Sunday, September 29, 2013

Oil Is More Than Just Fuel - And We Don't Need Obama

Dear Readers,

Some of you have asked if I could take this information from a RANDOM SHOTS article that I did in March 2012 and publish it as a stand-alone article? Well friends, here it is.

Oil Is More Than Just Gasoline: There Are Consequences For Not Drilling Right Here Right Now!

Americans are saying "We Don't Need Obama!"

Domestic Oil Drilling Advocates Warn Of Increased Global Demand As The Mid-East Oil Supply Dwindles

That was an article in the news in March 2012, it was reported that more people are buying cars and using more gas around the world than ever before.

Countries that traditionally did not use cars and depended on bicycles and such are now moving to more and more cars. This growth in the global economy increases the demand for fuel, while oil supplies are projected to get tighter from the Middle East sources. Between the oil used for fuels such as gasoline and the oil used to manufacture consumer products, the world desire to be consumer driven is using more and more oil.

"China was at 5 million barrels a day in 2005. Today, they are at 10 (million). By 2015, they are going to be at 15-million-barrels-a-day demand," said John Hofmeister, founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy. "That's 10 million new barrels over 10 years. India is going from 4 to 7 (million) in the next three to four years."

President Obama seems to recognize the coming explosion in demand, but he has a different solution for the problem of more demand and less oil. Do nothing! Yes, Obama wants to do nothing in the way of more drilling to tap into our abundant natural resources.

Even though currently the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, and demand will rise, Obama argues that more drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline are not the way of the future. Instead, he wants to wean Americans off of oil entirely by turning to alternatives energy options like electric and hybrid cars, solar and wind power - and what I call his "AOTO" philosophy.

AOTO is not a tribe in Kenya, it is a Liberal train of thought. No matter how high gas prices at the pump go, "AOTO" is the mantra from the wealthy Liberal Left. AOTO" is the acronym for "Anything Other Than Oil."

The problem with Obama's thinking, besides completely ignoring the need for oil to manufacture every day products, according to most analysts, he is completely ignoring the fact that the transition from oil to alternative energy fuels takes far longer than more drilling would.

"And we have a capital stock of hundreds of million of vehicles," Guy Caruso of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. "So these types of transformations take decades and maybe even 50 to 60 years."

Last year, obviously because it was an Election Year, Obama talked about oil drilling as if he were for it. Imagine that! Like a true double-talking politician, Obama was telling Americans that he was cutting red tape and issuing all sorts of oil permits for companies to get to work on Federal lands.

Obama was lying to the American people.  And like these days, last year he might have gotten a few to believe him - the majority won't.

Why do more and more believe Obama is nothing but a liar? Because the data speaks for itself, and proves he is.

Official government figures show that Obama is issuing far fewer permits on Federal land than George W. Bush did while he was president. At the end of his two terms, George W. Bush issued 6,000 to 7,000 permits a year. Under Barack Hussein Obama the numbers have dropped significantly to a range of 4,000 to almost 4,500 a year.

Since it can take seven to 10 years for a permit to turn into an actual producing oil well, that means less oil will be coming from Federal lands in years to come. That combined with a rise in global demand for oil is a recipe for disaster for the United States. Yes, all thanks to Obama's attitude of "AOTO" and doing nothing to prepare for the future right now.

Advocates of more domestic drilling say we know a crunch is coming, so we should be drilling more right now. Otherwise, the result could be ugly.

"The reality of the situation, with respect to global supply is that Americans can find themselves in gasoline lines, with gas rationing by 2015 or 2016 by us not producing more of our own oil," Hofmeister said.

Obama is either purposing neglecting the facts, or he's just too damn dumb to understand the facts. Either way, he should understand that the facts clearly point out that even with alternatives, the U.S. Energy Department predicts that in 2035 we will still be relying on oil for 83% of our transportation needs alone. And yes, those figures are not taking into consideration all of our other needs for oil.

For some reason, Obama and the Democrats who support him only think oil is for gasoline and transportation. But folks, Obama can't get it in his head that it's not just about gasoline and cars.

Just as important as our fuel needs, are our manufacturing needs - Over 6,000 products we use on a daily basis are manufactured from oil!

Yes, over 50% of a barrel of oil goes to something other than fuels.

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest, over half, is used to make things like:

Yes, friends the list above is only about 150 of the approximately 6000 items made from oil that we use everyday. The list above is only a partial list of products made from petroleum. As we can see, it's not only about gasoline and cars.

Maybe Obama should look around and maybe take a long look at how many products that we depend on comes from oil?

And ask yourself this, if 50% of all the oil we use is for fuel and the other 50% is for manufacturing products - how much oil would we still need if somehow every Liberal in America could wave their magic wand and eliminate the need for oil for our fuel needs?

Yes, since currently the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, even if every truck, car, big rig, train, jet plane, power plant and home had an alternative fuel source to go to - we would still need at least 50% (or half) the amount of the oil we are using today for our manufacturing needs.

Yes, even if we never needed oil as an energy fuel source again, we would still consume over 10 million barrels a day just for our manufacturing processes.

That means, oil as a base product is almost indispensable for us or others. If we want to continue making the products that we use on a daily basis, than we need to recognize the importance, the absolute need, of oil.

So ask yourself, as I have asked myself lately, when the President of the United States talks about not drilling for more oil because he wants us to find other "energy" sources -- and he completely ignores the manufacturing aspects of oil -- just how many manufacturing jobs is he talking about putting at stake by not drilling right now?

How expensive will these oil based products become if they can't be made easily and here? How many companies are going to have to relocate their manufacturing facilities overseas because they make one or a few of the thousands of oil based products? How many companies will want to take their manufacturing jobs somewhere else because oil is not readily available in the United States and may also be cheaper in other countries than it is here?

Ask yourself, how many Americans are going to suffer because of Obama's arrogance or ignorance?
Fact are facts, there are reasons to drill for oil that have nothing to do with cars and transportation - and everything to do with manufacturing and the industrial might of the American economy.

The Good News -- Americans are Ignoring President Obama

Yes, the Good News is that Americans are ignoring him and opposing him in many ways. One way is by recognizing that "America Doesn't Need Obama!"

It's true. Americans are recognizing the need for more oil, having a desire to rid ourselves of being slaves to Muslim oil rich nations, and have decided to say "We Don't Need Obama!"

Americans are doing this be striking out and going around the Federal Government -- cutting the Feds completely out of the picture. Americans are exploring and harvesting oil using newer, more modern, and safer technologies to drill and increase America's Oil Supply - more so than ever before.

No, not from oil rich Federal Lands which are supposed to be owned by the American people but have seemed to have now become the sole property of Liberal Environmentalists. No, not that which is controlled by people in favor of our being slaves to Muslims nations, but instead on Private and State lands where Liberals are not in control and America can thrive.

And yes, that is Great News indeed. By saying, "We Don't Need Obama!" By relegating him to being a non-entity, Americans are prospering in some states. While Blue States march down the road to destruction and burden Americans with more debt, Red States are producing low unemployment, higher salaries, and looking after each other without the need to include the Federal Government or Obama.

Tom Correa

The M14 Rifle - U.S. Army Training Film


National Archives and Records Administration

ARC Identifier 36734 / Local Identifier 111-TF-2970

Department of Defense. Department of the Army. Office of the Chief Signal Officer.
(09/18/1947 - 02/28/1964).

Included in the U.S. ARMY TRAINING FILM:

Saturday, September 28, 2013

I Hate Obama Because He's Black?

