Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

Thursday, July 30, 2015

The 20th Annual Bay Area Aloha Festival




AUGUST 1 & 2, 2015
SATURDAY & SUNDAY
10am-5pm
 
San Mateo County Event Center
1346 Saratoga Drive
San Mateo, California

Who would have thought it has been 20 years? But it's true, this year Pacific Islanders’ Cultural Association (PICA) is celebrating its 20th Anniversary.

When PICA held its first event at Crissy Field in San Francisco in July of 1995, it was to welcome the Hokule’a voyaging canoe to our California shores.

PICA was a fledging organization established to bring the Pacific islanders’ together in a joint effort to promote the cultures of Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia.  And with your support, PICA has come a long way in accomplishing that goal.

As for academic scholarships awarded every year at our annual festival?

Since 2004, the Pacific Islanders' Cultural Association (PICA) has awarded $52,000 to students who have shown a desire to further their education. Qualified Pacific Islander students who are either starting or continuing college or professional/trade school studies are encouraged to strive for the highest and not settle for less.


PICA has also chosen to offer grants or sponsorships to organizations that show an effort to follow the guidelines that we have developed to perpetuate the Pacific Islander cultures which we represent. Toward that effort, in 2014 alone, we awarded an additional $17,000 in grants to worthy organizations.

While most of the information above was taken directly from the PICA website, I can attest to this simply because I have been a part of PICA for 19 years.

All of us who are affiliated with Pacific Islanders' Cultural Association are volunteers. Yes, it's true, the wonderful people who make the Bay Area Aloha Festival a success each year are all volunteers.

The Bay Area Aloha Festival is a free, two-day ethnic arts festival celebrating Pacific Islander culture. Each year thousands of islanders and islanders-at-heart gather to celebrate the culture through music, hula, arts and crafts, authentic island food, and educational workshops.

The Bay Area Aloha Festival is held during the first full weekend in August. If August 1st falls on a Sunday, then the festival is held the following weekend.

This year the festival falls on August 1-2, 2015 (Saturday & Sunday), 10:00am – 5:00pm,

It is being held at the San Mateo County Event Center (SMCEC), 1346 Saratoga Drive, San Mateo, CA 94403. This is the same location as Aloha Festival 2014.

In an attempt to keep our event affordable for families, many of whom already find the high cost of living in the Bay Area a challenge, the Bay Area Aloha Festival still has a free admission policy.

Of course, we have no control of the paid parking which is available for $10.00 per vehicle.

For me, as the head of security for PICA for 19 years of the 20, I can say without hesitation that it has been a pleasure to be part of such a great organization and encourage all to come out and enjoy the weekend.

Come out and become part of our Ohana, our family, for the weekend. You will find that it is always an enjoyable experience. And yes, you may even find out why some have said it is like taking a trip to Hawaii without the flight, the hotel, or the rental car.

Aloha nui loa, a hui hou!

Tom Correa






Tuesday, July 14, 2015

A Truly Inspirational Woman -- Michelle Wood

It's not every day that I meet someone who just impresses me to no end.

On July 7th, after an appointment at the VA Hospital in Sacramento, I had the chance to meet such a person.

Her name is Michelle Wood and she works at the VA Hospital as a volunteer a couple of days a week.

Yes, she works there as a volunteer. She is very polite and personable and pleasant with all of the vets there. And from what I saw while there, she takes a real interest in helping those needing it.

Now vets who go to the VA can verify the fact that the volunteers are not usually younger folks. Frankly, they are all closer to my age or older. Yes, 60 plus.

Michelle is probably in her very early 30s. And yes, other than the fact that she is a pretty gal, I think that's what caught my attention to her more than anything else.  I'm used to seeing gray haired Vietnam vets behind the volunteer counter.

Seeing Michelle there was a welcome surprise because she is so young. But with the surprise, my curiosity peaked. It peaked because I don't see younger people volunteering very much these days, especially at a Veterans hospital.

So as I do in many other situations,  I asked her questions to relieve my curiosity. And no, as anyone who knows me can tell you -- I ask people all sorts of things.

And for the record, while my asking personal questions used to irritate my mother-in-law, she now understands that my grandfather was right about people when he said that 1) people like talking about themselves and 2) people love when others are interested in their life.

I found out she has been volunteering at the VA there at Mather Field in Sacramento for a while. Since I wasn't taking notes, and my memory is getting worse, I believe she said she has been volunteering there for well over a year.

Since volunteering is really important to me simply because I believe it is a win/win situation. I believe that a person volunteering usually gets a good feeling out of contributing to their community, and the organization being helped makes out in all sorts of ways including getting great help at a great price.

So yes, it was nice to see that she does it for herself as a way of giving back to her community. But talking with her a while,  you realize quickly that she is also giving back to our nation and feels great about helping veterans.

While talking with her, I told her that it was great to see someone younger volunteer and then I gave her a card to my blog saying that I may write something about her.

Yes, I have business cards. And no, it doesn't say Have Gun Will Travel.

After handing her my card, I was surprised that she handed me her business card in return. She has her own business as a Notory Public.

While I  really do like to find inspirational stories of people who have it together and helping others, I seem to end up writing more about current events than I do about people who are truly inspirational.

In this case, few people have impressed me lately as much as she has. You see, there is a great deal more to Michelle Wood than just a pleasant personality and youthful attractiveness.

Fact is, as our conversation trailed off into other parts of her life, I found out that the youngest of her two sons, Dalton, has Leukemia and is an Honoree at the Light The Night Walk fundraising campaign of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS).

The organization's website says:

"Light The Night Walk is a fundraising campaign of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) which brings together families and communities to honor blood cancer survivors, as well as those lost to the diseases, and shine a light on the importance of finding cures and providing access to treatments for blood cancer patients."

The Lymphoma Society (LLS) website describes her son Dalton Wood as follows:


"Following a camping trip in September 2013, Dalton's mom noticed that he was tired and lacked his normal curiosity and exuberance. 

Two weeks later, he was diagnosed with pre-B acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Today, Dalton is four years old and loves Power Ranges, puppies, and sports. 

Despite a few minor setbacks, he is doing great and continues to be an inspiration to us all!

Dalton's mom, Michelle, reminds us that we don't know what tomorrow holds, so we should enjoy the beauty of today and the precious moments it holds."


Michelle told me that September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month and their ribbon color is gold. She also told me,

On November 7th, 2015, a Light The Night Walk will be held at Raley Field in Sacramento at 6:00 pm

It is a Saturday and for people in the Sacramento area, this is an event that truly benefits those fighting for their lives. Support is appreciated.

