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

FIRST SHOT!

Texas Honor Student Jailed For Missing Too Much School

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

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

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

This is completely outside agreed standards of decency!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Moriarty told KHOU 11 News that he intended to make "an example of Tran by placing her in jail."

Showing a complete lack of common sense, Moriarty had the nerve to tell the station, "If you let one run loose, what are you going to do with the rest of them? Let them go, too?"

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



Judge Lanny Moriarty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons from Judge Lanny Moriarty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Hayes thinks the term is "problematic."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hayes and MSNBC needed to make an immediate apology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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

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

Black unemployment in America currently stands at 13.0 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 what Political Party has really fought for their best interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Well, it is a fact that besides great Black-Americans like Supreme Court Justic Clarence Thomas and successful businessman Herman Caine, there has other prominent names of black Americans which have been, or still are Republicans.

Are all of these black-American men and women, "Bootlicking Uncle Toms" and "Aunt Jemimas"?   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

SIXTH SHOT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Portuguese immigrants Hawaii 1878

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact is, supporters of King Kalakaua did in fact take up arms against those insurgents. Volunteer riflemen turned out to support the Government in what was called the Missionary Party. A legation was on hotel premises where Mr. Merrill, the U.S. Minister requested a body of Marines to be landed for a day.

A duel between the insurgents and volunteers begins with artillery and rifle fire, by evening the fighting ends and the insurgents surrendered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seemed as though karma came around full swing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House of Representatives accepted the Newlands Resolution by a vote of 209 to 91.

President McKinley signed the bill on July 7, 1898.

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

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

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

Tom Correa

The Memorial Day Visit 2013

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

from For The Fallen by Robert Laurence Binyon

When I was much younger and fresh out of the Marines, I remember driving by a cemetery full of American flags. The sight, the color, the breeze, the movement atop every grave. Since I had never seen anything like it, I pulled in and stopped.

For some reason, I started walking the graves, reading the stones, the names, the dates, seeing which ones were veterans, from which war. Of course, I wondered if there were those my age?

A few rows over from where I was, I saw an old woman sitting on a stone bench looking at a headstone. She sat quietly, just taking in the moment. Though there were several others there that day, for some reason, she looked up at me and nodded a small smile. I nodded and tried to smile back. In her hands was a rosary and what looked like some tissue. I have no idea why, but I found myself slowly making my way over to her. I guess I wanted to see the stone she was looking at so peacefully.

She said, "he's my husband."

I nodded, looking at the date on the stone. 

"He died after being home for only a few weeks. He was wounded and shipped back to the States. We all thought he would be fine."

I listened, and didn't say a word.

"He was overseas. He was a Soldier, a mechanic." She smiled.  "He worked on airplanes. He loved airplanes. He was a good man." She took in a breath and slowly sighed, "We were so young. We were so happy. He died so young."

I looked at her and watched the years in her eyes as a tear streamed down her cheek.

"We were married before he went overseas. We had only a short time together. We knew he might not come back. We were glad he did. I'm still proud that he went. Then, when he came home, so many surgeries later, he still died. For us."

I nodded, sitting beside her. I saw that he was in the US ARMY, a Corporal. 

She reached up to wipe a tear. "He died for me and our daughter. For all of us, I guess. He is still the man of my dreams. He's my hero. After all of these years, he's still my hero."

She reached over and clutched my hand and said, "Thank you."

"Thank you," I said.

Then she stood and looked into my eyes, smiled, and nodded. Her grandson came over to help her as she walked away.

Tom Correa

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

FIRST SHOT!

Local News - About my dog Jake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND SHOT!

Elections at the Legion - Lessons Learned!

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

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

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

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

Lessons Learned!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Local News, Bears and Big Cats!

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said, it's not very pretty at all. Maybe after seeing those pictures, you can better understand what I mean by making sure I stay vigilant and protect our horses.

Besides, I hate the feeling of not doing something when I know that I could have done something in any given situation. I hate feeling guilty when I see something happen, and know full well that I really should have gotten off my ass and done something to change that outcome.

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

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

FOURTH SHOT!

Is Obama a Socialist or Statist?