Sarcastic title points to the lunacy of the argument that any opposition to President Obama's policies automatically makes us a Racist.

It's true, his color doesn't matter.

What matters is his poor character, his lies and deceit, his oppressive policies and his incompetence.

No, I don't hate President Obama on a personal level.

But, I absolutely hate his policies and actions.

Fact is, it means nothing that the title of this article is not true and is in fact a lie! Fact is, I will still get e-mail from people calling me a Racist.

It means nothing to them that I have loved ones of many races, including Hispanic, White, and Black, within my own family and love them very much!

It means absolutely nothing that I hate Obama's policies and what he is doing to our nation - but I could careless what color the bozo happens to be.

The Left, those die hard Obama supporters out there, will believe what it wants to believe - including that Obama is honest, that Islam is a religion of peace, and the earth is flat.

It means nothing to them that after the Kenyan shopping mall massacre, after the reported torture of innocent Non-Muslims at the hands of Muslims that President Obama has decided to reward those murderous bastards by declaring November National Muslim Appreciation Month in the United States.

It's true! And yes, as amazing as that is, it's also true that Liberals see nothing wrong with that!
President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce that he is declaring the month of November "National Muslim Appreciation Month" in the United States.

Yes, this came out of the President's mouth just a day after Muslims completed the Nairobi mall massacre in Kenya.

Muslims have a disgusting attitude toward human life - they have a blood lust uncompared to other races.  They LOVE death and killing.

And no, they haven't shown me or the world differently.

Kenyan soldiers reported horrific torture taking place at the hand of the Muslim terrorists in the Nairobi mall massacre on the September 25th.

They claimed hostages were dismembered, had their eyes gouged out, were left hanging from hooks in the ceiling, and much more.

Men were said to have been castrated and had fingers removed with pliers before being blinded and hanged during the four day siege.

Children were found dead in the food court fridges with knives still embedded in their bodies, it was claimed.

Most of the defeated Muslim terrorists were reportedly "burnt to ashes" after the last Muslim standing set the place on fire to try to protect their identities.

The horrifying details came yesterday as the first pictures emerged from within the wreckage of the building, showing piles of bodies left strewn across the floor.

A third of the mall was destroyed in the battle between the Muslim terrorists and Kenyan troops.

One mall massacre survivor smeared herself in the blood of teenage victim to make gunmen think she was dead.

And yes, as many as 71 Non-Muslim civilians who have been declared missing by the Kenyan Red Cross - all courtesy of the religion of Islam.

With detectives, including the FBI and the Metropolitan Police, still unable to reach the wrecked part of the mall for fear of setting off explosives, it could take up to a week to determine exactly who is still inside.

Yesterday, soldiers and doctors who were among the first people into the mall after it was reclaimed on Tuesday, spoke of the horrifying scenes inside.

"You find people with hooks hanging from the roof," said one Kenyan doctor, who asked not to be named.

‘They removed eyes, ears, nose. They get your hand and sharpen it like a pencil then they tell you to write your name with the blood. They drive knives inside a child’s body.

"Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers. Here it was pain."

A soldier, who took pictures at a bread counter and at the ArtCaffe, said he was so traumatised by what he saw he has had to seek counselling.

Bomb disposal experts with sniffer dogs were yesterday painstakingly combing the part of the building still standing for explosives before clearing forensic officers, police and troops to search for bodies.

Up to 150 Non-Muslims people are thought to have been killed and mutilated during the siege.

Images also emerged yesterday revealing the true extent of the destruction caused to the centre during the four-day battle between Kenyan forces and Islamic militants.

During the firefight, the Non-Muslim hostages reportedly had their throats slashed from ear to ear and were thrown screaming from third-floor balconies as the siege came to a bloody end.

Forensics teams, still sifting through the mountains of rubble, fear many more bodies are yet to be found.

Shell-shocked Kenyan troops said the inside of the Israeli-run mall resembled a "scene from a horror movie" with blood spattered everywhere and dead bodies strewn across the floor.
Between 10 and 15 Muslim terrorists are thought to have stormed the mall last Saturday, according to Kenyan officials.

The police said five insurgents were killed in the battle and at least 10 taken into custody
The main thrust of the operation began at 6am on Monday when troops and helicopters surrounded the building, but their efforts were hampered by an Al Shabaab sniper who managed to keep them back for nearly 24 hours.

As tear gas was used to try to flush him out, another Muslim terrorist reportedly blew himself up. It is believed the resulting fire may have killed dozens of innocent shoppers in a supermarket.

The following day, the Kenyan soldiers were ordered to adopt a "shoot to kill" policy and launched their final attack on the Islamic terror group on the roof of the mall at 5pm.

The mall was retaken about half an hour later.

After these reports were made public, President Barack Hussein Obama declared that November will be National Muslim Appreciation Month saying, “The Muslim community deserves our full acceptance and respect.”

But no, Obama didn't stop there, and in fact Obama had the nerve to lie to the reporters making the false claim,

“We have killed millions of Muslims overseas since the September 11th attacks. They are not all bad. In fact most of them are good. So from now on, November will be a month to celebrate the Muslim community, the Sunnah and the Quran.”

Has America "killed MILLIONS of Muslims overseas since the September 11th attacks" as Obama said?

That's news - but it answers why he doesn't care if the Muslims killed 4 Americans in Benghazi Libya!

Khaled Matei who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood‘s Freedom and Justice Party told CNN he is pleased with Obama and his actions.

"I spoke with President Obama by telephone yesterday and personally thanked him for what he is doing for the Muslim community," Matei said.

"This is definitely a step in the right direction I explained to him. Praise Allah."

Obama informed reporters about his future plans for helping Muslims around the world.

"I will be working with Congress in making it easier for Muslims to earn a Green Card and achieve American citizenship,” Obama said.

“Currently as it stands, obtaining a Visa or Green Card for a Muslim is very difficult. There are too many background checks in place and I plan to fix that.”

Obama continued, “Muslims are hardworking people who are just looking to live the American Dream like the rest of us. Mr. Matei of the Muslim Brotherhood assured me they want to come to this country to help us, not harm us."

Obama finished the press conference by explaining to reporters how happy he is with America.

"Folks, there is no way we could have had a ‘National Muslim Appreciation Month’ 20 years ago. That really says a lot about the growth and progress of this great country."

The "National Muslim Appreciation Month" begins November 1st and will end at midnight on November 30th.

This is how President Barack Hussein Obama rewards Muslim Terrorist for the Nairobi mall massacre in Kenya - by giving them a "National Muslim Appreciation Month."

Is he sick or what? Is he mentally unstable to do such a thing right after the Nairobi mall massacre in Kenya? Just how insensitive can he be - or does he even care?

Of course, none of this matters because I must be a Racist for making this public or questioning his motives and timing.

None of this means anything to Obama supporters because they believe, without a shred of evidence other than what's in their our sick freaking hearts that I am a Racist!

I must be Racist if I care that an elected President is so incompetent and hateful that he is systematically tearing this country apart economically, financially, and morally.

I am a Racist because I disagree with his asinine behavior on the world stage and has decided to divide Americans instead of unite us.

I must be a Racist, I must hate Obama because he is black, why else would I hate what he's doing?

How about you look at a few of the figures in the picture below and you tell me why I hate his policies? How about the fact that his policies have been proven for a fact that they aren't working and are detrimental to our nation?

Does my opposing the President and saying this make me a Racist? It does not!

But folks, I'm sick and tired of the e-mails from jerkweed Obama supporters calling me such for absolutely no reason.