I told her that I would try to get the word out if I could. This is my attempt to do just that.

Yes, listening to this mother of two talk about Leukemia, one can tell that she has had to learn a great deal about this cancer in a short time. And frankly, her quick learning has paid off in the respect that she is guarded when taking Dalton to a conventional Emergency Room which may have very little experience with dealing Leukemia patients. That is important because Leukemia patients have a whole different set of issues that need to be looked at before any treatment can be administered.

I know real well that she is not the only parent who is going through this, but I'm sure you can see why I'm so impressed with Michelle Wood.

How could one not be impressed over the fact that while she has her own business as a Notary Public trying to make ends meet, and yet she still finds time to volunteer at the VA hospital in Sacramento. And yes, all while being a single Mom raising two sons on her own -- and caring for Dalton who has Leukemia.

Friends, I know people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time nevertheless jungle life the way she does! I know a couple that can't do what this single mother is doing and there are two of them.

So yes, add what she does to the fact that she makes sure her oldest son does not feel neglected, and you can see why I find her so inspirational. To me, she is a wonderful mom, a great lady, a truly outstanding example for others.

May the good Lord bless her and her sons. May she find solace in knowing that while she is doing the hard work, that it is not for nothing because she stands as a great example of goodness in people.

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

Tom Correa

Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part Four


Picking this story from Part Three, we join this last part of the series on the Democrat Party's legacy of racism and segregation to talk about how many black-Americans today refuse to acknowledge that it has been Republicans who have tried to make them less dependent on the Federal Government.

It has been the Republican Party who in reality has tried to make them equal, independent, and economically successful. And who were Republicans? You know, those who the New Black Panther Party calls "boot-licking Uncle Toms"?

Why are such black men as Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain, who will not pledge loyalty to the Democrat Party, attacked in the liberal media today? It is because the Democrats have traditionally been a racist party that is overtly contemptuous and hostile to poor and working people."

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 Justice 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 Republican men and women, "Boot-licking Uncle Toms" and "Aunt Jemimas"?

Frederick Douglass, abolitionist, editor, orator, author, Republican statesman was not. How about Booker T. Washington, civil rights activist, educator, author, Republican, adviser to Republican presidents? Was he what Democrats would call an "Uncle Tom"?

I take great pleasure in educating racists like New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Whoopi Goldberg, and John Lewis. And yes, don't kid yourself, black people can also be racist.

I enjoy showing them them those above, and yes, after looking over the above list of the First Black American Senator and Representatives, I couldn't find one "Boot-licking 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 in America are "Boot-licking 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.And certainly, Condoleezza Rice is not some "Aunt Jamima" - though Democrats have tried to paint her as some sort of traitor to her race. 

Condoleezza Rice is 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). She was President Bush's National Security Adviser 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.

The Republican Party was founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers. They quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas.

Democrats wanted slavery spread throughout the nation, but the Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin.

By 1858, the Republicans dominated nearly all Northern states. The Republican Party first came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency. That same years, the Republicans took control of Congress.

The Republican Party oversaw the saving of the union, the end of slavery, and enabled the provision of equal rights to all men in the American Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861-1877.

Early Republican ideology was reflected in the 1856 slogan, "Free Labor, Free Land, Free Men", which had been coined by Salmon P. Chase, a Senator from Ohio (and future Secretary of the Treasury and Chief Justice of the United States).

"Free labor" referred to the Republican opposition to Democrat control of slave labor. They believe, as they still do, in independence for craftsman and businessmen.

"Free land" referred to Republican opposition to plantation system whereby the rich could buy up all the good farm land and work it with slaves, leaving the yeoman independent farmers the leftovers. The Party strived to contain the expansion of slavery, which would cause the collapse of the slave power and the expansion of freedom.

Lincoln won the Republican nomination in 1860, and subsequently won the presidency. The party took on the mission of saving the Union and destroying slavery during the American Civil War. In the election of 1864, it united with pro-war Democrats to nominate Lincoln on the National Union Party ticket.

The party's success created factionalism within the party in the 1870s. Radical Republicans (neoconservatives) waged war on behalf of freed slaves, while Liberal Republicans sided with the Democrats who were gaining political control of the South.

Republicans strongly opposed slavery during the Civil War. After the war, they distrusted ex-Confederates, and demanded harsh policies for the former rebels - while at the same time emphasizing civil rights and voting rights for Freedmen (recently freed slaves). These Republicans ruled the Republican Party. They pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay loyal owners.

After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed-men, such as measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the Reconstruction Acts, and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederates.

They bitterly fought Republican President Andrew Johnson. They weakened his powers and almost removed him from office through impeachment. And yes, they were vigorously opposed by the Democratic Party and moderate and Liberal Republicans as well.

After the 1866 elections, these Republicans generally controlled Congress. 

President Andrew Johnson vetoed 21 bills passed by Congress during his term, but strong anti-segregationist Republicans overrode 15 of them. They passed the Reconstruction Acts and Force Acts, which rewrote the election laws for the South and allowed blacks to vote, while prohibiting most leading whites from holding office, if they had supported the Confederacy.

That's right, the first Voting Rights and Anti-Segregation acts for black-Americans were in fact passed by Republicans in the 1870s - almost 100 years before the famous 1964 Civil Right Act .

The Force Acts passed by the Congress of the United States shortly after the American Civil War helped protect the voting rights of African-Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 is sometimes included with the three Acts passed in 1870–71 when referring to the Force Acts.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler (both Republicans) in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant on March 1, 1875.[1]

The Act guaranteed that every person, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement). Imagine that!

If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison. However, the law was rarely enforced, especially after the 1876 presidential election and the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. And yes, once the Democrat had political control of the South, they kept segregation going for almost the next 100 years.

Finally, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional on the basis that although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.

Many of the Republican's Civil Right Act of 1875 contained provisions which were later enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, this time using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

During the Reconstruction period, Democrats had steadily assumed political power in the South. So much power in fact, that by the end of the Reconstruction Era in 1877, Democrats had complete political control of the South.

With that control, the Democrat Party's insisted on keeping the Jim Crow laws in effect.

Of course, black American who could vote generally supported Republican Presidential candidates - after all this was the party of Abraham Lincoln.

There were also other reasons, first: as a result of 1867-68 elections, the newly empowered freedmen joined together to form a coalition with Carpetbaggers (a term used for Northerners who had recently moved south) and Scalawags (a term used for white Southerners who supported Reconstruction), and they set up Republican governments in 10 Southern states (all but Virginia).

