Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The Democrat Party Supports Gay Predators & Male Rape

Think about who the Democrat Party really is!

When you go to vote next week, please think about who the Democrat Party really is.

Think about the Democrat Party's Social Agenda of taking more and more of our rights away while suppressing personal liberties and freedom.

Think about how the Democrat Party is in favor of gun control, choses anti-Americanism over pro-Socialism, and is anti-Christian and pro-Muslim.

The Democrat Party is in favor of Political Correctness, Race Baiting, Political Favoritism, and identity biased politics.

Think about a Democrat Party which is in favor of out-of control regulations, of encouraging alternative lifestyles and making them appear as the norm, of encouraging anything-goes drug use, encouraging people to think that actions have no consequences, all while shielding favored classes and Liberal causes from criticism or rebuke.

Think about a Democrat Party which supports and promotes the Gay Agenda, and has subsequently encouraged more gay male sexual assaults on men and male children as young as 5 years of age.

Back in 2009, the Obama administration and the Democrat Party put out an order for the Liberal Mainstream Media to kill a story about gay man Frank Lombard who was the associate director of the Health Inequalities Program at Duke University’s Center for Health Policy.

The Duke University gay pedophile, Frank Lombard, was arrested for raping his 5 year old adopted son and actually attempting to get another gay man to cross state lines to engage in sex with his newly adopted 5 year old boy.

Of course for that story concerning Gay Adoption and Gay Rape, the same media and Duke professors who were all over the bogus 2006 Duke lacrosse team "rape" case were no where to be found.

Just as with much of what has taken place during his years in office, as with one scandal over another, the horrifying gay-adoption-rape story was pretty much pushed to the back pages so that it would be forgotten.

In November of 2011, a gay Connecticut "married" couple who were in reality a couple of gay pedophiles were arrested of raping their two adopted male children.

George Harasz, 49, and Douglas Wirth, 45, were arrested by the Glastonbury Police Department following allegations by two of their nine adopted children of sexual abuse.

Harasz and Wirth adopted nine children — three sets of male siblings — beginning in 2000, and ran a home based business.

Following a police and state investigation of sex-abuse allegations, all of the children were removed from the gay couple's home.

Police said two boys, ages 5 and 15, accused the gay couple of repeatedly sexually assaulting them. Their arrest warrants claimed the couple not only sexually and physically abused the children, but also forced them to sleep in closets.

After the arrests, three of the other children felt it safe enough to come forward claiming that they were also abused.

One of the victims who spoke during the court hearing said he was raped by the gay men starting when he was 6 years old.

“They took turns raping me over and over,” he said. “Anyone who would do this to a child is a sick, demented person.”

Both incidents of gay male rape of male children were swept under the rug and killed on the national news so that Obama's support of Gay Adoption would go through.

Folks, as far as I'm concerned, the Obama administration and the Democrat Party are responsible for protecting gay male rapists. And yes, they are to blame for looking the other way when it comes to gay male rape of male children.

Gay men believe they have friends in the Democrat Party. They see Democrat Politicians has supporting the Gay Agenda which wants to legalize male child molestation and rape.

More Gay Predators & Gay Pedophiles

In their attempt to make homosexual behavior not appear as the "alternative Lifestyle" that it is, homosexuality is being promoted by the Liberal media, Hollywood, and the Democrat Party as being "normal" behavior.

Their promotion of homosexuality is bearing fruit.

Just recently, on October 17th, three gay men and two gay teens were charged with raping a 15 year old boy then leaving him with "life-threatening injuries."

The 5 gay predators were arrested in the sexual assault of a 15-year-old boy in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. The charges range from first-degree sodomy to distributing material depicting the sexual performance of a minor.

Christian County Sheriff's Office has arrested three gay adult men and two gay teens in connection with the sexual assault.

The 5 gay rapists include Sam Miller, age 18, Tyler Riess Perry, age 19, Dayton Ross Jones, age 20, and two 17-year-old gay males. All of these homosexuals were arrested in connection with the sexual assault of a minor.

The group of gay men also face charges for recording their rape on video and distributing it later -- according to local media.

Sam Miller, 18, of Hopkinsville, was the fifth suspect arrested in the case on Wednesday and his bail was set at $1 Million, reported The Leaf-Chronicle.