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

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

Statist State? I thought Obama is a Socialist?

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

So what's the difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) Copyright protection;

5) Coining money;

6) Establishing post offices and post roads;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yes, they need to go!

FIFTH SHOT!  

The television show Awake is ended!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIXTH SHOT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAST SHOT!

Missouri To Vote On "Right To Pray" Constitutional Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS! Liberal Media Bias, Obama related to Elvis and Wild Bill Hickok, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Liberal Bias just keeps going and going!

There is no end to the different ways that the Liberal Media, Newspapers, Television, Hollywood, can demonstrate their complete lack of conscience.

This time the ultra-Liberal Washington Post is attacking s Mitt Romney Over 1800s Mormon Massacre. That's right, they are literally trying to link something that happened over 150 years ago to Mitt Romney and his faith today.

That would be the equivalent of linking Barack Obama to the African Chiefs in a Kenyan village who sold his own people as Slaves to the Europeans slave-traders and Muslims sheiks who would buy them.

Connecting Romney to a Mormon Massacre in 1857 is like connecting Obama to the African tribes at war with one another traded their prisoners of war for goods with the Europeans. This was also done with Arabs and had been for many centuries. And yes, whites were slaves too.

But that doesn't seem to bother those who want the so-called Fairness Doctrine to apply to Conservatives but not themselves.

On article lately explained that it has become a recognized double standard for the liberal news media to go to extraordinary lengths to bring out the worst in Republicans, while Democratic indiscretions are often overlooked or covered up.

When a story broke that there were Rev Jeremiah Wright audio tapes of him admitting that he may have been offered a bribe by an Obama associate to stay quiet until after the 2008 election - the liberal media shut it down immediately.

The opposite took place when a new article about Mitt Romney "allegedly" giving an "alleged" haircut to an "alleged" someone who "may have been" an "alleged" homosexual nearly fifty years ago - the liberal news took off with the story.

Now that it has become obvious that the Washington Post is not content to go back 50 years to find some sort of "dirt" on Romney - now, yes, they're not stopping with just his own lifetime to attack him.

How about digging up dirt on Romney from his involvement in a Massacre that took place in 1857?

No kidding, they are so desperate that they are actually trying to link Mitt Romney to something that happened before his grandfather was born.

Sure, as everyone can see it's an attack on Romney, but it's more of an attack on Mormons specifically.

So ask yourself, does this fit any Journalism Code of Ethics of any sort.

The reason I say "of any sort" is because that while various existing Journalism Codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of - truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability - as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.

Ask yourself if "objectivity, impartiality, fairness" exist in the following Washington Post story which sets out to do nothing but attack Mitt Romney over his faith?

In an article titled "Mitt Romney’s Faith Tangles With a Quirk of Arkansas History," the ultra-left Washington Post writes:

On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers.

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.”

Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons “evil.”

“There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them,” said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train…“The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got.” [Emphasis added]

The Post then concedes that, when polled, the majority of Republicans say Mitt Romney’s faith is not a reason either to either support or oppose him, before continuing:

In northwestern Arkansas, at least two monuments commemorate the massacre, including a towering wooden cross erected just six years ago. On it is carved a biblical saying: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord.”

“It’s an emotional thing for us,” said Phil Bolinger, president of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation. “When you come of age, when you mature, things to do with your own blood kin becomes more important and you become passionate about it.”

In conclusion, to draw as much of a distinction between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama as possible, presumably, the Post writes:

In another quirk of history, both of the main presidential candidates have ties to this region. Parley Pratt, an ancestor of Romney’s and an esteemed figure in the Mormon Church, was murdered in Arkansas shortly before the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Historians have speculated that anger over this killing may have played a part in the massacre.

And in a cemetery nearby is buried Nathaniel Bunch, an ancestor of Obama’s, according to local genealogists, who say Bunch was a contemporary of the wagon train emigrants. [Emphasis added]

So essentially, while Barack Obama is being called "the first gay president" because he endorsed gay marriage, "the first Amish president" because he doesn’t like Twitter, the first Socialist president because he prefers Socialism and Communism over Democracy, the first racist president because according to his own book he identifies himself with a black hatred for white Americans, then the liberal media is trying to say that Mitt Romney is to be associated with murderers - or even terrorists if you caught the "first 9/11" reference above who lived roughly two hundred years ago.