They were supported by the Radicals in Washington who sent in the Army to support the new state governments. And the second reason goes to the terror of racism, it goes to the heart of what controlled segregation in the South. The Republican Party has been a stanch enemy of the Ku Klux Klan, which historically had been the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.

In the South, many black Americans remembered the abuses and the terror inflicted upon them from Democrats and their un-official militias like the White League, the Red Shirts, and the Ku Klux Klan. They remembered who persecuted them, and they overwhelmingly voted for Republicans. In fact, blacks were so pro-Republican that even Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal failed to completely break the bond between Blacks and the Republicans.

And later, Dwight D Eisenhower received strong support from Black voters in 1952 and 1956. But, then came the 1960 election and John F. Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy was not a strong civil rights supporter before or even during most of his presidency, but he did make a special and emotional appeal to the Black community by telephoning Coretta Scott King after her husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King, had been jailed.

Fact is Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights but the truth is different than the legend. In fact, John Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator - and he opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King.

Lyndon B. Johnson is known to have said, “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now [voting rights] they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness.”

President Johnson felt he had to give blacks something but as he put it, “…a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference.”

Lyndon B Johnson went on to say: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Unfortunately, the truth is, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were not very fond of Blacks specifically— they were just very fond of votes. It worked to help Kennedy carry a majority of black votes.

Republicans in the 87th Congress were determined to get the Black vote back in the Republican column. It was they, under the leadership of Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Il.), who drafted a very extensive Civil Rights Bill which became the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It is easy to forget that not only were there Southern Democrats back then who opposed the kind of legislation that Kennedy proposed, but they also had Northern Democrats who did not want to stop segregation. For example, the were Northern Democrats such as Frank Lausche (D-OH.), Alan Bible (D-NV), and Mike Monroney (D-OK), were against ending segregation.

When President John F Kennedy was killed, Lyndon Johnson, a Texan and a Southerner, used Kennedy's death to push for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill in his name. It is interesting to note that as a Senator, Lyndon Johnson was not a signer of the Southern Manifesto.

President Kennedy's death did in fact bring in a few more Democrats over to the right side of history, but it was not nearly enough to break a filibuster - which back then required only 26 Senators to be successful.

It was the Republicans, with Senator Dirksen leading the charge, who helped to vote cloture, end the filibuster and pass the bill. Without the help of Republicans, the Omnibus Civil Rights Bill would have been in the ash bin of history.

Friends, as shameful as this all is, this is all just real factual history. This is history that the Democrat Party doesn't want us to know! And yes, that's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa







Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part Three



The picture above includes 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. They were the First Black American Senators and Representatives to the Untied States Congress. Yes, they were all Republicans.

Picking up where we left off from Part Two, today Democrat racist Richard Brevard Russell, Jr. has a building in Washington D.C. named after him. No kidding!
Richard Brevard Russell, Jr. was from Georgia, belonged to the Democratic Party, briefly served as Governor of Georgia from 1931 to 1933, and then served in the United States Senate for almost 40 years, from 1933 until his death in 1971.

As a Senator, believe it or not, he was a candidate for President of the United States in the 1952 Democratic National Convention, coming in second to Adlai Stevenson. Senator Russell was a Democrat Party leader who dominated Congress from 1937 to 1963, and at his death was the most senior member of the Senate.

He was for decades a leader of Southern opposition to the civil rights movement. He was a racist pure and simple. He believed that blacks should not have equal rights. Russell opposed civil rights laws "as unconstitutional and unwise." He vehemently defended white supremacy and apparently did not question it or ever apologize for his segregationist views, votes and speeches.

For many decades, Russell was key in blocking civil rights legislation that might have protected African-Americans from lynching, disenfranchisement, and disparate treatment under the law.

After President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Russell, along with more than a dozen other Southern Senators, including Herman Talmadge and Russell Long, boycotted the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City.

The Russell Senate Office Building was named for former Senator Richard Brevard Russell, Jr. of Georgia in 1972. It seems that Russell being a bigot, a racist, a white supremacist, doesn't matter - Democrats honor their own no matter how horrible they were.

But how about naming a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier after an old hardcore racist?

That's exactly what they did for John C. Stennis who was a Democrat U.S. Senator from the state of Mississippi. He was a Democrat who served in the Senate for over 41 years, becoming its most senior member by his retirement.

Stennis was an ardent supporter of racial segregation, like most Mississippi politicians.

In the 1950s and 1960s he vigorously opposed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and he signed the Southern Manifesto of 1956, supporting the Democrat filibuster tactics to block or delay passage of all civil rights cases.

Before Congress, as a prosecutor, Stennis sought the conviction and execution of three black sharecroppers whose murder confessions had been extracted by torture, including flogging.

The convictions were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Brown v. Mississippi (1936) that banned the use of evidence obtained by torture. The transcript of the trial indicated that John C. Stennis was fully aware that the suspects had been tortured. And no, it didn't effect his career or his conscience.

And of course, what would mentioning Stennis be without mentioning his cohort racist Democrat James Oliver Eastland from Mississippi who briefly served in the United States Senate in 1941 - and again from 1943 until his resignation December 27, 1978.

Eastland is best known for his strong opposition to the civil rights movement.

When the Supreme Court issued its decision in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 347 US 483 (1954), Eastland, like most Democrats, denounced it.

In a speech given in Senatobia, Mississippi on August 12, 1955, he said: "On May 17, 1954, the Constitution of the United States was destroyed because of the Supreme Court's decision. You are not obliged to obey the decisions of any court which are plainly fraudulent sociological considerations."

Eastland did not mince words when it came to his feelings about the races mingling. He testified to the Senate 10 days after the Brown decision came down:

"The Southern institution of racial segregation or racial separation was the correct, self-evident truth which arose from the chaos and confusion of the Reconstruction period. Separation promotes racial harmony. It permits each race to follow its own pursuits, and its own civilization. Segregation is not discrimination...

Mr. President, it is the law of nature, it is the law of God, that every race has both the right and the duty to perpetuate itself. All free men have the right to associate exclusively with members of their own race, free from governmental interference, if they so desire."

In March of 1956, he and a whole lot of other Democrats signed something called the Southern Manifesto. It was officially called "The Declaration of Constitutional Principles," known informally as the Southern Manifesto.

It was a document written in February and March of 1956, in the United States Congress, in opposition to racial integration of public places. The manifesto was signed by 97 Democrats from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

The Congressmen drafted the document to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which determined that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional.

Senators led the opposition, with then Democrat Strom Thurmond writing the initial draft and none other than Richard Russell -- who they named the Senate Building after -- did the final version.

The manifesto was signed by 19 Senators and 82 Representatives, including the entire congressional delegations of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. All of the 99 signatories were Democrats except for two Republicans, Joel Broyhill and Richard Poff of Virginia.