On Sunday morning, the 15 year old victim was rushed to Gateway Medical Center in Clarksville with "life-threatening" injuries after being attacked at a home in Hopkinsville, authorities said.

Tyler Riess Perry, 19, was allegedly involved in the sex-crime that left the victim with serious injuries. Dayton Ross Jones, 20, was charged with first-degree sodomy and other charges. Miller, Perry and Jones were charged with first-degree sodomy, promoting the sex performance of a minor and using a minor in sex performance, WPSD reported.

In addition, Jones and Miller face a charge for allegedly distributing material that depicts the sexual performance of a minor.

But no, these might not be the only homosexuals involved in this crime. In fact, local authorities are expected to make more arrests as the investigation proceeds.

The criminal acts by these gay males follows an arrest of another gay man who was arrested on October 15th, 2014, for raping a 16 year old boy also in Kentucky.

The Commonwealth Journal reported that a 16-year-old male told Eubank Police investigators that Polly Ann Church of God youth pastor Rex Allen Murphy made homosexual sexual contact with him.

In that case, the gay man involved threatened the boy -- and repeatedly raped the boy, over a period of at least 6 months.

In an interview with police, the gay rapist asserted that he "thought he would be able to help the victim with his battle with homosexuality because he, too, had experimented with homosexuality."

Yes, his plea for people to understand his "problems with homosexuality" is something that is promoted by the Liberal media and Democrat Politicians.

The pastor at Polly Ann Church of God insisted to WKYT that Murphy had only been a Sunday school teacher, and that the boy was a student in his class.

The pastor also said that the church was dealing with the situation internally. He also argued that there was no reason to believe that any abuse occurred on church grounds.

The gay sex offender Murphy was arrested on charges of first-degree sexual abuse, use of a minor under 18 in a sexual performance, and third-degree sodomy.

Even the Homeless are practicing what the Democrat Party preaches -- as gay male predators are everywhere these days.

On August 12th, it was reported that a gay couple from Florida were charged with sexually assaulting and beating a homeless man they met at the Fox Valley Warming Shelter.

The 20-year-old man flagged down an Outagamie County Sheriff's deputy near the Justice Center and said he escaped the vacant apartment where he had been drinking with the co-defendants, according to the criminal complaint.

The alleged victim said he met gay men Alexsander C. Mirkovich, 28, and Anthony M. Gomez, 48, at the homeless shelter and went to an empty apartment in the 600 block of West Third Street to drink together.

The man said he fell asleep at some point and woke up to find Gomez performing oral sex on him and Mirkovich naked from the waist down, the complaint states.

When the victim pushed Gomez off him, Mirkovich began punching him repeatedly. As the man tried to protect himself, Gomez grabbed his arms and held him down as Mirkovich struck him in the face and upper body, police said.

The 20-year-old suffered a broken nose and other facial injuries, police said.

And yes, come to find out, both of these gay predators have extensive arrest records.

Court Commissioner Brian Figy set bond for both men at $10,000 and ordered they have no contact with the victim or each other.

For those reading this and thinking that Gay Rape, that Gay Crime, that man on man sex crimes, only takes place in prisons.

Facts prove that assumption false. For example, the number of gay male serial killers is not small -- according to statistics, gay males are more likely to be serial killers than straight males.

And yes, studies show that over 95% of all child molesters are gay men.

While homosexual men supposedly only make up 2 to 3% of the population, they in fact make up a significantly higher percentage of serial rapists.

Looking at the criminal behavior of gay men, one immediately sees that gay male rapists are the rarest kind of serial rapists -- the reason is that gay rape is the least reported crime in the United States.

In other words, while women are coming forward to report being raped more than ever before, that is not true with gay male rape. Because of the stigma of being raped by a gay man, gay male rape is simply not reported.

Today, that type of rape has the same stigma once experienced by women. And as for the psychological damage involved, while rape is devastating to women, it may be worse for a man because it is homosexual.

In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department stated that 1 in 33 men in the United States has been a victim of a rape or attempted rape, compared with 1 in 6 women.

The reason for the disparity in statistics is, as stated before, men are unlikely to report a rape to authorities because they fear being perceived as weak or see the attack as an assault on their masculinity. Because most victims of gay rape are so ashamed, they never report the crime to police.

And yes, because of this, gay male rapists tend to prey on men indiscriminately. Their targets are typically straight young boys, who, like women who have been raped, are emotionally scared for life. 