But that OK, you see it's really too bad for the liberal news media like the Post because almost no one is reading their paper or listening to what they have to say these days.

They have made it very plain to people that they are no objective in the least bit these days. They openly support one candidate over the other, they openly endorse the liberal Socialist ideology, they have essentially said that they don't give a damn who knows where they stand - they are not impartial and they see no reason to be ashamed of that.

They are foolishly going about doing this because those in control of the liberal newspapers and liberal television news organizations like NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are very open about their own liberal political persuasion - and they see no reason to hide the fact that have an agenda.

The thing that those in charge really don't understand? Well, it's America. Most folks in America are brought up to understand that things have rules to ensure fairness to ensure that the powerful don't step over the line.

The liberal bosses in the news media don't understand that most people out there can see through their attempt to attack a Republican candidate for president, even when it means making the stretch to connect a man with something that happened over 150 yers ago.

Liberals don't seem to understand Americans at all really. And the heads of the liberal media doesn't seem to understand is that Americans are brought up understanding that there are "the rules of the game." Americans understand that in every game, baseball, football, tennis, poker, there are the rules of the game.

And even if there are no rules, Americans know the difference between right and wrong.

maybe that why Americans hate cheaters, those who break the rules to win, those who will do anything to screw the next guy to win.

In baseball, most fans know that allowing someone to essentially spear a catcher is ridiculous. Yes, there are no rules against it - but that doesn't make it right.

Last year, I watched such an event. It was when the San Francisco Giants played the Florida Marlins.

With one out in the top of the 12th, Emilio Bonifacio put a fly ball into right field. Marlins runner Scott Cousins collided into Giants catcher Buster Posey. Posey was on his knees and his legs bent awkwardly, resulting in torn ankle ligaments and a broken fibula.

Brian Posey, who was trying to make the tag on a throw from Schierholtz. Posey couldn't corral the ball as Cousins bowled him over. Posey anchored himself by planting his left knee, causing him to awkwardly turn his ankle underneath him as Cousins plowed into him.

Posey remained on the ground for several minutes before being helped off the field by athletic trainers, putting no weight on his left leg. Manager Bruce Bochy, a former catcher, indicated that the sight sickened him.

"As a catcher, you know what it's like," Bochy said. "You don't like it, either, believe me. When you're trying to catch a ball, you're the only guy who players can run into. When I see him laying there, it's not a good feeling for me, or certainly not for him or his teammates or anybody."

While Brian Posey withered on the ground in pain from torn ankle ligaments and a broken fibula, Scott Cousins got up and walked away mostly unscathed.

I'm sure there were others who watched what happened, and like me just couldn't believe that someone would do something like that even though it wasn't against the rules.

Maybe that's way we have rules? Maybe that's why we have referees and umpires and policemen and judges and laws? Maybe it's the fact that most Americans respect the rules of the game?

By digging up dirt on on candidate while giving another a pass goes against the whole concept of right and wrong, of fair and not, and reeks of favoritism and dishonestly. It tells me that I can never trust that person to do something right and good when I know in my heart that they are not above doing the wrong thing - just because there's no rule that says they shouldn't.

I would never put it pass some ball players to spear a catcher, most write it off to playing "hard" and trying to beat the other guy. Even if its wrong to do it, it's within the rules. Yes, it might not be against the rules - but everyone can see it's wrong. Americans are not blind as to what's right and wrong.

In the past at least Journalists wore the mask of being impartial. They were gave the appearance of being sort of like the referee, the umpire, or the judge dressed impartially to take no side. But that seems so long ago, today they take sides as a matter of standard operating procedure.

And yes, that is wrong because today they are no different than the old Soviet Union's state run newspaper Pravda that would simply print what they were told by the Communist Party. Today in America, other than FOX News, most news organization simply report what they are told to by the Democrat Party.

That's how I see the Journalists in America today. They have no conscience, and they're very open about their bias and their political affiliations, their favoritisms. It's because of that that I can't believe what they report these days.