According to Obama supporters, I have to be Racists to tell the truth about the economy, ObamaCare, his use of Federal Government agencies to attack Conservative Americans, his abuse of power when it comes to his spying on his political opponents, his use of the Justice Department to shield  black on white crimes yet embolden racism by attacking a man who defended his life from a young punk trying to kill him, his lavishness in office at the expensive of the American Taxpayer, his idea of change is destruction.

Yes, ignore the facts and avoid be called a Racist - or pay attention to the facts and be labeled a Racist for hating what the head of our Government is doing.

If I am a Racist, than it is because I hate the race of people who are defined by their apathetic self-indulgence at the expense of the American people.

Do I hate Obama? No, but I absolutely hate his policies and their effects on America.

By ripping us apart and completely putting himself above the law, by showing his complete incompetence when dealing with our enemies, and his overt contempt for the American people, he is nothing but a wannabe dispute, a Muslim cleric in waiting, a phony, a fraud, a joke to our enemies, and danger to America.

If he were white and a woman, and named Hillary Clinton, instead of being just HALF Black and a Muslim, would I still be considered a Racist because I hate the President's policies and actions.

Yes, I would!

Today, the Obama administration in concert with the liberal media has set a standard now set to where if anyone disagrees with a Liberal Socialist Democrat who breaks the law and assumes the position of Dictator in our country - that that person must be the one at fault and not the dictator either him or herself.

In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, Cassius says, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Cassius, a nobleman, is speaking with his friend, Brutus, and trying to persuade him that, in the best interests of the public, Julius Caesar must be stopped from becoming monarch of Rome.

Brutus is aware of Caesar's intentions, and is torn between his love of his friend Caesar and his duty to the republic.

Cassius continues by reminding Brutus that Caesar is just a man, not a god, and that they are equal men to Caesar.

They were all born equally free, and so why would they suddenly have to bow to another man? On another level this phrase has been interpreted to mean that fate is not what drives men to their decisions and actions, but rather the human condition.

The famous CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow once wrote this about a power hunger individual in our government who was completely out of control, who he thought should be opposed.

He said:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's [President Obama's] methods to keep silent, or for those who approve.

We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result.

There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age.

We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin [President Obama] have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies.

And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully.

Cassius was right. 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.'"

If I am to be labeled a Racist because I voice my opinion in that I see Obama as a threat to our nation that same way that I thought Richard Nixon was as well, than so be it.

It would be a lie to label me a Racist, but that doesn't stop those who defend Obama with any weapon they can find - especially lies and threats.

I agree with Mr Murrow, we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home!

And yes, understanding history and the needs of our nation, the fault would indeed be ours if we do not oppose President Obama and his reckless policies.

  Story by Tom Correa

Thursday, September 26, 2013

ObamaCare Doctor Visits - Not A Funny Story

Dear Readers,

As most of you know, every once in a while I get an e-mail that I share with you. An old friend sent me this.

It's a story that's not all that funny - but it does speak to what Americans may be going through very soon under ObamaCare.

The Medical Appointment

I visited a physician last week who was quite enthusiastic. She was a “new” doctor in the practice, a young lady young enough to be my daughter - yes, at my age, everybody is “young” and "young enough to be my daughter"!

She was obviously a liberal by her dress and manner. She asked me what was wrong, and I replied, “I have a cut on my leg, and I think it may be getting infected.”

She stopped me with a wave of her hand and grabbed a clipboard, then she said, “Before we start, I have to ask you a few questions. Are you allergic to any medications?”

I replied, “No.”

She said, “Do you have any guns in the house?”

I said, “HUH??”

She replied, “Guns. Do you have any guns in the house?”

I asked, “Why?”

She said, “I’ve got to ask this question. It is required under the Affordable Care Act.”

I asked, “What are you going to do with the data?”

She said, “We compile it, amalgamate it, and submit it to the government.”

I said, “Well, I have a Tommy Gun. I let my kid Tommy play with it.”

She said, “What’s a Tommy Gun? I don‘t think that is the kind of gun they are concerned with.”

With that, I knew I had a live one!

I said, “It’s similar to a B.A.R., but a little heavier and shorter. I have a B.A.R. also.”

She said, “A B.A.R.?”

I said, “Yes.”

She looked puzzled. Then she brightened up and asked, “Do you have any assault rifles?”

I attempted to look puzzled, and said, “I don’t know. What is an assault rifle?”

She said, “That’s a gun that is used in wars.”

I said, “As a matter of fact, I do. I have a replica of a Revolutionary War musket.”

She began to look a bit exasperated. I pretended not to notice and kept up the appearance of trying to be helpful.

She said, “Do you have anything more modern than that?”

I replied, “Well, yes I do. I have a replica muzzle loader from the Civil War. Do you know the difference between a musket and a muzzle loader?”

She rather peevishly said, “No, I don’t! And I don’t want to. What else do you have?”

I said, “I have an M-1.”

She asked, “What’s that?”

I said, “A rifle.”

She asked, “What kind?”

I replied, “It is called a Garand.”

She rather loudly said, “I don’t care if it is a grand rifle or not. Is it an assault rifle?”

To which I replied, “I don’t know. I don’t know what an assault rifle is. You say it’s a rifle used in war, yet you say that my musket and muzzle loader are not assault rifles.”

She calmed down a bit and asked, “Anything else?”

I said, “I have an MG-.30, and an MG-.50. I‘m also part owner of an Apache. But they are not rifles.”

She stated, “Well, then, I’m not interested in them. Anything else?”

I replied, “Well, yes. I also have a dozen 12-gauge pumps. They are not rifled though.”

She said, “I’m not interested in pumps; I’m interested in guns!”

I replied, “Well, then, I have a Colt, a Luger, a Glock, a bazooka, a Parabellum, a Kalishnikov, a Henry, an Uzi, a Llama, and a Beretta -- but they are not rifles.”

She then said, “I’ve had enough of this. I think you’re toying with me. Let me see your leg.”

I then said, “Excuse me, but before you look at my leg, I have a few questions to ask of you.”

She replied, “Of course. What are they?”

I said, “I have given you a lot of information about my guns. I am somewhat concerned about your knowledge and ability to assimilate, make coherent sense of that information, and report it correctly. Do you know the difference between a .22 caliber and a .223 caliber? It’s a rather fundamental difference.”

She replied, “Actually, I don’t.”

I said, “I see. Let me ask some more relevant questions. How much money do you make?”

She said, “That’s personal, why do you ask?”

I said, “Well, in pushing the Health Care Act, my president cautioned the population about doctors that would amputate a leg rather than treat a cut because they make more money that way. Consequently, I wish to know if you are financially troubled. What kind of car do you drive? What are your house payments? How much is your mortgage? How much credit card debt do you have? Do you have a student loan; if so, how much?”

She said, “I’m not going to answer those questions. You have no right to ask them.”

I then asked, “Do you have training and education in homeopathic techniques? Do you know the benefits/effects of CoQ10, ginseng, fish oil, Creatine, BCAA, and other such herbal treatments? Do you know the difference between Panax ginseng, American ginseng, and Siberian ginseng?”

She replied, “Well, No!”

I then asked, ”Well, have you studied it at all?”

She replied rather defensively, “NO, it’s all a bunch of hogwash anyway!”

I said, “Oh, then you have read the research on it. What have you read?”

She then said, “I don’t waste my time reading such things. Why are you asking me these questions?”

I said, “Well, if I’m going to turn my body over to you for treatment, I believe it is reasonable for me to know something about your motivation, training, experience, and competence. Do you know anything about the practice of holistic medicine?”