While a lot of homosexual behavior goes on in the prison system, it is believed that most of the men doing that in there are not even gay. While I have a hard time believing this, it is believed that homosexual rape in prisons is a crime of opportunity and that homosexuality in prisons are institutional and opportunistic. 

It is believed that most men who participate in gay sex in prison actually stop such activities when they leave. Supposedly, again this is hard for me to believe, that they get out and go right back to women.

Criminologists believe that sex between with men in prison is simply something that takes place because there were no female outlets -- and is not due to preference.

One segment of our society which has had to fight the Democrat/Liberal forced introduction of homosexuals into its ranks is our military.

Since Obama repealed the Clinton policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," homosexuals has been forced upon our military. And now, now the military has statistics on the horrible effects of their introduction into our military.

And yes, it is absolutely true that Democrat Politicians do not want to talk about these findings. Liberals do not want to acknowledge the horrible effects that their social experiment of allowing gays in our military has actually had on our military.

Gay Male Rape In The Military On The Rise

A report in August of this year talked about the recent increase in gay rape in the military.

The report states that most victims of sexual assault in the armed forces are men -- and that their rapists are nearly always other men.

Yes, and it has a name, Military Sexual Trauma (MST) is on the rise for both men and women, according to a Pentagon report earlier this year that was widely covered in news outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, and CNN.

But virtually none of that coverage addressed an obvious aspect of the reason for this increase. No one in the Liberal media wants to acknowledge the problem:

The 2011 introduction of open service by gays and bisexuals undoubtedly has increased the number of gay predators and incidence of sexual assault against men in uniform.

Despite repeated assurances by Gay Groups that integrating gays into the military would not affect morale -- fact is that a dramatic increase in gay rape, especially involving straight victims, has most assuredly affected morale.

And yes, Liberals refuse to talk about the lives wrecked because of those gay male rapists.

Gay Male Rape, male on male sexual assaults, have risen each year since the repeal of the "don’t ask, don’t tell policy."

In fact, Pentagon statistics show nearly 4,000 more gay male rapes in the year after the ban ended (2012) than the last year it was in place (2010).

Some of these gay predators need to be dealt with criminally, for example, the Killeen Daily Herald reported that an openly gay medic at Fort Sam Houston acknowledged that in 2012, he had a 45-minute sexual encounter with a fellow soldier who was unconscious due to his sleep medication.

It did not matter to that gay man as to what effect he had on his victim. Gays justify their behavior in strange ways.

38 Military Men Are Sexually Assaulted Every Single Day and Democrats Are To Blame.

According to the Pentagon, 38 military men are sexually assaulted, raped, every single day, and since the victims usually don't speak out, the perpetrators nearly always go free.

An estimated 14,000 military men were assaulted in 2012 alone.

And yes, despite gutting the Defense of Marriage Act and repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Gay Lobby wants more from the Democrat controlled Senate and the Obama White House.

While there is a drastic increase of gay male rapes of straight troops, while there is an increase of gay male rapes across the country among civilians as a whole, Democrat politicians see this next election as another opportunity to further the Gay Agenda.

And yes, the Gay Lobby is scheming and plotting to pursue their agenda no matter who it affects adversely.

Gay campaign donors loaded with cash are throwing their cash and the promise of votes to any Democrat willing to want to CHANGE America into a place where the number of gay predators and gay male rapes are on the rise, a place where children are not safe from gay male predators, a place where our troops have to be cautious of gays in the military around them.

To do this, to initiate such CHANGE, wealthy gays are in fact meeting secretly with other Liberal Groups to throw their support behind Democrats -- all in the hopes of advancing their perverse agenda.

Democrats Support Something Called "The Gay Bill of Rights" which makes Children Fair Game for Sex with Gay Men

Yes, in return for their huge campaign contributions, the Gay Lobby wants a "Gay Bill of Special Rights" from pro-Gay Democrats in Congress this coming year.

That bill will ensure mandatory homosexual hiring quotas in workplaces throughout the nation. It will legalize gay male rape by decriminalizing sodomy laws, and it will lower the age of sexual consent with boys to 8 years old.

Yes, that's what the Gay Lobby wants from their Democrat friends in Congress, both the House and the Senate.

And no, the Gay Lobby makes no secret that they want to molest and sodomize male children. They make no secret that they want "special rights" to do as they please.