School segregation laws were some of the most enduring and best-known of the Jim Crow laws that characterized the American South and several northern states at the time.  The Southern Manifesto accused the Supreme Court of "clear abuse of judicial power."

It promised to use "all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation." The Manifesto suggested that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution should limit the reach of the Supreme Court on such issues.

In many southern States, signing was much more common than not signing. Refusal to sign occurred most prominently among the Texas and Tennessee delegations, where the majority of members of the United States House of Representatives refused to sign.

Tese people were ardent racist, many of whom stood by their oath to the Southern Manifesto when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came about.

As for Democrat Senator James Eastland, when three civil rights workers Mickey Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman went missing in Mississippi on June 21, 1964, he reportedly told President Lyndon Johnson that the incident was a hoax and there was no Ku Klux Klan in the state, surmising that the three had gone to Chicago.

President Lyndon Johnson once said that, "Jim Eastland could be standing right in the middle of the worst Mississippi flood ever known, and he'd say the niggers caused it, helped out by the Communists."

Eastland, like most of his southern Democrat colleagues, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

So now let's talk about Senator Robert Byrd, the man who Hillary Clinton called her "Mentor".

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, takes us to Senator Robert C. Byrd from West Virginia. A member of the Democratic Party, Byrd served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959 and as a U.S. Senator from 1959 to 2010. He was the longest-serving senator and the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress. 

But no, that wasn't his only accolade. Fact is, Democrat Byrd was a Ku Klux Klan member, a man who never ever apologized for his being a Ku Klux Klan Recruiter and racist Draft Dodger during World War II.

In the early 1940s, Robert Byrd recruited 150 or more men to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. Not just join, but he recruited them to create a chapter that did not exist. When World War II broke out, Byrd was 24 years old. During that time, both younger and older men were enlisting to get into the war and do their part for America. But no, not Robert Byrd.

At an age where other young men were going in the military to fight for Uncle Sam, Robert Byrd got some sort of diferment and held the Klu Klux Klan titles of "Kleagle" (recruiter) and then later "Exalted Cyclops."

Yes, believe it or not, he was a Klan Recruiter and than leader of the Klan. In fact, he was such a popular Klansmen that when it came time to elect the "Exalted Cyclops", the top officer in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.

When it looked like his Klan connections wouldn't be able to keep him out of the U.S. Army, Byrd wrote to that old champion of white supremacy segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo to help him avoid the Draft Board.

Robert Byrd wrote: "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Yes, that was Robert C. Byrd in a letter to white supremacist Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) in 1944. He followed up that in 1947, when Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating: "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

Later when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he promptly lied about his Klan connections saying, "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."

Later he tried to get people to believe that he joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist. But Byrd himself, once openly admitted to being in the Ku Klu Klan even in his 30s.

Fact is that his mentor, Senator Theodore Bilbo put it better than any known Klansmen at the time when he said: "No man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."

Byrd demonstrated his loyalty to the Ku Klux Klan when he joined with other Democrat Senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours.

Democrat President Johnson signed the bill into law. But it was not because of Democrat, it was because President Johnson got almost all of the Republicans to vote for it.

President Johnson got just enough Democrats from the Northern states to fill the ranks and pass the bill. But the fact remains, that without the Republicans the bill would have died because of the Democrat filibuster.

Yes, on June 10, 1964, the Democrat Filibuster of the Civil Rights Act ended. A Bill that would contain provisions that were first laid out in the Republican Civil Rights Bill of 1875.

It was at 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays.

As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.

Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition to the Civil Rights Bill.

Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence.

He noted that that day marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come."

Republican Sen. Dirksen continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a Democrat filibuster on a Civil Rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

The clerk proceeded to call the roll. It got to Republican John James "Whispering Willie" Williams. He was a businessman in Millsboro, in Sussex County, Delaware. He was a Republican, who served four terms as U.S. Senator from Delaware.

John Williams provided the decisive 67th vote, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield exclaimed, "That's it!"

Ardent racist Richard Russell slumped in his chair.

With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of the 20th century's towering legislative achievements.

Democrats, and of course today's media talking heads like Chris Matthews, really prefer that you not know about Republicans like George Holden Tinkham of Massachusetts who became known as “the conscience of the House” for his efforts to protect voting rights for blacks.

The Role Of Republicans In Black-American Civil Rights

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 that the majority of blacks in America today have no knowledge of went occurred, our history, in pre and post Civil War America. The fact that Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan, the terror and the lynchings of blacks and Republicans and Catholics were a direct result of the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, the Red Shirts and others who were indeed a product of the Democrats is conveniently forgotten today.

It was a Republican President by the name of Dwight D.Eisenhower who declared racial discrimination "a national security issue," as Communists around the world used the racial discrimination and history of violence in the U.S. as a point in their propaganda attacks.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, that segregated schools were unconstitutional, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children.

He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. The 1957 Civil Rights Act for the first time established a permanent civil rights office inside the Justice Department and a Civil Rights Commission to hear testimony about abuses of voting rights.

Granted both acts were much weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, but they were in fact constituted the first significant attempts at producing Civil Rights Acts since since the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1875.

In 1957, the state of Arkansas refused to honor a federal court order to integrate their public school system stemming from the Brown decision. Eisenhower demanded that Arkansas governor Orval Faubus obey the court order.

When Faubus balked, President Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sent in the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to make sure black-Americans were being treated right.

They escorted and protected nine black students' entry to Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school, for the first time since the Reconstruction Era. And yes, Republicans did that.

Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote to Eisenhower to thank him for his actions, writing "The overwhelming majority of southerners, Negro and white, stand firmly behind your resolute action to restore law and order in Little Rock".

It seems that Democrats today, liberal whites and blacks, forget or refuse to hear who voted for and who was in reality against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those who signed the Democrat Southern manifesto were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in fact they filibustered in an attempt to stop blacks from having equal rights.

It is a fact that Democrats have traditionally fought against Civil Rights Act for black Americans starting way back in the 1860s. In fact if it weren't for Republicans who were founded as an anti-Slavery Political Party, none of the Civil Rights Acts would not have been passed.

And while Democrats today attempt to spin the truth all they want, including now making the horseshit assertion that somehow by magic the Republican Party today is actually the Democrat Party of yesterday, the truth is that Republicans have fought for minorities in America. And yes, longer than the Democrat Party ever has. And friends, the Democrat Party is much older than the Republican Party by decades!