She said, rather angrily “No, I don’t!”

I said, “Oh. Okay. How much experience do you have in practicing medicine?”

She replied, “Well, not very much.”

To which I said, “Well, we all have to start somewhere. What medical school did you go to? What is its rank in terms of other medical schools? Where did you intern?  Where did you do your residency? What is the rank of the hospital where you did your internship and residency?”

She rather peevishly said, “All my credentials are posted in the waiting room.”

To which I said, “Really? The rank of your medical school is posted in the waiting room? Do you have any experience with leg injuries? If so, how much?”

I guess that was too much for her. She got angry and said, “I think it would be best if you saw a different doctor.” ... and started to leave the room.

I said, “You know, doctor. You asked me irrelevant questions about my guns, and I answered them. Whether or not I own guns is really none of your business and has absolutely nothing to do with any treatment you might prescribe. On the other hand, I ask you questions quite relevant to my situation, and you refuse to answer them. Isn’t that somewhat backwards?”
She said, “But I HAVE to ask those questions. I don't like it! It’s the law under ObamaCare!”

"That being the case," I said, "You may now look at my leg if you want to."

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Oil & Gas Industry: Facts & Trivia - Part Two


After putting out Oil and Gas Industry: Facts & Trivia - Part One, there was one fact that people have written to ask about.

It's about the Shareholders in the Oil and Gas Industry, and who owns how much of the pie?

Well, whether Liberal politicians and Environmental extremists want to acknowledge the truth or not, it is a cold hard fact that the majority of shares are owned by Private and Public Pension and Retirement Funds.

According to a study by Sonecon, the group who owns the most shares of publicly held oil and natural gas companies are Private and Public Funds. 

Nearly half of all of the shares of U.S.-based oil and natural gas companies are held by Public and Private Pension and Retirement Plans, including 401(k)s, and IRA’s.

Corporate management owns less than 3%, that's right three percent, of the oil and natural gas industry. 

So when you hear someone say those "fat cats" in the Oil and Gas Industry are getting rich, please remember that the only "fat cats" who are getting rich off the Oil and Gas Industry are in Washington DC.

To my knowledge, there are no "fat cats" getting rich off of Private and Public Pension and Retirement Funds.

From what country did the U.S. import the most oil in 2012? How about our good neighbors to the North, Canada.

It's true! Our Number 1 trading partner is also our Number 1 supplier of imported oil to the economic benefit of both the U.S. and Canada.

Innovation and investment by America’s oil companies has increased the safe production of crude oil in America to its highest level since October, 1992.

Yes, at the end of 2012, U.S. field production of crude oil was more than 7.12 million barrels a day.

The last month it was that high who when George H.W. Bush was president.

What percentage of the Outer Continental Shelf is off-limits to oil and natural gas development? 

How about 87%!

Increased access, both onshore and offshore, could add more than 4 million barrels’ worth of oil and natural gas to the United States by 2020. And yes, that's per day!

The U.S. oil and natural gas industry’s average effective tax rate from 2006-2011 was 44% - which of course means that the oil and gas industry definitely pays its fair share of income taxes. 

Actually, it is a fact that the oil and gas industry pays more taxes than any other industry in the U.S.

The whacko environmentalist who would love to see Americans living in huts and eating leaves and berries might want Americans to think differently, but it is a fact that our oil and gas industry pays more in taxes than anyone else.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. consumed 95 quadrillion BTUs of energy in 2012.

So how much of that was supplied by oil and natural gas? 

How about more than 60%!

Most folks probably don't realize that Oil and Natural Gas supplied more than 60.62 quadrillion BTUs, or 63.77%, of the energy the U.S. consumed in 2012.

The Key to America's Energy Security

The domestic oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million American jobs and 7.7 percent of the U.S. economy, while producing 51 percent of all the oil and petroleum products Americans consume.

Every day, the industry fills state and federal government coffers with more than $86 million in taxes, fees and royalties.

All while investing more than $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives.

There is no question that a thriving domestic oil and gas industry is vital to America’s energy and economic security.

And did you know that, with the right policies in place, the industry can contribute even more?

In fact, U.S. and Canadian supplies can provide 100 percent of our liquid fuel needs by 2030 with the implementation of two straight-forward policies:

1) accessing U.S. oil and natural gas reserves that are currently off-limits; and
2) partnering with our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, in the development of the Keystone XL pipeline.

A recent study found that U.S. State Department approval of the pipeline expansion could bring an extra 830,000 barrels of oil per day.

That is equal to about half of what is currently imported from the Persian Gulf. Canada has long been a vital partner in delivering American energy security.

It currently supplies 25 percent of U.S. oil imports - more than any other country in the world.

In addition to powering America with reliable supplies of energy, in 2010 alone, the industry delivered benefits to the U.S. economy roughly equivalent to 60 percent of the government's 2009 stimulus package.

That's right, $476 billion in industry benefits - compared to $787 billion in planned government stimulus expenditures.

$266 billion in new U.S. capital project investment, $176 billion in wages and $35 billion in 2010 dividends also spur growth in manufacturing, transportation, technology, accounting services and in the larger U.S. economy.

We've already talked about how the oil and gas industry contributes to retirement security for millions of Americans.

A 2011 Sonecon study found that, on average, oil and gas stocks comprise 4.6 percent of state pension fund assets, yet provide 15.7 percent of the returns—a ratio of 3.4 to 1.
  So how else does the Oil and Gas Industry benefit Americans?

Well, if we had government policies that support oil and natural gas development, we can increase total supported U.S. employment by One Million jobs in seven years.

That's not just number that was pulled out of someone's hat. It is not made up like the figures that are used by that group liars in the Obama administration.

Pro-development policies, which would include increased access to federal areas that are currently off-limits to oil and natural gas production, increased permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, approval of the full Keystone XL pipeline and other initiatives, can add 1.1 million new jobs by 2020.

How do they know this? Actually, it's derived by knowing how many people you would need to employ to expand an operation. 

That is the low estimate of the manpower, the number of employees, needed if those areas were open to public use.

This would help create jobs, great paying jobs for the future, and we can tell the Middle East to shove it!

Too bad President Obama is such a great friend to Muslims and the Oil Companies that they own - of the top 15 oil companies in the world are owned by Muslim nations.

The largest American owned oil company ranks 17th in the world, but Obama and Democrats never ever mention that - or the fact that while our oil companies help to bring energy to the world, Muslim owned oil companies finance Muslim terrorism.

And yes, if you wondered, the answer is yes - Obama's pro-foreign oil stance is a pro-Muslim stance.

"Red line" just one of roughly 500 Obama promises that have come and gone



FILE: Aug. 9, 2013: President Obama speaks during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington.AP

President Obama vowing that Syria would “cross a red line” by using chemical weapons is far from the only marker he’s laid down or promise he’s tried to keep since running for president in 2008.

The president has made more than 500 campaign-related promises alone. And just last week he re-drew a line in the sand for congressional Republicans flirting with shutting down the government over his Affordable Care Act and looking for spending cuts as part of a separate deal to increase the federal debt limit.

“That’s not happening,” Obama said. “I will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States.”

The president has had mixed success in keeping that vow over the past few years.

He managed in January to get the debt ceiling raised without yielding to Republicans’ demand for accompanying spending cuts.

However, in 2011 he failed to reach a “grand bargain” with House Republicans over the debt ceiling, forcing both sides to eventually accept a series of drastic spending cuts known as sequester.