It doesn't matter if the Gay Agenda means weakening our military's moral fiber. They want to completely control laws pertaining to deviant sexual behavior such as gay male rape and gay child molestation.

Because of the Millions of Campaign Dollars contributed to the Democrat Party from the Gay Lobby, I believe that Democrats are the bought dogs who are directly responsible for all of these things taking place.

Yes, just as I believe that Democrats are responsible for empowering ISIS and Muslim Terrorists around the world, just as I believe the Democrats are responsible for the lack of jobs and the increase of the government regulations, I believe the Democrat Party is responsible for the increase in gay male sexual assaults in and out of our military.

So now, do I care what two consenting queer-as-all-get-out adults do with each other? No. I honestly don't care what they do.

But frankly, I draw the line at gay predators and gay pedophiles. I draw the line at the rape of innocent boys by gay men who see them as some sort of prize. I draw the line at gay male rape of those not wanting to join their perversion.

And yes, as stated before, according to study after study, over 95% of all child molesters are gay pedophiles.

And yes, I blame Democrat Politicians for the gay male rape of that 5 year old child by some gay pedophile who should have never been able to adopt a male child for him to rape and abuse.

I blame Democrat Politicians for pushing a homosexual agenda that encouraged the repeated gay rape of that 15 year old boy in Kentucky recently. Democrats are responsible because they promote gay behavior and their alternative lifestyle as being normal when it is not normal in any society.

I blame all of these things on the growing political power of the Gay Lobby and the Democrat Party's support of their perverse Agenda and their sick behavior.

And yes, along with their blame for promoting the Gay Agenda in America, they deserve the blame for the deterioration of America's culture and the collective erosion of morality in the United States.

The Democrat Party

The Democrat Party has historically been the party of pro-slavery, anti-Black, and against Civil Rights. They have historically been in favor of suppressing personal liberties and freedom and government control.

Today the Democrat Party is the party of gun-control. Democrats are the Party of anti-Americanism and pro-Socialism, and yes, of Political Correctness, Race Baiting, Political Favoritism, and identity biased politics.

The Democrat Party is in favor of out-of control regulations, of encouraging alternative lifestyles and making them appear as the norm.

Democrats encourage "anything-goes drug use", they encourage people to think that actions have no consequences, and they shield favored classes and Liberal causes from criticism or rebuke.

Yes, this is the Democrat Party. This is the Liberal Agenda.

They have divided this nation as never before, all while supporting those who line their pockets with big money -- never caring where that money came from, or what they have to do to get it.

I believe, that on election day, we can start to turn things around and stop a lot of the Liberal Agenda by voting Democrats out of office.

We can stop the deterioration of America and our military. And frankly, we need to stop those who want to destroy common sense and decency among Americans.

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

Tom Correa

Monday, October 27, 2014

Ford & Lincoln should fire Matthew McConaughey

Why should they fire him as their spokesman? Because actor Matthew McConaughey decided to voice his anti-gun opinion on our 2nd Amendment rights by saying, "Let's Forget That Right!"

Stupid? Sure it was. And frankly, I thought the guy might have been smarter than that.

His opinion on our Constitutional Rights came out when it was reported on October 23rd, 2014, that actor Matthew McConaughey stated that we should just do away with certain rights in the U.S. Constitution.

It's true, in an interview for the November issue of GQ magazine, Matthew McConaughey said that he understands that Americans have the right to own guns -- but that it’s time to "forget that right" because some people misuse guns.

According to reports, the actor's ant-gun statements actually came in response to a question about McConaughey’s love for the Washington Redskins and his opposition to changing the team’s name.

How's that work? Well, he was talking about one thing one moment and then another to try to make some sort of idiotic point.

In the interview with GQ magazine, he was asked, "What do you think about calls for the team to change its name?"

McConaughey responded by pointing out that opposition to the team name, a name everyone has been "fine with…since the 1930s," suddenly got "pushed into the social consciousness."

In other words, something that’s been accepted as the norm until recently suddenly become unacceptable. Because of this, he said although "a lot of Native Americans don’t have a problem with it… They’re not going to say, ‘No, we really want that name.'"

Then he delivered the clincher by saying, "It’s like my feeling about gun control: ‘I get it. You have the right to have guns. But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the pleasure you get safely on your range, because it's in the wrong hands in other places.'"