For PART FOUR of the history of the Democrat Party's Legacy of Racism & Segregation, their efforts to discriminate, and fight against Equal Rights and even Women's Rights, click here:

Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part Four

Tom Correa

Monday, July 13, 2015

Keeping It Simple -- My Pet Peeves

By Terry McGahey

It seems to me that in this day and age many people, young and old, have lost their common sense of respect, and decency toward others.

If we are to heal the woes of this country, we must first work on ourselves.

Below I've listed some of my own pet peeves, see if you agree with me or not.

Rudeness

Many people today seem to live in their own little world, not paying any attention to others which brings out rude behavior, no matter if it's intentional or not.

Just take a breath and pay a little more attention to others around you, that's all it takes. Should someone hold a door open for you at least say thank you.

If you are the person opening the door and someone is right behind you, hold it until they can reach it, that's only common decency and it only takes a few seconds.

I held the door for a lady one time going into a restaurant and her reply was, "I can get my own door".

All I did was to shake my head and tell her, "excuse the hell out of me!"

No reason for it!

Driving

When setting at a red light, and traffic is lined up heavily behind you, if someone is pulling out of a driveway or business, what does it hurt to let them out in front of you?

It will only cost you a few seconds to do so, but I have seen many people hurry to get up to the next car so they can't pull out. Why, what do you think you are gaining?

Another one which relates to the same thing is, when driving down a road that is two lanes each way, and someone is again trying to pull out, unless the traffic is heavy behind you, what is the big chore in changing lanes to let them out?

It's only courtesy to do so and it doesn't cost you a thing.

One other thing, people who continuously drive late to work and are speeding to get there on time. You might be doing the speed limit or a little over, but they ride your bumper.

Leave for work a few minutes earlier for heaven sakes!

Spoiled Kids

Many parents today let their kids run wild in stores, or scream and holler because they didn't get what they wanted.

Be aware, people don't want to hear a screaming kid while shopping. If you can't control your kids, don't take them out in public until you can control them because it's your fault they are getting away with it.

It seems that many parents today think that it's okay to let the child be themselves, or so they call it, not realizing they are raising poor citizens.

Spoiling your children is not doing them any favors because when they hit the working world, reality is going to hit them in the face when they realize the world does not revolve around them.

Cussing

I am sick and tired of hearing people use the "F" word like it is a noun or a verb. This is a complete lack of respect for others and only makes the person who does this appear as being a low life. You may not be a low life, but that's how many people within hearing distance will judge you.

Several times while in a restaurant I have had to ask people if they would please hold down the language, my wife doesn't deserve to hear that kind of talk.

Keep it in the bar, that still don't make it right, but it's more expected there.

Men, try to watch yourself around women and kids. Women who cuss like sailors, at least try not to do that around kids, and both sexes should try not to use it so much in public places.

You only show your lack of decency and respect for others while making an ass of yourself. It seems like more and more, the people who want respect the most, give respect the least.



Friday, July 10, 2015

"Wild Bill" Hickok & "Rattlesnake Pete" Lanahan

In the summer of 1869, James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok was elected as interim County Sheriff of Ellis County, Kansas. The county seat is Hays City. Hays City is said to have been a rough town, and Hickok was more than willing to use his six-guns to keep things under control.

Hickok was elected city marshal of Hays and sheriff of Ellis County, Kansas, in a special election held on August 23rd, 1869. Three sheriffs had quit during the previous 18 months.

In August, 1869, Hickok killed Bill Mulvey in a gunfight. The following month he shot local gunfighter Samuel Strawhun dead after he drew on Hickok in Bittles Saloon. 

The account below is the statement of Miguel Otero who witnessed Wild Bill Hickok's killing of Bill Mulvey. Otero said:

"I was an eye-witness to Wild Bill's encounter with Bill Mulvey, and shall relate the details as they linger in my mind. I was standing near Wild Bill on Main Street, when someone began 'shooting up the town' at the eastern end of the street. It was Bill Mulvey, a notorious murderer from Missouri, known as a handy man with a gun. He had just enough red liquor in him to be mean and he seemed to derive great amusement from shooting holes into the mirrors, as well as the bottles of liquor behind the bars, of the saloons in that section of the street. 

As was usually the case with such fellows, he was looking for trouble, and when someone told him that Wild Bill was the town marshal and therefore it behooved him to behave himself, Mulvey swore that he would find Wild Bill and shoot him on sight. He further averred that the marshal was the very man he was looking for and that he had come to the 'damn' town' for the express purpose of killing him.

The tenor of these remarks was somehow made known to Wild Bill. But hardly had the news reached him than Mulvey appeared on the scene, tearing toward us on his iron-grey horse, rifle in hand, full cocked. When Wild Bill saw Mulvey he walked out to meet him, apparently waving his hand to some fellows behind Mulvey and calling to them: 'Don't shoot him in the back; he is drunk.'

Mulvey stopped his horse and, wheeling the animal about, drew a bead on his rifle in the direction of the imaginary man he thought Wild Bill was addressing. But before he realized the ruse that had been played upon him, Wild Bill had aimed his six-shooter and fired-just once. Mulvey dropped from his horse - dead, the bullet having penetrated his temple and then passed through his head." 

As for the killing of gunfighter Samuel Strawhun, it's said that Strawhun was a gunfighter and an outlaw who returned to Hays City on September 26th, 1869.

Upon his arrival, he entered Bittle's Saloon with about eighteen cowboys, old friends, and soon they began to shoot up the place. Bittle fearing that they would destroy his place sent for Hickok, and when Hickok arrived all were outside loud and drunk. And yes, shooting at the moon.

The only good thing about drunks shooting at the moon is that sooner or later they do run out of ammunition. Unless of course you are not shooting and just waiting for a chance to enhance your reputation -- say by killing the famous "Wild Bill" Hickok.

It was situations like this that make me skeptical about the yarn that John Wesley Hardin spun about Wild Bill allowing Hardin to draw on him and  he supposedly just stood there and did nothing. But then again, it was only the word of John Wesley Hardin that we have to go on. And frankly, I'm not in the habit of believing psychopaths like Hardin. 

As for Samuel Strawhun wanting to make a bigger name for himself? Well, witnesses stated that Wild Bill acted as though he had ignored Strawhun's threat that "I shall kill someone tonight just for luck!"

Hickok supposedly simply collected several beer glasses from the drunken cowboys and took them back to the saloon. Strawhun made the mistake of followed Hickok into the saloon. One witness said that as Hickok stood at the bar, staring into a mirror, Strawhun threatened to break every glass in the place. Wild Bill's response was a firm but simple, "Do, and they will carry you out!"