“The sequester is not something that I've proposed,” Obama announced in his final 2012 presidential debate. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

PolitiFact -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning project of the Tampa Bay Times that has essentially tracked all of the president’s major promises -- ruled Obama’s argument “mostly false.”

“It was Obama’s negotiating team that came up with the idea,” wrote PolitiFact.

The project finds that Obama has kept 241, or 45 percent, of his roughly 500 campaign promises, while breaking 118, or 22 percent, and compromising on roughly 25 percent. The remaining 8 percent are essentially still to be determined.

Though tracking a president’s promises is among Washington’s favorite parlor games, Obama’s “red line” vow in August 2012 has perhaps become his most debated and closely watched -- as it plays out on an international stage.

Obama waited for months, amid reports that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was using a chemical weapon in that country’s roughly 2-year-long civil war. However, after reviewing compelling evidence about an Aug. 21 sarin-gas attack that killed nearly 1,500 Syrians, the president said the United States must take military action.

The president appeared to try to blur the red line when he said earlier this month: "I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. … My credibility isn't on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line."

The outcome remains in flux as Congress, at the president’s request, considers whether to authorize the use of limited military force and Syria moves closer to a diplomatic solution in which it would put its chemical weapons under international control.

PolitiFact has picked Obama’s top 25 promises and concluded he has kept nine, broken six and compromised on seven with three still in the works.

Among the most significant kept promises are removing U.S. combat troops from Iraq and ending the use of torture as an interrogation tactic on international prisoners.

Obama’s failure to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center and imposing tougher rules on the so-called “revolving door” for lobbyists and former officials are among the top broken promises for PolitiFact and others -- with a little more than three years remaining in his two-term presidency.

PolitiFact argues that Obama’ path to citizenship remains a work in progress.

To be sure, he must wait for the Republican-led House to vote now that the Democrat-controlled Senate has passed the legislation.

The project also concludes Obama’s promise to create 5 million new “green” jobs also is still in the works.

However, PolitiFact reports the federal government didn't count such jobs until this year, which make tracking the promise difficult.

And the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates the U.S. economy had 2.1 million green jobs in 2003 and 2.7 million of them in 2010, which would make the goal of 5 million hard to reach by 2016.

PolitiFact also concludes the president broke his promise to cut a typical family’s health insurance premiums by as much as $2,500 annually under ObamaCare.

However, the project didn’t address the president’s June 2009 promise that “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Unions have argued that ObamaCare could make the cost of insurance for workers under multi employer plans more expensive, forcing them into the so-called government backed “exchanges.”

“The Obama administration and Congress must not allow this to happen,” the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers said this summer.

The above article was posted on


Maybe now that big money campaign donors like the Unions are against ObamaCare, the Democrats will listen to them.

And since he has not yet anounced a run for a third term - even though it legally can't be done - Obama  may want to keep the Unions and their big money happy for as long as he can.

The Good News is, broken promises or not, Obama's Liberal Union Bosses who are going to have a real hard time telling Union memebers that they spent Millions of thier Pension fund Dollars to push ObamaCare and elect then re-elect Obama - are now against ObamaCare also and indeed might be the downfall of ObamaCare and its Socialist mandate.

It proves Good News can sometimes come in strange ways.

Tom Correa

Monday, September 23, 2013

Do We Need 70+ Federal Police Agencies On Steroids?

Dear Readers,

The term "para-military" is one that I first became familiar with back almost 40 years ago when I was involved in the training of SWAT team police officers at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The police officers were there for an introduction to Urban Warfare and weapons familiarization training. Most, if not all, were assigned to their department's SWAT teams. None were Federal law enforcement, all were police officers and sheriffs deputies from the Southern California area.

The term "para-military" is used to describe a group of civilians organized in a military fashion. They are not Soldiers or Marines, they're cops. Though roughly organized in a military fashion, the mission of law enforcement is protect and serve.

The mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad, which they were there that day to learn from, is to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel enemy assault by fire and close combat.

I was an Instructor at the time and volunteered to be there. It turned out differently that I thought it would. I remember a fellow Instructor, another Marine Sgt. calling them, "amateurs" and "wannabes." Another referred to them as "mistakes waiting to happen!"

At the time, I really didn't know what to think of those guys other than not caring for their "know-it-all" attitudes. They were there to get a crash course, a weekend course, on Urban Warfare, and then go to the range for "FAM Fire" (familiarization fire) with weapons (small arms) which were used in a Marine Rifle Squad at the time.

If my memory is correct, on the range, the officers were all there to learn to safely handle and FAM fire the M1911A1 .45 semi-automatic pistol, the M14 7.62mm rifle in semi-automatic fire, the M16 5.56mm rifle in semi-automatic and fully automatic rates of fire, the M60 Machine Gun, the M79 40mm Grenade launcher, etc.
Most didn't know the basics of tactics or weapons, or as far as that goes weapons safety, but you couldn't tell them that. We were there to teach and they were there to learn, but many of us soon felt that they saw us as just taking up their time. It became quickly apparent they learned everything watching television and playing soldier as kids in their backyards. And yes, when it came to important aspects of the use of these weapons, such as Fire Control and Fire Discipline, it was very apparent that they weren't interested in what we had to show them. It seemed that they had other ideas.
Fire Control relates to a leader's ability to adjust fire onto a target, to shift all or part of the fire from one target to another, and to regulate the rate of fire. It has everything to do with having his men open or cease fire at the instant he desires. The leader must teach his men fire discipline so that he may exercise fire control. Fire Discipline is achieved when the unit has been taught and pays strict attention to instructions regarding the use of weapons and can collectively execute fire commands with precision. Fire discipline also has everything to do with limited fire to conserve ammunition and shooting accurately.

It is the opposite of  the "spray and pray" firing technique of choice for Hollywood and the movies. I had very little to do that day other than stand around and be there if needed. I remember thinking that it was a waste of time because those guys didn't act as though they were interested in what our Instructors had to say.

The Militarization of Law Enforcement

As the years have passed, I've watched as many para-military law enforcement organizations at both the Federal, State, and local levels, have become more and more equipped like the rogue constabulary in Third World countries: Fully armed and trying to justify their existence.

I read where in 1972, America conducted only a few hundred para-military drug raids a year. By the early 1980's, that figure became 3,000 a year. By 2001, it is reported that the annual count had skyrocketed to 40,000 military style raids a years. As one report put it, "today, even that number seems impossibly low, with one annual count of combat-style home raids hovers around 80,000 a year."

In some cases, the rationale for using military weapons and tactics on domestic soil seems obvious. Yes, we look no further than the recent hunt for the Tsarnaev brothers after the Boston Marathon bombings. But folks, the Tsarnaev brothers is not the norm. That wasn't a routine situation.

What is incredible today is just how routine military style Urban Warfare tactics have become as a means of pursuing non-violent suspects and during low-level investigations. Today, thousands of police departments nationwide have recently acquired stun grenades, armored tanks, counterattack vehicles, and all sorts of other para-military equipment, much of it purchased with asset-forfeiture funds.

In addition, as ABC reports, a U.S. Department of Defense program, often called the Pentagon Pipeline, has redistributed billions of dollars worth of surplus military gear to local police departments. These acquisitions have no doubt helped to transform full-scale, bust-down-the-door raids on homes and businesses from red-alert rarities, reserved for life-threatening scenarios, to commonplace occurrences.

That's State, County and City, But How About The Feds?

Most of us know about our city and county police and sheriff departments and their use of SWAT team Urban Warfare tactics, but have you ever wondered exactly how many of these military wannabe agencies there are in the Federal Government?