While the analogy didn't work real well, he did make his point that he thinks that the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights is out-dated and not needed because he believes it enables harm to be done.

If we use his logic, then "let's do away with the freedom of speech" because some people -- for example, like those folks in Hollywood who produce blood filled ultra-violent films and gore, or distribute false information like say the 9-11 Truthers -- can misuse free speech.

Using that logic, then we can look at all of our Bill of Rights and deem them worthless and out-dated  simply because they all have the possibility of being used in the wrong way.

Fact is, lawyers get suspects off all the time by way of the Bill of Rights.

If we take the actor to task, he should tell us if he thinks that we should have the "rights" we do? After all, they have been around for so long. And besides, in the wrong hands in other places those rights might not put people behind bars -- but what if those rights prevent an innocent from being put behind bars?

Using his logic, let's allow the few bad apples to control what the rest of us need.

Yes, need. Remember, we should not allow a few who use firearms for criminal activities and evil doing to control the rights of others who need firearms for doing good -- such as for self-defense against rape or to prevent the murder of one's family.

And there is the problem, anti-gun actors like Matthew McConaughey think they know what's best for the world and see themselves as the supreme decision-makers when it comes to determining what rights Americans should and shouldn't have.

I have never presumed to know what is best for everyone, but I know what works. And yes, the Bill of Rights has worked for over 200 years.

Our Rights that have been so dearly paid for by the blood of free men and women have enabled us to ward off evil at home and stave off dictatorships in our capitols.

Our Rights have stopped power hungry politicians from claiming that our rights should be forfeit because they do more harm than good -- according to them.

Frankly, an Liberal actor not understanding the importance of the 2nd Amendment or the entire Bill of Rights really doesn't surprise me.

Him saying that he would want us to simply forfeit one of our rights is stupidity on parade!

And yes, I hope it will alienate a lot of pro-Constitution folks like myself who my have thought about seeing his movies or buying one of the products that he is advertising lately -- but now won't.

Take for example his Lincoln SUV commercial. I read where the people who put it together stated something to the effect that Matthew McConaughey is a very serious actor and is the right fit to represent Lincoln's new luxury SUV.

Lincoln may want to rethink using this actor in the future. The reason is that, like many who hear about his anti-gun stance, I won't even consider buying a Lincoln any model if he is their spokesman.

If he wants to take away my rights, and use his celebrity status to influence others to go along with him -- I don't have to buy Lincolns or any other product that he is associated with, or allow him to make a dollar in celebrity endorsements.

I simply do not need to throw my support to someone who doesn't support our Constitution.

And yes, that's how I see it.

Tom Correa

California State Laws: Possession and Transportation of Concealed Weapons Without a License

Dear Readers,

Since some folks have written to ask about the possession and carrying a concealed weapon here in California, I figured that I'd give you the definition directly from the law itself.

This is per the State of California website:

Possession and Transportation of a Concealed Weapon

Carrying a Concealed Handgun Without a License on One's Person or Concealed in a Vehicle Pursuant to Penal Code section 12025, a person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:

• Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control, any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

• Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

• Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

NOTE: A firearm carried openly in a belt holster is not considered "concealed" as it
applies to the above prohibition. (Penal Code § 12025(f).)

Section 12025 does not apply to or affect any of the following:

• Any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is
temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms
pursuant to Penal Code sections 12021 or 12021.1 or section 8100 or 8101 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, may carry, either openly or concealed, anywhere within his or her place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by him or her any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. A permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry is not required under these circumstances. (Penal Code § 12026.)

• The transportation or carrying of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person by any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years
who resides or is temporarily within this state, and is not within the excepted classes
prescribed by Penal Code Sections 12021 or 12021.1 or Welfare and Institutions Code sections 8100 or 8103, provided that the following applies:

- the firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment, and;

- when the firearm is carried by the person to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, the firearm must be contained in a locked container while being physically carried. (Penal Code § 12026.1.)

Penal Code Section 12025 does not apply to or affect the lawful transportation or possession of a firearm under specific circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

• The transportation of a firearm by a person who finds the firearm in order to comply with Article 1 (commencing with section 2080) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code as it pertains to that firearm and if that firearm is being transported to a law enforcement agency, the person gives prior notice to the law enforcement agency that he or she is transporting the firearm to the law enforcement agency. (Penal Code § 12026.2(a)(17).)