Hickok used the bar mirror to watch Strawhun's movements, and when the gunman stepped behind him and reached for his pistol -- Hickok spun around with gun already in hand and fired twice before Strawhun cleared leather. Samuel Strawhun was said to be dead before he hit the floor.

Though both were deemed self-defense, the killings were enough for the good people of Hays City to became concerned by Hickok's behavior. Fact is many in Hays City  were less than impressed that after only five weeks in office, Hickok had found it necessary to kill two men in the name of preserving peace and maintaining law and order. 

During the November election later that year, the people of Hays City expressed their displeasure. Hickok lost to his deputy Peter R. "Rattlesnake Pete" Lanahan, 144-89. So yes, to answer a question put to me by a reader, "Wild Bill" Hickok's first law enforcement position only lasted three months.

It sort of reminds me of what is taking place these days with the press and politicians forsaking peace officers and taking the side of assailants and would-be murderers. It makes me wonder if those folks back in 1869 would have appreciated a dead sheriff instead of dead bad guys?

Seems sort of harsh you say? Well, how about looking at what happened there after Wild Bill left town. Yes, the rest of the story that no one seems to talk about. Historians seem to jump from Hickok losing the election and leaving town to his return in July in 1870 when he had his fight with the 7th Calvary troopers. But there is more to what took place after defeating Hickok in the election.

That all has to do with when Peter "Rattlesnake Pete" Lanahan assumed his new position as County Sheriff in January 1870 after Wild Bill moved on. You see some of the rowdy crowd of Hays City were none to happy at the replacement and soon began to plot his assassination.

Fact is "Rattlesnake Pete" Lanahan was marked for death as soon as he replaced Hickok. And no, it didn't take long for the scum to pull off their vicious plot.

It was on the night of July 16th, 1871, that several of those back-shooting assassins started a fight in Henry “Dog” Kelley’s saloon to lure Sheriff Lanahan into their trap. As most lawmen do, with honor and bravery, the Sheriff went running in the fray to stop it.

When Sheriff Lanahan arrived and attempted to stop the supposed violence, he was shot twice in the chest and left mortally wounded. The Sheriff was then taken to his quarters in the court house and tended to by a doctor, but he died a couple of days later. 

If there was one comfort that Sheriff Lanahan may have had before he died, it was his knowing that justice was serviced for his murder -- even though he had to do it himself. 

You see, Charles Harris, a local bartender who was known to consort with outlaws, thought he was going to get a way with murder but he didn't get away with killing the sheriff. Just before hitting the ground mortally wounded, Sheriff Peter "Rattlesnake Pete" Lanahan got off a shot that slammed into his killer's head. Justice was served.

Tom Correa

Thursday, July 9, 2015

U.S. vs Hawaii War of 1894 -- Part Four


For the record, the Kingdom of Hawaii lasted from 1810 to 1893.

Kamehameha the Great conquered the other Hawaiian Islands with help of European war technology in 1798 and formally established the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1810.

It is said that by developing alliances with the major Pacific world and keeping colonial powers like Great Britain, France, and Germany at bay, Kamehameha the Great preserved Hawaii's independence.

In the 1895 Counter-Revolution in Hawaii, the group led by former Queen Liliuokalani, Colonel Robert Nowlein, Minister Joseph Nawahi, members of the Royal Household Guards, and of course the very traitorous Robert Wilcox, attempted to overthrow the new Republic of Hawaii.

The conspirators were captured and sentenced to death, but had their sentences reduced or commuted by President Dole. And yes, the Queen abdicated again -- this time she swore allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii.

While under arrest, she wrote, "I hereby do fully and unequivocally admit and declare that the Government of the Republic of Hawaii is the only lawful Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and that the late Hawaiian monarchy is finally and forever ended, and no longer of any legal or actual validity, force or effect whatsoever."

As for the last coup in Hawaii in 1895, while the coup's leaders including Liliuokalani, were captured, convicted, and imprisoned, and sentenced to hang, many others were deported.

It's true. A list of names were gathered by the Republic of Hawaii of anyone belonging to any club or political organization which was not friendly to the government. Those on the list were rounded up and held for months in some cases. Some were summarily tried, while others were simply rounded up, held, then deported back to where they came from.

If a man was a citizen of another country, and he attended a meeting with people who wanted to overthrow the Hawaiian government, that person was sent back to his nation of origin.

The Republic of Hawaii would pay the ship's Captain whatever it was to put the deported person in steerage and send him back to where he came from. In most cases it was with just the clothes on his back after pulling him out of being held in jail.

No trial, no money, no possessions -- just passage and a swift kick in the bottom on the way a board. It was the Republic of Hawaii's preferred method of Homeland Security -- deportation.

As for the U.S. vs Hawaii War of 1894?

Well, though the United States threatened to go to war with Hawaii if the government there did not put the Queen back on the throne, the U.S. vs Hawaii War of 1894 did not take place.

In 1897, pro-Hawaii annexation Republican William McKinley succeeded Cleveland as president. After McKinley's inauguration as president of the United States on March 4, 1897, the Republic of Hawaii resumed negotiations for annexation, Negotiations continued into the summer of 1898.


Some say that by this time, President McKinley saw the islands as having gained a new strategic relevance in the wake of the Spanish-American War. But frankly, since the U.S. treaty with Hawaii served the purpose fine during that war, I believe McKinley and other political leaders in the U.S. were more fearful that the islands might be annexed by Great Britain, France, Germany, or Japan.

It is a historical fact that Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan at the time had also shown interest in annexing the islands for themselves for the reason of strategic relevance.

These other nations had their eyes on Hawaii for years, and the U.S. knew that if any of those nations annexed Hawaii first then that action would render the U.S./Hawaii reciprocity treaty null and void.

Faced with an urgency of sorts, and knowing that the Senate would not approve Hawaii annexation, President William McKinley called for a joint resolution of Congress -- the exact same way that the United States had acquired Texas.

Annexation 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 in the Senate.

The House of Representatives accepted the Newlands Resolution by a vote of 209 to 91. President McKinley signed the bill authorizing annexation of the Republic of Hawaii on July 7, 1898.

The Newlands Resolution was passed in the United States Congress on July 7, 1898, On June 16th of 1898, a new treaty of U.S. annexation was signed.

Annexation was acknowledged in Hawaii on August 12, 1898, when the formal claim of transfer of sovereignty took place with the hoisting of the flag of the United States over Iolani Palace and renaming the islands the Territory of Hawaii.

The Hawaiian Islands became the Territory of Hawaii, a United States territory, with a new government established on February 22, 1900. Sanford Dole was appointed as the first territorial governor of Hawaii. And yes, Iolani Palace served as the capitol of the Hawaiian territorial and then state governments until 1969.