They are not to be trusted because even though there is no law against what they are doing, it is wrong to do it and pretend that you're not.

I find it interesting that The Society of Professional Journalists which is dedicated to the perpetuation of a free press as the cornerstone of our nation and our liberty has a preamble that states:

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."

So why can't the liberal media adhere to even those modest standards? It's because today's media is corrupt and refuses to adhere to any standard of ethics. It appears to me that today's liberal media sees ethics as a hindrance to their serving the Democrat Party and the liberal Socialist ideology. 

SECOND SHOT!


Slave Trade Shackles

 Still No Apology From Africans For Selling Others Africans As Slaves

Back in 2009, the Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria had written to African tribal chiefs saying, "We cannot continue to blame the white men, yet Africans, particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless."

Traditional African rulers whose ancestors collaborated with European and Arab slave traders should follow Britain and the United States by publicly saying sorry, according to Human Rights Organisations.

Their appeal for an apology reopened a sensitive debate over the part that African chiefs played in helping to capture their fellow Africans and sell them into bondage as part of the slave trade during the time.

The Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria has argued that the ancestors of the Chiefs had helped to raid and kidnap defenseless communities and traded them to Europeans and Muslims. They should now apologize to "put a final seal to the history of slave trade", it said.

"In view of the fact that the Americans and Europe have accepted the cruelty of their roles and have forcefully apologised, it would be logical, reasonable and humbling if African traditional rulers ... [can] accept blame and formally apologise to the descendants of the victims of their collaborative and exploitative slave trade."

African Blacks Were Themselves Slave-Traders. African Blacks Sold Their Own People Into Slavery By The Millions

Estimates vary that between 10 Million and 28 Million Africans were sold into Slavery by other Africans between 1450 and the early 19th century.

More than a million are believed to have died in transit across the so-called "middle passage" of the Atlantic due to inhumane conditions aboard slave ships and the brutal crushing of any resistance.

Shehu Sani, head of the congress, said it was calling for traditional rulers to apologise now because they were seeking inclusion in a forthcoming constitutional amendment in Nigeria.

"We felt that for them to have the moral standing to be part of our constitutional arrangement there are some historical issues for them to address," he told the BBC World Service. "One part of which is the involvement of their institutions in the slave trade."

He said that on behalf of the buyers of slaves, the ancestors of the traditional rulers "raided communities and kidnapped people, shipping them away across the Sahara or across the Atlantic".

Many slaves captured inland in Africa died on the long journey to the coast.

The non-government organisation Africa Human Right Heritage, based in Accra, Ghana, supports the campaign for an apology. Baffour Anning, its chief executive, said: "I certainly agree with the Nigeria Civil Rights Congress that the traditional leaders should render an apology for their role in the inhuman slavery administration." He said it would accord with the UN's position on human rights.

But the issue was not a high priority for most African citizens, according to Bonsu. "In my experience it's mainly the African diaspora who want an apology. People aren't milling around Lagos or Accra moaning about why Chiefs don't apologise. They are more concerned about the everyday and why they still have bad governance."

Fred Swaniker, the founder of the African Leadership Academy, said: "I'm not sure whether an apology is needed, but it would be worth looking at and acknowledging the role Africa did play in the slave trade. Someone had to find the slaves and bring them before the Europeans."

The shameful history of some traditional leaders remains an awkward subject on which many politicians prefer to maintain silence.

One exception was in 1998 when Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, told an audience that included Bill Clinton, "African Chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today."

And by the way, that was in 2009, no apology has yet come in!

THIRD SHOT!

It's true, Obama is related to Elvis, Wild Bill Hickok, Charles Goodnight, and even George W. Bush!

Some of Obama's more famous distant  relations are interesting considering his genealogical relationship Elvis and others.

According to genealogists, listed on Wikipedia's Family of Barack Obama.

Per that website: "Barack Obama's distant cousins include the multitude of descendants of his maternal ancestors from all along the early-American Atlantic seaboard as well as paternal, Kenyan relations belonging to the Luo tribe, many descending from a 17th century ancestor named Owiny.

For example, George W. Bush, the 43rd U.S. president, is the eleventh cousin of Barack Obama.

