. It exalts, it celebrates, it worships, "the state," the nation, as a body headed by a Supreme Leader.

It is close to fascism as it extols the lie as a "moral position" that "the state" - in our case the federal Government - is greater, and more important, than the sum of its parts - which for us is all of us - the American people.

It is the theory that we, American citizens, us as individuals, have a moral obligation to "serve" the state. It makes citizens subjects, servants, slaves, and robs us of our say as citizens as to how we want our country to conduct itself, to operate, to treat others, to exist in the world. Statism eliminates our say in the rule of our country by squashing our democracy.

Statist are modern day supporters of political slavery. They are secular "State-Worshipers." They are members of a sort of "Cult of the State."

The "Statist State" is an irrational, immoral, parasite government which leeches off the productive private sector at the point of a gun, while attempting to justify such behavior through invalid, unethical, altruistic arguments that say that we must support the government because it knows what's best for us. 

I see Obama as trying to use "Statist Law", which is nothing less than oppressive Presidential Directives, to intimidate Americans - all in an effort to "Rule" instead of "Govern".

Sure, some might think that I'm way off base and say that the Obama White House is not the power hungry beast that I see it as. Some might say that the president is not trying to bring Socialism or Statism, but instead is simply working to "better care for Americans".

But friends, caring for Americans is not the job of the Federal Government.

The Constitution of the United States is the law of the land. Our military, our police, our elected politicians, all take an oath, a solemn promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States - not the president or who ever else there is in Washington who thinks he's in charge.

The Constitution is our definer of what role the Federal Government has in our life.

The Constitution’s Preamble says that the Federal Government was established "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Federal Government.

They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives, those things which are the exclusive role of the Federal government are named in one of the following categories:

1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;

2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;

3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States;

4) Copyright protection;

5) Coining money;

6) Establishing post offices and post roads;

7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;

8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions - and just these essential functions!

That's it! That's all of it!

Those are the only prerogatives of the Federal Government. Understand that that means that those are really the only rights or privileges exclusive to the Federal Government. That is what it is there for. That is its role.

The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people - i.e. individual Americans.

Understand what that means. My friends, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any power not delegated to it by the States in the Constitution - as a result, the 50 States handle the majority of issues most relevant to individuals within their jurisdiction.

The Federal Government, ie: Congress and/or the President, is not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution - because their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.

Any more than what it states is a power grab! And yes, that's what I see the Obama administration doing right now. And yes, that's what I think they will try to do in the future if re-elected - grab power from the American people.

So if you've wondered what's the big deal about voting in this upcoming election? I can only say what I see, and I really see that American Freedom and Liberty is at stake.

We must stop those who would take our liberties from us in the exact same why as we would protect our loved ones from predators like Mountain Lions who prey on the weak.

We rid ourselves of them. Not through violence, but through the ballot box. The ballot box is America's great "equalizer" when it comes to taking care of those who want to deny us Freedom and Liberty. 

I see some, like Obama, as being inclined to exploit others for personal gain. They are predaceous, selfish predators, conditioned to take others for their own gain.

And yes, they need to go!


The television show Awake is ended!

There are not too many TV shows out there that take me by surprise. Most today are sort of predictable, mainly due to poor or lazy writing.

To me, sitcoms (situation comedies) are more and more pushing the envelope of what they can and can't say or get away with.

Today, many of the sitcoms really aren't family friendly. From just being stupid to just being crude and vulgar, most of today's so-called "comedies" are not very funny really.

It seems that many television writers go for the cheap trick, and like David Letterman, depend a great deal on artificial laughs and ques for their audiences. And yes, as I see it, the laugh track is invaluable to Hollywood these days.

It's probably because a lot of so-called comedy writers have forgotten how to be funny without being insulting, snide, demeaning, attacking, or just crass. I really believe that a dry snide sort of wit is being mistaken for being funny these days. It's as if the writers out there in the Entertainment Industry are just plain ignorant as to what is and what isn't funny.

As for CSI, and all of its spin-offs, I see that many are going back to the formula of better stories. I gather that most have realized that many viewers are just plain tired of technicians and multi-million dollar labs where the special effects gurus show flesh being separated as a knife enters layers of skin. Sorry, that's not entertainment.

Dramas target what is known as the "Human Condition."

The term "human condition" encompasses the unique and believed to be inescapable features of being human in a social, cultural, and personal context.

It can be described as the fundamental part of humanity that is inherent in all of us - yet not connected to factors such as gender, race, class, or religion. It is our foundation that all is built on.

Usually, the term "human condition" includes concerns such as the meaning of life, search for gratification, sense of curiosity, the inevitability of isolation, and even the fear of death - yes, a Hemingway favorite.

In colleges and universities, what is termed "the human condition" is studied in "Humanities" in fields such as the study of history, philosophy, literature, and the arts. All just to help us understand the nature of the "human condition" and the broader cultural and social arrangements that make up human lives.