I have to admit that this comes to a surprise to me. Never would I have thought that 70 agencies within the Federal government have their own armed agents. No, its not just the Secret Service, the FBI, and the BATF out there. There are a lot of agencies which have armed agents which you would really ask yourself "why do they need them?"

Now there are 73 agencies that all carry assault weapons - and probably have their own SWAT teams, armored personnel carriers, explosives, heavy arms personnel, including armed aircraft. In fact, now knowing that there are so many law enforcement agencies with para-military trained personnel - a lot of things now makes sense.

You see, last year, the American public got the run around and never really got direct answers from the Feds when asked why they needed so much ammunition and military hardware? Yes, last year the Department of Homeland Security bought 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, along with 2,217 Tanks and Armoured Vehicles for "Domestic Use," and a couple of thousand M4s and M16s for agents of the Federal Government.

It now makes sense!

The Federal Government has a domestic para-military force almost as large as the entire United States Marine Corps.

And guess what, these guys only answer to Political Appointees. But fair being fair, let's be fair about things. I understand the need for non-military armed officers with arrest authority. Thank God we do have the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals. I don't have a problem with them, or the Border Patrol, or even the Coast Guard which are Federal agencies.

My problem is with some of the others! For example, ask yourself, do Federal governmental agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Smithsonian National Zoological Park, the Library of Congress, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, the National Oceanic and the Atmospheric Administration, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Institutes of Health, or the Government Printing Office need armed officers of their own?

So why are people finally talking about there being now at least 73 armed agencies of the Federal Government?

Well, an armed EPA raid in Alaska shed light on the 73 Federal agencies who have their own armed divisions within each agency.

In a report published September 14, 2013, on, it was reported that:

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 70+ federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement -- have armed divisions. The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

Though most Americans know agents within the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Prisons carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board employing armed officers might come as a surprise.

The incident that sparked the renewed interest and concern occurred in late August when a team of armed federal and state officials descended on the tiny Alaska gold mining town of Chicken, Alaska.

The Environmental Protection Agency, whose armed agents in full body armor participated, acknowledged taking part in the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force investigation, which it said was conducted to look for possible violations of the Clean Water Act. However, EPA officials denied the operation was a “raid” and didn't address speculation about whether it was connected to possible human and drug trafficking.

“Imagine coming up to your diggings, only to see agents swarming over it like ants, wearing full body armor, with jackets that say "POLICE" emblazoned on them, and all packing side arms,” gold miner C.R. Hammond told the Alaska Dispatch.

The other federal agencies participating in the operation were the FBI, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and the Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Park Service. The EPA defended its use of armed officers, after the Alaska incident saying, "Environmental law enforcement, like other forms of law enforcement, always involves the potential for physical, even armed, confrontation."

That Doesn't Wash!

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell has already ordered an investigation, saying "This level of intrusion and intimidation of Alaskans is absolutely unacceptable."

In addition, Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Republican, and Mark Begich, Democrat, have inquired about the incident. Murkowski said purported concerns about rampant drug and human trafficking in the area sounded “wholly concocted” to her. She told the newspaper, “This seems to have been a heavy-handed and heavy-armor approach. Why was it so confrontational? The EPA really didn’t have any good answers for this.”

This is not the first time armed EPA agents have been accused of intimidating behavior. In May 2012, North Carolina resident Larry Keller was visited by armed EPA agents after sending an email to Al Armendariz, the regional administrator who was video-taped saying his enforcement strategy was to "crucify" executives from big oil and gas companies.

But Where's The Need?

Contrary to popular belief, FBI crime statistics show that violent crime is actually down - the lowest in more than 30 years. If that's the case, than why the military mentality? Why do we need a modern American Police State? If the FBI statistics are correct, with some saying it's a result of better law enforcement methods, and other saying its because of more armed Americans with concealed carry permits - I prefer to believe the later - then why the militarization of American law enforcement?

Today, the militarization of America's civilian law enforcement is taking place with the help of Homeland Security.

The DHS seems extremely willing to give American Taxpayer Dollars to any Federal, State and local  department whatever military hardware they want. As a result, today there is a dramatic increase in the use of para-military units for routine police work. Whether it's the DEA, or ICE, or the BATF, or as we find out one of more than 73 government agencies, the most common use today is a forced unannounced entry into the home.

These increasingly frequent raids, estimated at 80,000 per year, are needlessly subjecting non-violent offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed para-military units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. And yes, in many instances, masked!

Why Masked? Who Knows!

Yes, these raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors - but more importantly, the raids themselves terrorize innocents, especially when these law enforcement units mistakenly target the wrong residence. And if you are wondering, yes, they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries to children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

We need to ask ourselves if this is what we want from law enforcement?

Do we need 70+ Federal para-military law enforcement agencies, all using SWAT tactics, all trying to justify their existence by doing things that are not "police work?" Do we need the EPA and other agencies to have authority? Or, the ability to abuse its power?

Back some 40 years ago, after a day of dealing with police officers who would be assigned to SWAT teams, I remember a Gunny Sgt who put things this way. He said, "These guys don't know if they want to be cops or soldiers. Most of these guys see themselves as soldiers when they're supposed to be cops. Power like this, used among our civilians? I've seen it in Third World countries, but not here. Unchecked, this can be very dangerous!"

I believe he was right.

Tom Correa

Sunday, September 22, 2013

1875 Rules of Conversation

1. Even if convinced that your opponent is utterly wrong, yield gracefully, decline further discussion, or dexterously turn the conversation, but do not obstinately defend your own opinion until you become angry

Many there are who, giving their opinion, not as an opinion but as a law, will defend their position by such phrases, as: “Well, if I were president, or governor, I would,” — and while by the warmth of their argument they prove that they are utterly unable to govern their own temper, they will endeavor to persuade you that they are perfectly competent to take charge of the government of the nation.

2. Retain, if you will, a fixed political opinion, yet do not parade it upon all occasions, and, above all, do not endeavor to force others to agree with you.

Listen calmly to their ideas upon the same subjects, and if you cannot agree, differ politely, and while your opponent may set you down as a bad politician, let him be obliged to admit that you are a gentleman.

3. Never interrupt anyone who is speaking; it is quite rude to officiously supply a name or date about which another hesitates, unless you are asked to do so.

Another gross breach of etiquette is to anticipate the point of a story which another person is reciting, or to take it from his lips to finish it in your own language.

Some persons plead as an excuse for this breach of etiquette, that the reciter was spoiling a good story by a bad manner, but this does not mend the matter.

It is surely rude to give a man to understand that you do not consider him capable of finishing an anecdote that he has commenced.

4. It is ill-bred to put on an air of weariness during a long speech from another person, and quite as rude to look at a watch, read a letter, flirt the leaves of a book, or in any other action show that you are tired of the speaker or his subject.

5. In a general conversation, never speak when another person is speaking, and never try by raising your own voice to drown that of another.

Never assume an air of haughtiness, or speak in a dictatorial manner; let your conversation be always amiable and frank, free from every affectation.

6. Never, unless you are requested to do so, speak of your own business or profession in society; to confine your conversation entirely to the subject or pursuit which is your own specialty is low-bred and vulgar.

Make the subject for conversation suit the company in which you are placed.

Joyous, light conversation will be at times as much out of place as a sermon would be at a dancing party.

Let your conversation be grave or gay [happy] as suits the time or place.

7. In a dispute, if you cannot reconcile the parties, withdraw from them.

You will surely make one enemy, perhaps two, by taking either side, in an argument when the speakers have lost their temper.

