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? Really? 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?"
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.
Mary Elliot, of Vineyards of Waverly Manor, one of Diane Tran's bosses, went on to tell ABC News, "I can understand if a child is staying out of school, running around, a bad kid, getting into trouble, taking drugs. 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. 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. 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, 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. Hoang told Fox News, "I’m going to ask the judge to expunge the record," "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. The 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: Tis 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.
SECOND SHOT!
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 is overwhelming.
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, believe it or not, 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. Which, of course, fits in perfectly with the anti-American sentiments echoed 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, and absolute 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 ignorance, their condescension, 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 with Democrats in Congress, or might question, say for example, the 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 every opportunity to attack 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. And sadly, it's not out of the ordinary for MSNBC. No, this is no surprise coming from MSNBC.
THIRD SHOT!
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."
Shabazz wrote, following a dissertation on the need to Vote for Revolution: "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 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, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) newspaper, was 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.
Editor Chawn Kweli wrote: "Mr. Obama’s policies have not corrected the economic troubles of America, they have gotten worse. 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 under Obama currently stands at 13.0 percent.
Kweli added, "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."
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 before he added another $1.15 Billion to it. And yes, restricted it to only Black farmers. Of course, that's as racist as it gets. But, we are not supposed to talk about Obama being a racist even if he is.
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. And yes, 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 New Black Panther Party 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."
Obama's Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder, has openly stated that some folks in Congress don't understand "my people." Yes, bias like that was supposed to head the Voter Intimidation Case. So no, it's no wonder that Holder 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 because Obama is a Democrat. But, he should be.
FOURTH SHOT!
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 which Political Party in American History has really fought for their best interest. It seems many that the majority of blacks in America have no knowledge of what occurred, during our history, in Pre and Post Civil War America.
They are either ignorant or apathetic to the historical 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. Blacks todays don't seem to care, or refuse to hear, about 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. The 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. It has been Republicans who have tried to stop them from being the eternal slaves of their traditional Democrat masters.
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 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 men and women, "Bootlicking Uncle Toms" and "Aunt Jemimas"?
Frederick Douglass, abolitionist, editor, orator, author, and statesman
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.
FIFTH SHOT!
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?
So here you go, 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 in the form of various full metal jacket calibers from people who are not intimidated and ready for a fight.
SIXTH SHOT!
Hawaiian History - And 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 of the emails are absolutely great, and I can only say thank you so much for the great words of encouragement. I'm very happy that you like my work. Some of the responses have not been at all what I expected saying things that I can hardly believe, and really they give me too much credit for.
For example, some of the hate mail sent to me has actually said that I "invented" 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. If I were, I'd probably be a fiction writer instead of researching and writing non-fiction.
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 on the various islands. In fact, when my family left Portugal back in the mid 1800's, they went to Hawaii and became subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii. They went there as "Contract Labor," also known as Indentured Servants, as sailors on merchant ships and whaling ships, and many of my relatives arrived there as plantation workers. They arrived when the great Kingdom of Hawaii brought them there. Yes, the Kingdom of Hawaii brought my family to Hawaii.
My family arrived during the times of Kings and Queens, and were in fact Hawaiian Subjects. Not Hawaiians by blood, but "Hawaiian Subjects." Yes, subjects under the Hawaiian 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 political cause.
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. If I were, I'd probably be a fiction writer instead of researching and writing non-fiction.
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 on the various islands. In fact, when my family left Portugal back in the mid 1800's, they went to Hawaii and became subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii. They went there as "Contract Labor," also known as Indentured Servants, as sailors on merchant ships and whaling ships, and many of my relatives arrived there as plantation workers. They arrived when the great Kingdom of Hawaii brought them there. Yes, the Kingdom of Hawaii brought my family to Hawaii.
My family arrived during the times of Kings and Queens, and were in fact Hawaiian Subjects. Not Hawaiians by blood, but "Hawaiian Subjects." Yes, subjects under the Hawaiian 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 political cause.
And yes, that's what I find a lot of people in Hawaii are doing today. They are re-writing history to justify their hatred for Americans.
 |
| Portuguese immigrants Hawaii 1878 |
Anyone who has read my articles, especially those on the 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 have been led to believe is true.