The "human condition" is the subject of such fields of study as philosophy, theology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, to name a few. Some say that the philosophical school of existentialism deals with the ongoing search for ultimate meaning in the human condition.

Police dramas, Cop Shows, have always been great dramas in the best sense because they usually relate directly to the human condition by pointing to problems with people and society. Yes, they are supposed to focus on our character weaknesses and failings while also pointing out our strengths and valor and resilience.

Of course, in the old days, along with pointing out our sins and attributes, cop shows had morals attached to them - Life lessons of sorts. But hey, let's not try that today. Morals are frowned upon by today's Atheist Hollywood. Besides, we're now told that morals are passe'.

And yes, according to what's coming out of Hollywood these days, their message is pretty clear. They believe morality serves no purpose and has no place in today's world - which is to bad really.

Cop shows that have a good plot and suspense, a secondary story-line of faithfulness, camaraderie, respect, and trust, that sort of thing - well, they usually go pretty far in my book.

Then, every once in a great while, there will be a cop show that has it all and more - so much more that it makes me ask why can't there be more of this. The "this" that I'm talking about is a great story.

Two nights ago, I watched the finale of a cop show called "Awake."

The show was put together really well. And yes, I hate being one of those people who sits there and says "well that doesn't happen" and "that's Hollywood" - but I am. It's nice to see a television show that stops me from doing that, and then beats all my expectations at the end of the story.

And yes, because of its cancellation, Awake is done. But unlike many shows in the pass that all end the season unfinished, and then subsequently cancelled, Awake didn't do that.

By the way, the show Missing had a finale that left us viewers expecting more. The finale saw Ashley Judd's character finally reunited with her son and husband - but then only to disappear herself. And no, we will never know what happened because it was announced that Missing was cancelled and will not return.

It's as if someone has stolen a book to a story that we were in the middle of reading. And now, well now, we will never know how the story ends.

Awake centered on Michael Britten (played by Jason Isaacs), a Los Angeles police detective living in two realities after a car crash. In one, his wife Hannah Britten (played by Laura Allen) is alive, and the other his son Rex Britten (played by Dylan Minnette) is alive.

After catching bad guys and living in mental anguish, he bounces between each reality every time he wakes to do battle again and again.

In the finale, at the end, Britten begins to consider the possibility that he may have just been having a "normal" dream. In this case, a "normal" dream for a cop.

Britten appears confused as he sits talking with his shrink, she freezes and the office door creeps open to reveal Britten's bedroom. Britten walks through the door and shuts it.

Now standing in his bedroom in his pajamas, he is no longer dressed in a suit and his wrist is naked - no colored wristbands to help him identify which reality is which. Britten wanders through the house as if he's seeing it for the first time.

As he enters his kitchen, his son Rex walks in and joshes with his dad about sleeping late. Then Britten's jaw drops when his wife Hannah also walks into the room. When Rex and Hannah notice Michael's state of shock, they ask him if he's okay?

Michael replies, "I'm perfect " as his eyes well with tears.

Yes, it was all a bad dream. It was a cop's bad dream. It was how a cop would dream of his work or his duties or his procedures and so on. But it was more than that, it was also a husband and father's bad dream.

After watching him wake, and enter his kitchen, and him seeing his wife and son alive and well, I actually related to him for a moment.

Yes, Michael Britten was in shock - but I think it was also relief. And in fact, maybe he felt blessed at that moment. Yes, blessed!

To Michael Britten, it looked, tasted, and smelled of his reality as a cop, a husband, a dad. And I, I hate dreams that feel so much like reality. Yes, I can relate.

A young former Marine and poet once wrote in his poem Waiting For Dawn:

Wild dogs tease and tear
Flesh off the rabbit still in flight.

Not all nights are hunters,
Yet sleep makes some the hunted,
When nights are frothing dogs.

Tears move smoothing into crows-feet
Crevices as salt moistens his quivering lips.
Trembling to dispel the tart taste, 
Distant screams wrench open a dream:

Angry shadows grab and rip at a woman,
One draws his pistol and a shot Fills the night with a pink haze. 

Startled awake with a cold stench
Sweat hugging his body,
His reality snuffed by dawn.

The young former Marine and poet was me. And still today, I know that some nightmares don't end - they just keep coming back year after year as if a way to make one pay penance for things they've done.

So yes, Michael Britten played wonderfully by Jason Isaacs in Awake was blessed!

He was blessed in that his dream was just a dream and not his "true reality." Blessed because there are things that happen in a life that are hard to live with, but thankfully we do awake.

And yes, there are things that have made me, for one, wish to Almighty God that I would be so blessed as to awake to find that it was all just a bad dream - that all had never happened at all.

It would be so nice to Awake like that, and yes be so blessed! Too bad it only happens in the movies or on television. But even so, Awake was wonderfully done - and it will be missed!


Mississippi Marine's family rips school for making little brother hide Marine Corps logo

The mother of a 13-year-old boy said she's outraged that her son was banned from wearing a T-shirt in class that shows an anatomically correct U.S. Marine Corps bulldog.