But Obama's family tree doesn't stop there!

According to William Reitwiesner, John McCain is 22nd cousin 2 times removed. According to Ancestors of Barack Hussein Obama: 50 Generations by Lorina Boliq, Senator McCain is also Obama's 24th cousin 6 times removed.

James Butler Wild Bill Hickok is Obama's sixth cousin. That's right! According to Barack Obama's family lore (and confirmed by the New England Historic Genealogical Society), the President and Hickok are sixth cousins, six-times removed. 

Goodnight helped inspire Pulitzer Prize-winning author Larry McMurtry to create a protagonist for his novel series Lonesome Dove: Woodrow Call. In Dove's television novela, Woodrow Call's partner is Gus McCrae, portrayed by Obama's eighth cousin, twice removed, actor Robert Duvall.

It is claimed that Obama may also be distantly related to U.S. Presidents James Madison, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Civil War General Robert E. Lee, and actor Brad Pitt. 

And yes, Boliq's research additionally indicates that Elvis Presley is Obama's 21st cousin 3 times removed.

According to Chicago Sun-Times reporter Scott Fornek, another Obama progenitor, Catherine Goodnight, was the grandniece of George Goodnight, who was in turn great-grandfather of famed cattleman Charles Goodnight.

So yup, Obama supporters out there say that he's related to the famed Charles Goodnight - believe it or not!

Since actor Robert Duvall is a distant cousin with United States President Harry Truman, who is likewise a fourth cousin, four times removed, of Obama's. Then Obama is also related to Harry S. Truman .
Obama is related to include painter Georgia O'Keeffe.

And let's not forget his Irish roots. It's OK to say "roots" in this case.

Moneygall, Ireland, resident Henry Healy is Barack Obama's eighth cousin, and became known for having initiated a visit by the U.S. president in May 2011 to Healy's hometown.

So if you really want to celebrate your family history, or go out and burn some of those old family papers, it's all up to you - because you just never know - you just might be related to the worst President in United States History as well.

You just never know, it sounds like his father got around a lot!

The picture above is from July 20th, 2009, Barack Obama President Barack Obama looks at a genealogy chart in the Oval Office with (from left) Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, Joshua DuBois, Thomas S. Monson, and Dallin H. Oaks. This compilation of Obama's genealogy information was a gift of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - yes, the Mormons.

FOURTH SHOT!

Homeland Security versus Obama Administration On Changes To Weapons Rules

U.S. Homeland Security and law-enforcement agencies have objected to Obama administration proposals to relax export restrictions on weapons now subject to strict export regulations.
The agencies, in internal memos viewed by The Wall Street Journal, warn the changes could help arm drug cartels and terrorists and make it harder for the U.S. to crack down on gun-trafficking.

The arms proposal is part of a broader overhaul of U.S. export rules sought by Obama, with the goal of helping domestic manufacturers compete in global markets, as well as improving U.S. national security by focusing controls on higher-risk items and enhancing the capabilities of allies.

Obama's policy includes bilateral free-trade agreements and a plan to reorganize government agencies that promote trade.

The proposed changes to weapons now subject to strict export regulation would cover a range of goods from firearms to drones, satellites and tanks, as well as civilian equipment with military uses. Foreign sales of all U.S.-made weapons topped $34 billion last year, according to the Pentagon. That doesn't include such restricted items as high-performance computers and electronics.

Industry officials said the relaxation of export controls could help domestic arms makers and other firms boost sales by tens of billions of dollars.

FIFTH SHOT!

Comic Books has First Gay Wedding

Marvel X-Man Comics has its first gay wedding. Marvel's Northstar - aka Jean-Paul Beaubier - will marry his "partner" Kyle Jinadu.

Gay characters are not new in comic book story-lines. According to the news article today, the character Northstar revealed he was gay in 1992.

In 2010 the long-running Archie Comics series debuted its first openly gay character. And DC Comics, which has one gay character, has announced that one of its other marquee super heroes would soon come out of the closet.

But which DC character is "coming out"? That seems to be a big concern among today's readers of gay comic books. Who really knows when it comes to the liberal fantasy world of gay comic books!