8. Never, during a general conversation, endeavor to concentrate the attention wholly upon yourself.

It is quite as rude to enter into conversation with one of a group, and endeavor to draw him out of the circle of general conversation to talk with you alone.

9. A man of real intelligence and cultivated mind is generally modest.

He may feel when in everyday society, that in intellectual acquirements he is above those around him; but he will not seek to make his companions feel their inferiority, nor try to display this advantage over them.

He will discuss with frank simplicity the topics started by others, and endeavor to avoid starting such as they will not feel inclined to discuss.

All that he says will be marked by politeness and deference to the feelings and opinions of others.

10. It is as great an accomplishment to listen with an air of interest and attention, as it is to speak well.

To be a good listener is as indispensable as to be a good talker, and it is in the character of listener that you can most readily detect the man who is accustomed to good society.

11. Never listen to the conversation of two persons who have thus withdrawn from a group.

If they are so near you that you cannot avoid hearing them, you may, with perfect propriety, change your seat.

12. Make your own share in conversation as modest and brief as is consistent with the subject under consideration, and avoid long speeches and tedious stories.

If, however, another, particularly an old man, tells a long story, or one that is not new to you, listen respectfully until he has finished, before you speak again.

13. Speak of yourself but little.

Your friends will find out your virtues without forcing you to tell them, and you may feel confident that it is equally unnecessary to expose your faults yourself.

14. If you submit to flattery, you must also submit to the imputation of folly and self-conceit.

15. In speaking of your friends, do not compare them, one with another.

Speak of the merits of each one, but do not try to heighten the virtues of one by contrasting them with the vices of another.

16. Avoid, in conversation all subjects which can injure the absent. A gentleman will never calumniate or listen to calumny.

17. The wittiest man becomes tedious and ill-bred when he endeavors to engross entirely the attention of the company in which he should take a more modest part.

18. Avoid set phrases, and use quotations but rarely.

They sometimes make a very piquant addition to conversation, but when they become a constant habit, they are exceedingly tedious, and in bad taste.

19. Avoid pedantry; it is a mark, not of intelligence, but stupidity.

20. Speak your own language correctly; at the same time do not be too great a stickler for formal correctness of phrases.

21. Never notice it if others make mistakes in language.

To notice by word or look such errors in those around you is excessively ill-bred.

22. If you are a professional or scientific man, avoid the use of technical terms.  They are in bad taste, because many will not understand them.

If, however, you unconsciously use such a term or phrase, do not then commit the still greater error of explaining its meaning. No one will thank you for thus implying their ignorance.

23. In conversing with a foreigner who speaks imperfect English, listen with strict attention, yet do not supply a word, or phrase, if he hesitates.

Above all, do not by a word or gesture show impatience if he makes pauses or blunders.

If you understand his language, say so when you first speak to him; this is not making a display of your own knowledge, but is a kindness, as a foreigner will be pleased to hear and speak his own language when in a strange country.

24. Be careful in society never to play the part of buffoon, for you will soon become known as the “funny” man of the party, and no character is so perilous to your dignity as a gentleman.

You lay yourself open to both censure and bad ridicule, and you may feel sure that, for every person who laughs with you, two are laughing at you, and for one who admires you, two will watch your antics with secret contempt.

25. Avoid boasting. To speak of your money, connections, or the luxuries at your command is in very bad taste.

It is quite as ill-bred to boast of your intimacy with distinguished people.

If their names occur naturally in the course of conversation, it is very well; but to be constantly quoting, “my friend, Gov. C,” or, “my intimate friend, the president,” is pompous and in bad taste.

26. While refusing the part of jester yourself, do not, by stiff manners, or cold, contemptuous looks, endeavor to check the innocent mirth of others.

It is in excessively bad taste to drag in a grave subject of conversation when pleasant, bantering talk is going on around you.

Join in pleasantly and forget your graver thoughts for the time, and you will win more popularity than if you chill the merry circle or turn their innocent gayety to grave discussions.

27. When thrown into the society of literary people, do not question them about their works.

To speak in terms of admiration of any work to the author is in bad taste; but you may give pleasure, if, by a quotation from their writings, or a happy reference to them, you prove that you have read and appreciated them.

28. It is extremely rude and pedantic, when engaged in general conversation, to make quotations in a foreign language.

29. To use phrases which admit of a double meaning, is ungentlemanly.

30. If you find you are becoming angry in a conversation, either turn to another subject or keep silence.

You may utter, in the heat of passion, words which you would never use in a calmer moment, and which you would bitterly repent when they were once said.

31. “Never talk of ropes to a man whose father was hanged” is a vulgar but popular proverb.

Avoid carefully subjects which may be construed into personalities, and keep a strict reserve upon family matters.

Avoid, if you can, seeing the skeleton in your friend’s closet, but if it is paraded for your special benefit, regard it as a sacred confidence, and never betray your knowledge to a third party.

32. If you have traveled, although you will endeavor to improve your mind in such travel, do not be constantly speaking of your journeyings.

Nothing is more tiresome than a man who commences every phrase with, “When I was in Paris,” or, “In Italy I saw…”

33. When asking questions about persons who are not known to you, in a drawing-room, avoid using adjectives; or you may enquire of a mother, “Who is that awkward, ugly girl?” and be answered, “Sir, that is my daughter.”

34. Avoid gossip; in a woman it is detestable, but in a man it is utterly despicable.

35. Do not officiously offer assistance or advice in general society. Nobody will thank you for it.

36. Avoid flattery. A delicate compliment is permissible in conversation, but flattery is broad, coarse, and to sensible people, disgusting.

If you flatter your superiors, they will distrust you, thinking you have some selfish end; if you flatter ladies, they will despise you, thinking you have no other conversation.

37. A lady of sense will feel more complimented if you converse with her upon instructive, high subjects, than if you address to her only the language of compliment.

In the latter case she will conclude that you consider her incapable of discussing higher subjects, and you cannot expect her to be pleased at being considered merely a silly, vain person, who must be flattered into good humor.

Editor's Note:

The above is an excerpt from a book published in 1875: A Gentleman’s Guide to Etiquette by Cecil B. Hartley.

Mr Hartley’s rules may be over 100 years old, but they’re pretty much just as true today as they ever were.

There is a lot there that applies today, or at least should, to both men and women.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

The Old West: Texas - The Horrell Brothers

The Horrell Brothers were also referred to as "The Lawless Horrell Boys." All in all there were five brothers from the Horrell family of Lampasas County, Texas.

All outlaws of the Old West. They committed numerous murders over a five year period before four of the brothers were finally killed in different incidents.
Although relatively few deaths compared to other feuds, the brothers are probably best known for the Horrell-Higgins Feud. That feud started in 1873. That was when the brothers went on a killing spree during which time they killed two lawman in New Mexico, one white and the other Hispanic. After that they went on to kill eleven Hispanic men along with wounding one Hispanic woman before they were done. Yes, it was considered a racially motivated killing spree. Even in the Old West, there were such things.

How bad were these brothers? Well, it is said that the brothers had killed five lawmen prior to that spree in Texas. Imagine that? Five lawmen get killed and these bad guys still ran around to spread more evil.

The Horrell and Higgins families had both settled in the Lampasas County area several years before the Civil War. The two families got along well for over a decade. That all ended by the early 1870s when the Horrell boys, Mart, Tom, Merritt, Ben and Sam, became involved in numerous lawless activities.