Sandra Griffith, of Ellisville, Mississippi., said her son, Jordan, was was told by administrators at South Jones Elementary School to turn the shirt inside-out because the genitalia of the dog was deemed offensive.

"They said 'turn the shirt inside-out or go home and get a new one,'" Griffith told Fox News. "I was in complete shock."

The front of the USMC T-shirt shows the bulldog's face with the words: "If you are not the lead dog." The back of the shirt shows the dog's rear with true statement: "The view never changes."

Griffith said she was upset by the school's decision because the shirt was given to the boy by his older brother, Lance Cpl. Timothy Swann Jr., a member of 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines, who is serving in Afghanistan right now.

"He idolizes his brother," Griffith said. "The bond is very uncanny. If you want to talk about inappropriate and offensive, that was offensive to me."

School superintendent Tommy Parker was not immediately available when contacted Wednesday. In an interview with the the Marine Corps Times, he said the decision had nothing to do with the Marine Corps.

"We’re very pro-military," Parker told the newspaper. "We’re one of the most conservative places in the United States."

Griffith said she met with Parker, who she claims told her the decision was "up to the principal."

"The last thing the superintendent said to me was that he, personally, didn’t find it offensive and that no, it didn’t go against the dress code. However, he said it was a very gray area," Griffith said.

It's just sad that there are kids in school these days that wear things that are really offensive, yet because of some teacher's personal bias a kid has to be told to either turn it inside out - or leave school. And no, I don't believe it's because of anatomically correct U.S. Marine Corps bulldog. I believe it's just some school administrator with an authority problem. 


Missouri To Vote On "Right To Pray" Constitutional Amendment

This out of Kansas City, Missouri, Reuters is reporting that voters in the state of Missouri will decide on August 7th of this year whether to approve a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to pray in public places.

Governor Jay Nixon signed a proclamation on Wednesday setting the election on the amendment, which Missouri legislators voted overwhelmingly last year to put on the ballot in 2012.

If Governor Nixon did not sign the proclamation, the amendment would have automatically appeared on the November 6th general election ballot. For what seems like obvious political reasons, the Governor Nixon declined to say whether his signing of the proclamation meant the governor supported the measure or not.

While the U.S. Constitution protects the right to pray in public places, supporters of the Missouri ballot issue want to clarify those rights. There reasoning is sound since religion has been under constant attack for years now.

In House committee testimony last year, supporters said there is increasing ignorance about religious expression. Under the amendment, public prayer would be allowed as long as it did not disturb the peace or disrupt a public assembly.

The Missouri amendment re-affirms that students can pray privately in public school, but it would not allow the schools to hold class prayers. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that school-initiated prayer amounted to establishing religion in public schools in violation of the Constitution.

Under the Missouri amendment, students could not "be compelled to perform or participate in any education assignments or presentations" that violate their religious beliefs.

The prayer amendment passed 126-30 in the Missouri House and 34-0 in the Senate. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans. Governor Nixon is a Democrat and former attorney general, so it's no wonder that he didn't want to come in support of this amendment.

Opponents testified that the amendment adds nothing to existing law and may invite litigation. But of course they do, considering they are probably the Atheists who want all religion eliminated. Besides, they are most likely the very people who will most likely be bringing on the threatened litigation.

Atheists today hide behind the idea that America is a secular society.

A secular society is a society that runs on a non-religious basis. In other words, legislators and government officials are generally forbidden from imposing laws or policies with the intent of furthering a particular religious agenda. Also, religious considerations do not overrule the civil legal structure. Overall the legal, legislative, and administrative processes in a secular society operate independently of any religious beliefs whatsoever.

The problem is that Atheists use the concept of a secular society to actively be anti-religious. It's not enough for them that there is an unwritten agreement to maintain a separation between religious establishments and civil institutions. They see the concept of a secular society as being a weapon to attack religion.

Instead of having a society better equipped to protect the equality and freedom of all religions, because no single faith is given a primacy of influence in the structure of the society, Atheists wage war on religion - especially Christians at every opportunity.

Atheists see no need for a moral compass. They disguise themselves as "Secularist" and reject all forms of religious faith and worship. Their view is that that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

Of course, they have a problem with documents like the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States which have many Judeo-Christian teachings embodied in them.

Writer Ronald R. Cherry put it this way in his article Judeo-Christian Values of America:

Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American Social Justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and secular traditions and laws of Old Europe.

Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."

Yes, it just irks them that America is built upon concepts of the Christian religion. And yes, they will point out that Thomas Jefferson believed in the so-called "separation between church and state" - which of course does not come from the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. 

Yet they will not repeat Thomas Jefferson's warning, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" 

I really believe that Atheists in America would love to see an America which outlaws religion and adheres to the Communist concept that religion is the enemy of all mankind.

Though I hate their attacks on Christians, I sometimes feel sorry for the Godless bastards that they are!

And that's how I see things from my saddle!

Story by Tom Correa