Of course, none of this is a surprise. For many years, a lot of people have thought that many of today's comics were Gay!

SIXTH SHOT!

Native American Women Seek Protections from Abuse

Diane Millich's ex-husband was never arrested for any of the more than 100 times he slapped, kicked or punched her before showing up at her Colorado workplace and firing a 9 mm pistol, wounding the co-worker who pushed her out of the way.

When he was finally arrested in New Mexico weeks after the shooting, he was treated as a first-time offender.

Why? Because while Millich is Native American, her ex-husband is not and all the domestic violence took place on the Southern Ute Reservation.

Believe it or not, under a 1978 Supreme Court decision, non-Indians cannot be prosecuted by tribal courts for crimes committed on tribal land.

Last July, the Justice Department recommended that Congress give tribes local authority to prosecute non-Indians in misdemeanor domestic and dating violence cases. The pending renewal of the Violence Against Women Act seemed a good chance to do that.

But the act has become entangled in election-year politics, with each party adding language on other issues that infuriates the other. Although the version the Senate passed 68-31 would follow the Justice Department recommendations and give tribes the power to prosecute non-Indians in tribal courts, the House so far has not.

The House could change its mind and add the provisions as soon as this week when it is expected to consider the bill.

The legislation grants defendants the right to counsel if they can't afford an attorney, an impartial jury that includes non-Indians and a right to appeal. Non-Indian defendants would have the same rights in tribal courts as they have in state courts, according to the Justice Department.

Millich said a change in the law certainly would have helped her deal with the abuse in her marriage, which began with slapping and pushing when she was a 24-year-old newlywed. After a year, Millich filed for divorce and sought a protective order, which her ex-husband mocked because he knew it would not be enforced.

"American Indian women do not have the same protections as non-Indian women. Federal law ... has a large gaping hole in it for abusers who are non-Indian," Millich, 49, said in a briefing for Capitol Hill staffers.

She said that tribal and county authorities routinely refused to arrest her ex-husband, whom she did not identify by name.

She told a story about how her husband called the County Sheriff himself just "to show me that no one could stop him." And yes, two Deputies came to their home and confirmed that they did not have jurisdiction to arrest him.

"I felt like I was walking on eggshells and knew inside that something terrible was going to happen ... After I fled he broke into the house, breaking windows, furniture and dishes. He cut the knuckles of his hands during the violence and smeared his blood over the walls, floor and my bedroom sheets," Millich said.

The day after destroying her home, Millich's ex-husband showed up at her Bureau of Land Management workplace with a gun. Although officials responded, he escaped and was at large for two weeks while she hid in a women's shelter, fearful he might find her, she said. Her ex-husband ultimately was offered, and took, a plea deal on an aggravated traffic offense.

"In the end, he was right in that he was above the law," she said.

A recent Census report found about 77 percent of people living on Native American and Alaska Native areas are non-Indian. About half of Native American women are married to non-Indians, according to the Justice Department.

Lisa Boothe, a spokeswoman for Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., herself a victim of domestic violence who wrote the House version of the Violence Against Women Act that excludes the tribal provisions, said laws already exist to deal with non-Indian domestic violence against native peoples that takes place on tribal land.

Although the federal government has authority to prosecute domestic violence involving non-Indians, the cases often are not priorities, said John Harte, who has been lobbying in support of the provisions on behalf of Native American tribes. He said that in 2007, the Salt River Pima, Arizona, tribal police responded to more than 400 acts of domestic violence, many involving non-tribe members.

That same year U.S. Attorneys prosecuted only 21 misdemeanor crimes on Indian lands across the country, Harte said.

I have to say that after reading this that I was very surprised that Diane Millich and other Native American women go through this. I really would have thought, that since there non-Indian husbands can't be prosecuted by the law - even on battery charges - that someone like a brother or an Uncle of some sort of group in the tribe could help protect them somehow.

I have two sisters, if either of them were to go through this sort of thing with some jerkweed - and that jerkweed thinks he would be above the law and assumed he'd get away with it - he'd definitely have to think again.

Where there is no formal law, there is still our responsibility to do right and protect those who need protection whether its ourself or our family - one way or another.

Story by Tom Correa