After a century of being a part of the United States, many Native Hawaiians remain bitter about how the United States acquired the islands that sit 2,500 miles from America's West Coast.

For those who say that the Republic of Hawaii was a puppet government of the United States, that the United States was behind the overthrow of the Queen, and that the United States wanted Hawaii for it's strategic location, they may want to revisit the evidence that say the contrary.

Remember, President Grover Cleveland withdrew the treaty "for the purpose of re-examination." He received Queen Liliuokalani, and replaced the American flag in Honolulu with the Hawaiian flag. He ordered a study of the overthrow.

President Cleveland threatened the Republic of Hawaii with war and invasion, and demanded the monarchy be restored. And yes, the Senate refused to act on annexation while the House of Representatives voted to censure the U.S. minister to Hawaii and adopted a resolution opposing annexation.

So let's face facts, if it were not for the demonstrated interest of other nations to annex Hawaii, it appears that the United States did not want Hawaii.

The evidence goes against the popular myth that the United States was behind the overthrow or in favor of annexation. Being objective, ask yourself, if indeed the United States wanted Hawaii so badly, why did they drag their feet in ratifying annexation?

Contrary to what conspiracy theorists say, the United States did not want Hawaii when the Queen was overthrown.

And frankly, since strategically the U.S. had a standing reciprocity treaty with the Hawaiian government, why would the U.S. want or need to annex Hawaii?

For me, I see only one reason for the United States annexation of the Republic of Hawaii. I believe it was to keep Great Britain, France, Germany, or Japan from taking over that independent nation for themselves.

I believe it goes back to the very first negotiations in the 1850s when King Kamehameha III had secretly asked the United States to annex Hawaii as a state, but Secretary of State Daniel Webster declined, saying "No power ought to take possession of the islands as a conquest...or colonization."

When King Kamehameha III expressed a desire for annexation with the United States, it was for self-preservation in a world threatened by the imperialist powers of Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan.

It appears that King Kamehameha III knew the future.

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

Tom Correa

U.S. vs Hawaii War of 1894 -- Part Three


To America's surprise, Hawaii did not bow down to President Cleveland's threats and demands. 

Instead Hawaii's President Dole called up more than 1,000 men of military age in Honolulu and armed them to make ready to go to war with the United States.

When Willis saw that the Provisional Government was arming, Willis ordered Rear Admiral John Irwin to organize a landing operation using troops on the two American ships -- making no attempt to conceal preparations of the operation, as men readied equipment on deck.

The next shipment of mail, news, and other correspondence and information from the U.S. was yet to arrive aboard the USS Alameda. Until then, the public was uninformed of the relations between Hawaii and the United States.

Though war was in the air, Sanford B. Dole, who was president of Hawaii attempted to quell the anxiety by assuring the public there would be no invasion.

On January 3rd, 1894, public anxiety became critical which gave the incident its name, "The Black Week".

As the anticipation of a conflict between the United States and Hawaii intensified in Honolulu, Admiral Irwin became concerned for American citizens and property in the city, considering he may actually have to land troops to protect them if violence erupted in retaliation for the crisis.

The Commanders of the Japanese HIJMS Naniwa and the British HMS Champion asked to join the landing operation, like Irwin, to protect lives and property of their respective nationalities.

Finally, on January 11th, 1894, seeing that his ploy was not working and only had the effect of putting Hawaii on a war footing, Willis revealed to Dole that the invasion was just a ploy, actually a hoax, conducted in an effort to get the Provisional Hawaiian government to reinstate the Queen.

It is said that though Willis did not restore the Monarchy, he was able to incite doubt in the Hawaiian public over the Provisional Government and communicate to the people there that the United States was capable of going to war with them if they did not make things right.

Adding to the concerns over war with the United States over reinstating the Queen, this was one of the factors that pushed the Provisional Government to call for a Constitutional Convention in Hawaii.

The Constitutional Convention in Hawaii was called and began on May 30, 1894. Out of this, the Republic of Hawaii was established on July 4th, 1894, which of course just so happens is America's Independence Day.

Also out of their Constitutional Convention, Sanford B. Dole was voted the first and only President of the Republic of Hawaii. Later he would be appointed as the first territorial governor of the U.S. Territory of Hawaii.

The Republic of Hawaii was Constituted as an independent Republic.

How did this change President Cleveland's policy toward Hawaii? It didn't. Cleveland insisted that the Queen should be reinstated and Hawaii should never be part of the United States.

Since he tried to pressure the Republic of Hawaii into handing power back to Queen Liliuokalani to the point of threatening war with the new Republic, and seeing that the American sugar planters threatened to resist an American invasion by arms. and the fact that the defiant Queen refused to grant amnesty to the revolutionary leaders -- she wanted them all beheaded -- President Cleveland washed his hands of the affair in frustration.

In a final act of indignation toward the whole situation of annexation which he strongly opposed, he handed the problem to Congress which he knew was against annexation as well.

And yes, the issue sat there for years until President McKinley affirmed a joint congressional resolution that made Hawaii an American territory in 1898.

Some say President Cleveland rationalized his anti-annexation stance as a way of potentially restoring the Hawaiian monarchy. Other say, President Cleveland simply did not want Hawaii as part of the United States because it seemed more trouble than it was worth -- especially with a reciprocity treaty being already recognized.

Fact is that neither President Harrison or Cleveland was behind the overthrow of the Queen.

While Harrison simply didn't want anything to do with Hawaii or it's internal strife, Cleveland wanted Hawaii to remain an sovereign nation.

But even after the Republic of  Hawaii was established, Cleveland supposedly rationalized that if the Hawaii monarchy was truly abolished, then he saw having Hawaii an independent nation a lot more favorable than having Hawaii as a territory of the United States. And yes, Cleveland certainly did not want Hawaii to become a state of the Union.

And yes, there is another reason that some speculate as the reason for Cleveland being so determined to stop Hawaii annexation. It is speculated that Cleveland did not want "Hawaiians" to be Americans because he saw Hawaiians as "no better than Indians." Some speculate that he saw Hawaiians as "children."

Remember that when Cleveland took office during his first term, America had 204,000 Native Americans scattered among 171 reservations on 135 million acres of land. They were seen as an "Indian problem."

In Cleveland's view, Native American Indians were simply wards of the state, the nation. It is said he saw Native Americans as "wayward but promising children in need of a guardian."

Remember that it was also during his first term that Cleveland signed the Dawes Severalty Act of  1887 which proved a very effective tool for taking lands from Native American Indians.  The Dawes Severalty Act promised benefits to the Indians, but in reality deprived the Indians of the strengths of tribal ownership while severely limiting the economic viability of individual land ownership.