You've heard of the James boys and the Youngers, well neither were as deadly as the Horrell brothers. In fact, by January 1873, Lampasas County Sheriff Shadrick T. Denson attempted to arrest two brothers, Wash and Mark Short. He was stopped by the Horrell brothers when a gunfight ensued and Sheriff Denson was shot dead.

Since things looked completely out of hand, a county judge appealed to Governor Edmund J. Davis for help. This prompted the Texas State Police to dispatch a number of lawmen to settle things down.

On February 10th, 1873, Governor Davis issued an order prohibiting the carrying of firearms inside the town limits of Lampasas, Texas. That's right, Gun Control from the Governor himself. Of course even back then they found out that when law abiding citizen lose the right to carry a gun, only the outlaws have them. In this case the Horrell brothers.

Seven Texas State Police Officers arrived shortly after went into place. They were under the command of Captain Thomas Williams. On March 14th, 1873, state officers Wesley Cherry, Jim Daniels, and Andrew Melville arrested Bill Bowen, a brother-in-law to the Horrell brothers. He was arrested for carrying a firearm.

The officers made the mistake of then entering Jerry Scott's Saloon with Bowen in tow. This sparked a verbal confrontation with the Horrell brothers who were drinking heavily inside the saloon. Soon enough a gunfight ensued. It resulted in four of the officers being shot dead, including Captain Williams. Before succumbing to his wounds, Captain Williams shot and badly wounded Mart and Tom Horrell.

Following the gunfight, the Governor sent several more state police to the county. Outnumbered, Mart Horrell and three friends were arrested and taken to the Georgetown, Texas, jail. But that didn't stop more than 30 of their friends, all who decided to break into the jail and free them. After being freed from jail, the brothers fled to Lincoln County, New Mexico, where Ben Horrell is said to have quickly befriended Lincoln County Sheriff Jack Gylam.

On December 1st, 1873, Sheriff Gylam and Ben Horrell are said to have rode into Lincoln, New Mexico, where they began drinking. They visited several brothels and saloons before deciding to shoot up the town. Yes, discharging their firearms in the street while drunk.

Constable Juan Martinez arrived on scene and immediately demanded that the two turn over their weapons. Surprisingly they complied but were not arrested. Sadly, their being disarmed didn't last. Both were said to be mean drunks, and soon enough they had found more pistols. So again they started shooting up the town, but this time they started inside a brothel.

Constable Martinez is said to have confronted the two with the intent of disarming them again. Ben Horrell shot and killed Constable Martinez. After that, he and Sheriff Gylam attempted to flee town. Luckily, both were stopped before getting away and a shootout took place. The result was that the two never made it out of town as other lawmen caught up with them before they were able to leave town. Both Horrell and Gylam are said to have been killed.

The Horrell brothers retaliated by killing two prominent Mexican ranchers. This resulted in newly appointed Sheriff Alexander Hamilton Mills to gather up a posse and hunting them down. Then after an intense standoff outside Lincoln, the posse was so shot up that they retreated and the brothers escaped.

On December 20th, 1873, the brothers stormed a Hispanic celebration in Lincoln, killing four Hispanic men and wounding one Hispanic woman. Again they were pursued, but evaded capture.

Proving that these brothers hated Mexican-Americans in the worse way, shortly after that, Edward "Little" Hart, a cohort of the Horrell brothers, shot and killed Deputy Sheriff Joseph Haskins because the Deputy married a Hispanic woman.

Less than a week later, the brothers and their friends came into contact with freight wagons just outside Roswell, New Mexico. Since the wagons were being  maintained by five Hispanic men, the Horrell brothers decided to kill all five of those men.

Now enters John "Pink" Higgins

John Pinckney Calhoun Higgins
By early February of 1874, the brothers had returned to Lampasas, Texas. As soon as arriving, they found that they were no longer welcome. Fact is, by that time, they were no longer viewed as simply fun-loving local cowboys. Instead, they were seen as the outlaws and killers that they were.
Soon after arriving, the brothers were arrested for the murders of the lawmen in Lampasas. Sadly, because an intimidated local jury heard the case, they were acquitted.

Shortly after their acquittal, John "Pink" Higgins accused the Horrell brothers of cattle rustling. The brothers were arrested again and went to court. Again, mostly out of fear of the brothers, the local jury hearing the case acquitted them.

Although things were tense between the Higgins and Horrell families, nothing really happened until January 22th, 1877. On that day, while in the Wiley and Toland's Gem Saloon in Lampasas, John "Pink" Higgins shot and killed Merritt Horrell in a gunfight.

The three remaining Horrell brothers vowed they would take revenge against John Higgins, his brother in law Bob Mitchell, and their friend Bill Wren. And they didn't keep their plans a secret. In fact, it's said they made their plans of killing Pink Higgins and the other very public on several occasions.

On March 26th, 1877, Tom and Mart Horrell were shot and wounded during an ambush but both survived. At the time, John Higgins and Bob Mitchell were being sought for the Merritt Horrell gunfight. Both surrendered shortly after the ambush. They surrendered to no nonsense Texas Ranger Captain John Sparks who is best known for his 1876 capture of gunman Billy Thompson.

After the arrest, both men posted their 10 percent needed for their $10,000 bond. Both were released. Interestingly, right after that, the local courthouse was said to have been burglarized with several records stolen which included their bonds. In the meanwhile, an inquest ruled the shooting of Merritt Horrell as self-defense and the charges were dropped.

Lampasas Square Shoot Out & John Higgins

On June 7th, 1877, John "Pink" Higgins, his brother-in-law Bob Mitchell, Bob's brother Frank, Bill Wren, and another brother-in-law Ben Terry, all rode into Lampasas, Texas. The Horrell brothers and several their friends were already in town that day. They were already gathered at the town square.

It is unknown who fired first, but it is believed that someone within the Horrell gang opened fire on the Higgins faction. This resulted in a shootout that resulted in Bill Wren being wounded and Frank Mitchell being killed. The Horrell faction didn't make out any better as their friends Buck Waltrup and Carson Graham were killed.

Texas Rangers descended on the town only days later. With that all three Horrell brothers were arrested, and Texas Ranger Major John B. Jones acted as a mediator between the two sides to calm matters.

Less than one year later, Mart and Tom Horrell were arrested in Meridian, Texas for armed robbery and murder. While confined to the local jail, a group of concerned citizens, read that as "vigilantes,"broke in and shot both of the Horrell brothers. It's said that the citizen's committee shot them, and shot them, and shot them to make sure they were dead. And although never proven, it was speculated later that John "Pink" Higgins was involved in the murders.

Sam Horrell was now the only remaining Horrell brother, and he moved his family to Oregon in 1882 before finally settling later in California. He died there in 1936.

John "Pink" Higgins was viewed as a local hero. He's often credited with bringing down the Horrell Brothers and their murderous gang. His legend would grow later worked as a range detective while developing a considerable reputation as a gunman.

In September of 1877, Higgins killed cowboy Ike Lantier. He caught Lantier in the act of stealing cattle. Lantier made the mistake of drawing on Higgins. He is said to have killed Lantier with a single shot. That shooting was later ruled self-defense.

On October 4th, 1903, already an old man by the standards of the day, John Higgins killed gunman and former lawman Bill Standifer in a gunfight. Standifer had threatened John Higgins' son Cullin who was a local district attorney. Pink Higgins wasn't going to stand for it.

John "Pink" Higgins died on December 18, 1914. At the time of his death, he was known to have killed at 14 men in gunfights. Yes, in reality, he killed more men than Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp combined. He was one tough hombre. If you doubt that, just ask the Horrell brothers.

Tom Correa