• The transportation of a firearm by a person who finds the firearm, and is transporting it to a law enforcement agency for disposition according to law, if he or she gives prior notice to the law enforcement agency that he or she is transporting the firearm to the law enforcement agency for disposition according to law. Firearms must be transported unloaded and in a locked container and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations, as necessary. (Penal Code §§ 12026.2(a)(17), (18) and (b).)

• The carrying of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person by a person who is authorized to carry that weapon in a concealed manner pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with section 12050) of the Penal Code.

• Members of any club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon established target ranges, whether public or private, while the members are using concealable firearms upon the target ranges.

• Authorized peace officers, retired peace officers, and retired federal officers or agents, as defined in Penal Code sections 830.1, 830.2, 830.5, 12027(a) and 12031(b).

• Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from such hunting or fishing expeditions.

• The possession or transportation of unloaded pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person as merchandise by a person who is licensed in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms.

The carrying of unloaded pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person by duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading, or the
members thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their respective

• Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other financial institutions while actually employed in and about the shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure, bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.

• Transportation of unloaded firearms by a person operating a licensed common carrier or an authorized agent or employee thereof when transported in conformance with applicable
federal law.

Notwithstanding the exceptions cited in Section 5. Loaded Firearms, individuals may not carry or transport a loaded firearm. The firearm should be unloaded and placed in the trunk of the vehicle, or if the vehicle has no trunk, placed in a fully enclosed secure locked container other than the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle (Penal Code §§ 12026.1, 12027.)

Editor's Note:

The above information is unedited as found in California Firearms Laws 2007 website

Tom Correa

Sunday, October 26, 2014

What is a "Horse Breed"?

Just a few of the breeds of horses from around the world.
Dear Readers,

Every once in a while one of you will write to ask a question that has more to it than one would think. This is just the case with a letter that I received recently.

She said she was doing a project on horses for a High School class. And yes, my young reader said she wanted a longer answer than just what her Mom told her when she asked, "What is a Horse Breed?"

Her mom's answer, "A horse breed is a type of a horse."

So here goes, a longer answer to what sounds like a simple question.

First off, your Mom was right in that a horse breed is a type of a horse. A horse breed is a select population of horses.

Some are selectively bred domesticated horses, and others have created a breed onto themselves such as the American Wild Horse -- also known as Mustangs.

In the later case, it is a matter of "Natural Selection" in the wild. Which, of course, is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.

While that sounds like biology gibberish, the easy answer about Natural Selection regarding horses is that horses from different breeds are still horses and consequently can breed together. Yes, since horses are horses, biologically, they have the means to make babies.

Horses reproducing with horses is fine. It will work, they can mate, and produce horses. Any breed can of horse can breed with any other breed of horse.

If one breed has babies with a horse of a different breed, that's called "cross-breeding". The result being called a "crossbred" horse.

Over time, as the crossbred horses mate together, or breed, with more and more and over many years of that taking place -- they evolve into a breed of their own. This is what took place with Mustangs during their evolution.

The first Mustangs descended from Iberian horses brought to Mexico and Florida. Most of these horses were of Andalusian, Arabian, and Barb ancestry. As they crossbred, they created a horse breed we call the American Mustang.

One analogy is that horses are a lot like the American people today. If we look at today's American Wild Horse, the Mustang, we will most likely see a breed of horse that is a lot like most of Americans today in that most Americans are made up of multiple nationalities in their lineage.

With more and more of us meeting and marrying and making babies with others whose family nationality ancestries are different than our own, today most Americans are made up of various nationalities -- people who came to the United States from different nations.

Take for example my family. While my personal ancestry is all Portuguese because my great-grandparents were from Portugal, through something a lot like the idea of "natural selection," today my family is made up of parts of many nationalities and races.

This variety of nationalities and breeds can probably be referred to as breeds -- although I know that the Politically Correct police will not like me putting it that way.

While humans show different physical characteristics depending where there ancestry is from, such as darker skin from warmer climates and blond hair from colder climates, horses are the same way.

Some horses are shaggier, some taller, some short, some can take the heat better, and so on. While they are all horses, many breeds look a lot different from each other.

As for my family, like the American Mustang, now besides us having Portuguese ancestry and bloodlines, through marriages and having babies my family's ancestry now also includes Spanish, Hawaiian, Samoan, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, Black, English, Irish, and many others including which my family proudly refers to as "Okie."