I was called all sorts of things when I wrote about Wild Bill Hickok shot an unarmed David McCanles. I was told that Wyatt Earp couldn't have been a pimp, or was ever arrested as a pimp at the time when many said he was supposed to be a Buffalo Hunter. I can deal with name callers. They mean very little to me.
I was called all sorts of things when I wrote about Wild Bill Hickok shot an unarmed David McCanles. I was told that Wyatt Earp couldn't have been a pimp, or was ever arrested as a pimp at the time when many said he was supposed to be a Buffalo Hunter. I can deal with name callers. They mean very little to me.
Yes, James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok shot and killed an unarmed David Colbert McCanles, often spelled McCandless, on July 12, 1861, at Rock Creek Station in the Nebraska Territory. And yes, Wyatt Earp was arrested multiple times on prostitution-related charges and being a Pimp before he ever going West.
But let me make something really clear here. Whether it's about Wild Bill Hickok or Wyatt Earp, or whether it's about the way Native Americans waged genocidal war on each other and ran other tribes off their lands for centuries before Europeans ever step foot on North American soil, or whether it is the truth about how American leadership in Washington did not want to annex Hawaii and in fact tried to put the Queen back on the throne in 1893 and 1894, what I don't like is people who call the truth lies and accept lies as the truth.
Because Queen Emma held immense popularity among the Native Hawaiian populace, an enraged mob of her supporters, known as "Emmaites," immediately stormed the Honolulu Courthouse. The rioters ransacked the building and brutally assaulted the legislators who had voted for David Kalākaua.
King Kalākaua's ascension to the Hawaiian throne was secured by U.S. Marines. Why? Because the Honolulu police force proved completely ineffective at controlling the mob, with many officers actively removing their badges and joining the crowd against King Kalākaua. Furthermore, Hawaii's standing army had been disbanded prior to the election, leaving the government with no reliable native force to restore order. That's why King Kalākaua requested foreign intervention.
To save the newly elected king's government and protect the town, King Kalākaua cabinet ministers formally requested emergency assistance from the foreign warships anchored in Honolulu Harbor. In response, U.S. Marines landed in Honolulu Harbor. In fact, approximately 150 U.S. Marines from the USS Tuscarora and USS Portsmouth landed alongside roughly 70 to 80 British forces from the HMS Tenedos.
So yes, 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 Kalākaua in 1874.
During the fighting, U.S. Marines actually seized government buildings, 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. They took over the entire Hawaiian government. 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 a coup and insurrection against her own brother King Kalakaua never happened. But facts are facts, and in July of 1889, Robert Wilcox and 150 armed men occupied the Palace and attempts to have King Kalakaua either abdicate or proclaim that the 1864 Constitution was to replace the 1887 Constitution.
The 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. That 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 was -- 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 own brother, then wanted to over-throw her. A month after the March 1892, all charges were dropped against the Ashford brothers and R.W. Wilcox, 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 fiction. The stuff people make-up satisfies those who are ignorant and apathetic of the truth. And yes, I think that's sad.
In the case of the Old West, many of the colorful personalities of the times were made even more colorful by Dime Novelists. I find that today's movie makers are full of the same sort of bullshit that made Dime Novelists so popular. Of course, Hollywood, like those Dime Novelists of the 1800s, can't tell the the truth if their lives depended on it.
But friends, my grandfather was right when he said, "Tell the truth, people won't believe it anyway. And besides, the truth always makes for 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 R.W. Wilcox in an attempted coup against her own brother King Kalakaua. Yes, only to have the same man, R.W. Wilcox, 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, 167 U.S. Marines landed in Honolulu Harbor just as they had in 1874. The fact is that the U.S. Marines again landed to protect American lives and property there. Remember, they again landed at the request of the Hawaiian government in power. Yes, it was the government in power that requested the Marines.
Of course, 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 167 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 stood around and did nothing while 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 behind the legislation building that sits 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. All, just to ensure they stay in power.
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. All, just 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 learn.
And yes, that's just the way I see it.
Tom Correa