The Dawes Severalty Act of  1887 is still seen by many tribes as the Federal government’s heavy-handed attempt to destroy their traditional cultures.

And yes, Cleveland sought to persuade Native Americans to forego their old tribal ways. He sought to assimilate them into society by means of education, private land ownership, and "parental guidance from the Federal government."

Some speculate that he saw Hawaiians in the same light. There is speculation that he believed the United States simply did not need "another Indian problem" in the middle of the Pacific.

He may have also saw Hawaii as a hornets net best left to those there to deal with. He may have been reassured of that after the attempted coup which took place in January of 1895.

As a result of that attempted coup, the Republic of Hawaii may have strengthened his position of letting the Hawaiian Islands work out their own problems.

The coup Hawaii in 1895 was an attempt to restore the monarchy included battles between Republic of Hawaii troops and Royalists. But of course, like in most poitical rebellions, those loud mouths who said that they would fight to the death are usually the first to turn and run -- and those who talked the bravest are the ones who ran and hid when they saw that they had failed.

Since a weapons cache was found in a flowerbed on the grounds of Iolani Palace where only the Queen was permitted, Liliuokalani admitted her part in the attempted coup to regain her throne.

From this Queen Liliuokalani was placed under house arrest, tried by a tribunal of the Republic of Hawaii, convicted of treason and imprisoned in her own home.

This all lead to confirming Cleveland's views of Hawaii.

U.S. vs Hawaii War of 1894 -- Part Four

Tom Correa

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

U.S. vs Hawaii War of 1894 -- Part Two

The United States opposed removing the Queen. Yes, it's true.

Senators opposed the ratification of the treaty and president-elect Grover Cleveland commissioned an investigation into the events of the overthrow. The investigation was conducted by former Congressman James Henderson Blount.

Fact is the situation in Hawaii caught Cleveland off guard. He was concerned that the Harrison's administration and American sugar planters on the islands had conspired during the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy.

The Blount Report was completed on July 17, 1893 and concluded that "United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government."

The outcome was that U.S. Minister Stevens was recalled, and the commander of military forces in Hawaii was forced to resign.

In the meantime the Leper War on Kauai was suppressed by Provisional Government troops.

President Cleveland stated "Substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair the monarchy."

Cleveland further stated in his 1893 State of the Union Address that, "Upon the facts developed it seemed to me the only honorable course for our Government to pursue was to undo the wrong that had been done by those representing us and to restore as far as practicable the status existing at the time of our forcible intervention."

As evidence that the Provisional Government of Hawaii was not merely "puppets" of the United States, we should recognize that President Cleveland turned the matter over to Congress on December 18, 1893, after Provisional Government of Hawaii president Sanford Dole refused to reinstate the Queen on Cleveland's demand.

It is convenient for people today to mislead others and omit facts about what really took place. It is difficult for those shouting that the United States was behind the overthrow of the Queen when in fact neither the President of the United States nor the Senate wanted Hawaii to be a part of the United States.

It is difficult to support their argument when facts show that the United States actually tried to reinstate the Queen even to the point of threatening an invasion and war.

Yes, the refusal of the Provisional Government of Hawaii to follow the wishes of President Cleveland does not look like the actions of a "puppet" government.

Cleveland turned the matter of to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under chairman John Morgan continued investigation into the matter.

On February 26, 1894, the Morgan Report was submitted, contradicting the Blount Report and finding Stevens and the U.S. Marines "not guilty" of any involvement in the overthrow.

The report states: "The complaint by Liliuokalani in the protest that she sent to the President of the United States and dated the 18th day of January, is not, in the opinion of the committee, well founded in fact or in justice."

While it is said that after submission of the Morgan Report, Cleveland ended any efforts to reinstate the monarchy and commenced diplomatic relations with the new government, and that he rebuffed further entreaties from the Queen to intervene. But frankly, that is not true.

Did President Cleveland even threatened to go to war with Hawaii if the Queen was not returned to the throne?

Don't think so, don't think the United States almost went to war with Hawaii over the removal of the Queen?  

Well, enter Albert Willis and the U.S. invasion.

President Grover Cleveland of the United States denounced the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Cleveland vowed to reverse the damage done and restore the Kingdom. In fact, Cleveland launched an investigation headed by James Blount as United States Minister to Hawaii, known as the Blount Report.

After the investigation, Blount was replaced by Albert Willis , who began negotiations between ex-queen Liliuokalani for a U.S. led invasion to restore the monarchy. However, the agreement broke down because of the death penalty.

Yes, Albert Willis met with Queen Liliuokalani and presented the Queen with President Cleveland's request that she grant amnesty to the Revolutionaries in return for reinstatement.

According to Willis, the Queen refused and demanded the dealth penalty, capital punishment, for all of those involved.

The pending war with Hawaii and Black Week 

The Black Week as it was called in Hawaii, was the period where the people in Hawaii believed they would invaded by the United States. It was believed there would be war between Hawaii and the United States.

Spurred on by Washington's delays and refusals to annex the Hawaiian Islands, by Spring of 1894, concerns of war between the Hawaii and the United States started to build in the Hawaiian Islands.

The reason for the talk of war began when rumors circulated of the possible intervention by the United States to restore the Hawaiian Monarchy.

On December 14th, 1893, Albert Willis arrived in Honolulu aboard the USRC Corwin unannounced. It was then that he starts a hoax to convince the Provisional Government of Hawaii that an American invasion to restore the monarchy was coming.

While this is going on, on December 23, unaware that Cleveland had referred the matter to Congress, Willis presented the Provisional Government with Cleveland's demand to restore the queen to the throne – the Provisional Government refused.

The Morgan Report of February 26, 1894, concluded that the overthrow was locally based, motivated by a history of corruption of the monarchy, and that American troops only served to protect American property and citizens and had no role in the end of the Hawaiian Monarchy.

In fact, the American troops did not fire a shot or leave their positions to occupy any parts of the Kingdom of Hawaii unlike they had in 1874 and 1889 when they came to the aid of King Kalakaua.

But, with the hysteria of a possibly military conflict air stimulated by Wills who staged a mock invasion with the USS Adams and USS Philadelphia.

Believe it or not, he directing that their guns be trained on the Hawaiian capital which can be targeted fairly easily from Honolulu harbor.

Willis' goal was to maintain fear of the United States to pressure the Provisional Government into forfeiting the island back to the Queen or at least to maintain a U.S. invasion threat as a possible reality.

U.S. vs Hawaii War of 1894 -- Part Three

Tom Correa