Assisted by years of crossbreeding, my family is a breed (nationality) of people called  "Americans." We are a melting pot born in the USA.

Frankly, my family is like the majority of Americans today. And yes, this sort of thing is really no different than the crossbreeding that took place to evolve and give us the American Mustang.

We should not that the American Mustang should not be confused with the Spanish Mustang because the Spanish Mustang is a breed that is actual made up of domesticated purebred horses.

While the American Mustang are descended from both Spanish horses and other feral or wild horses escaped from various sources, the purebred Spanish Mustang is actually a modern breed that differs from the "wild" American Mustang in appearance and ancestry.

Those horses are not crossbreds, but instead are considered "purebreds."
While there are certainly domesticated crossbred horses, "purebreds" such as say American Quarter Horses are often bred with pedigrees recorded in a breed registry.

If you have, for example an American Quarter Horse that has no other breed in it, then it is a "purebred."

Purebreds, also called "purebreeds", are horses that have only been bred within a selective breed of horse.  In some purebred horses, one can actually trace their lineage or ancestry.

My horse Murphy was what is referred to as a "papered" or "registered" Quarter Horse. He was registered with the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) and his lineage could be traced back to some real champions in Quarter Horse history -- Poco Tivio and Poco Bueno.

If the lineage of a purebred animal is recorded, that animal is said to have a "pedigree" or be "pedigreed".

The term purebred is occasionally confused with the proper noun "thoroughbred" which actually refers exclusively to the specific breed of horse called Thoroughbred Horses.

A purebred animal should never be called a "thoroughbred" unless that horse is actually a registered Thoroughbred Horse.

And yes, the term "horse breed" is sometimes used in a very broad sense and depending on the definition, as hundreds of "breeds" exist today, all being developed for many different uses.

Three Categories of Horse Breeds

Horse breeds are loosely divided into three categories based on general temperament:

1) "Hot bloods," spirited with speed and endurance, such as an American Quarter Horse;

2) "Cold bloods," heavy work slower horses, such as Draft horses and some ponies; and

3) "Warmbloods," which were developed from crosses between hot bloods and cold bloods, often focusing on creating breeds for specific riding purposes.

Horse breeds are groups of horses with distinctive characteristics that are transmitted consistently to their offspring, such as conformation (build), color, performance ability (such as athleticism), or disposition (such as being easy going with children).

These inherited traits are usually the result of a combination of natural crosses and artificial selection methods aimed at producing horses for specific tasks.

Certain breeds are known for certain talents such as having speed and endurance. For example, American Quarter Horses are known for their speed in quarter mile racing.

And yes, most modern horse breeds are developed in response to a need for "form to function" -- meaning that they are being bred out of the necessity to develop certain physical characteristics in order to perform a certain type of work.

For example, since it is believed that a pair of fast Thoroughbred Horses produce fast offspring, beyond the appearance and conformation of the specific type of horse, most breeders aspire to improve physical performance abilities.

This concept, known as matching "form to function," has led to the development of not only different breeds, but also families or bloodlines within breeds that are specialists for excelling at specific tasks.

Because of the diverse needs of people around the world, we have powerful but refined breeds such as the Andalusian and the Lusitano which was developed in the Iberian peninsula of Spain and Portugal as riding horses that also had a great aptitude for dressage.

Big heavy draft horses such as the Clydesdale and the Shire were developed out of our need to do very demanding jobs like farm work and pulling heavy wagons -- like the Budweiser Clydesdales which are able to pull several tons of barrels of beer on a single wagon.

Pony breeds, like many other breeds, were originally bred and crossbred and so on and so on to get horses to meet the needs of people who needed to fulfill specific jobs and transportation needs.

Many horse breeds were developed specifically for light agricultural work, heavy and light carriage pulling, road work, and other disciplines such as ranch work which needed horses for gathering and brandings, cutting and roping.

Some breeds have been developed through centuries of crossbreedings with other breeds, while others, such as Tennessee Walking Horses and Morgans, developed from a single sire from which all current breed members descend.

So now, let's talk about Hybrids called Mules!

No they are not a breed of horses, but they are all about Equus.

Equus is a genus of mammals which includes horses, donkeys, and zebras.  The term equine refers to any member of this genus, including horses and other members of the horse family.

Members of the same family, they can breed and produce offsprings.

Since a donkey (or ass) is a domesticated member of the Equus family called Equidae, they can breed with horses.

Out of breeding a horse and a donkey, we get a "hybrid" called a Mule. Because hybrids are not bred horse with horse and instead are bred horse with donkey, hybrids are not considered Horse Breeds.

The most common hybrid is a mule which is a cross between a "jack" donkey (a male donkey) and a mare (which is a female horse). A related hybrid, the "hinny", is a cross between a stallion (which is a male horse) and a "jenny" donkey (a female donkey).

The size of a mule and work to which it is being bred for is dependent largely on the breeding of the mule's dam (mother).

Mules can be lightweight, medium weight, and even of moderately heavy weight when produced from draft horse mares.

A male mule is called a "horse mule", though often called a "John" or "Jack" mule. A female mule is called a "mare mule", though often called a "Molly" or a "Jenny" mule.

A young male mule is called a mule colt, and a young female is called a mule filly.

So now we know that a purebred horse has only been bred within one specific breed of horses, and we know that a crossbreed is a horse made up of more than one horse breed.

We also now know that horses can crossbreed with other equine "species" such as donkey to produce hybrids such as a mule which are not a horse breed because they are made up of more than one equine species.

Some horse breeds are huge while other breeds are very small in isolated areas of the world. And yes, it is estimated that there are about 750 million horses in the world.

Those 750 million horses are all part of the over 300 different breeds of horses and ponies around the world right now.

And as for my young reader who asked this question, I hope this helped you. And no, I don't mind what part of this you need for your school project.

Good luck!

Tom Correa

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Brad Pitt Needs a Gun in His House

"America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange but I feel better having a gun. I really do. I don’t feel safe, I don’t feel the house is completely safe, if I don’t have one hidden somewhere." - Brad Pitt

While Brad Pitt is pro-gun and supports our Second Amendment, most people who are into guns and follow politics know real well that he is in the minority in Hollywood.

While many on the list are no-talent has-beens who are washed-up in Hollywood, their careers gone or fading, some unheard of for years, they still have money to throw behind efforts to take away our rights.

And yes, while they want to take away our rights, their hypocrisy has no limits as many on the list above are anti-gun -- only for you -- and not for themselves. Yes, believe it or not, a few on the list above actually have guns and/or a permit to carry guns -- but believe you and I should not.

Kevin Costner is a gun owner who feels that only the upper-class should own guns.

Costner who has stared in a few Westerns has been outspoken in favor of gun control saying "I think there should be a lot of gun laws."

Of course, he is probably too dumb to understand that there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books and that they are only adhered to by law-abiding citizens when the criminals don't care how many more laws are enacted.

Damon has spent a lot of time onscreen with guns in his hand, even though he is a hard-core leftist and has spoken out for gun control. A direct quote from him, "I actually hate guns."

Damon is a lot like other actors and directors, in that they are overtly left-wing politically.

Look at Rob Reiner, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins. Their ultra-Liberal Leftist views have killed their careers. Matt Damon may be the next. His anti-American, anti-American troop, movie Green Zone (2010), bombed and lost money at the box office.

Damon is a hypocrite just like his buddy George Clooney.

While Clooney has made not secret of his far-Left political beliefs when it comes to being in favor of gun-control for America, he has made a career playing a hit man, a Black Ops soldier, and even a CIA operative.

Not only is he an anti-gun liberal, he once made a tasteless joke about Charlton Heston’s Alzheimer’s.

Yes, while Clooney is know to be a classy dress, he is as classless as they come.

Of course, Kevin Costner, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Kevin Bacon, Alec Baldwin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone, Jeremy Renner, and of course NCIS star Mark Harmon, as well as other anti-gun actors, use all sorts of rifles, pistols, shotguns, military issue machineguns and assault weapons, to rain all sorts of gratuitous death and destruction on film and on television -- but their hypocrisy never seems to matter much to them when they pickup their big salaries after using the things they say they are so against.

Look at Sylvester Stallone who said, in response to the shooting death of Phil Hartman in 1999, while living in the UK at the time, "Until America [goes] door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages over there."

Interestingly, Stallone finds it alright for him to have a California Concealed Carry Permit and carry a gun for protection -- but doesn't want you to be afforded the same right and protection.

Think about the movies that many of these anti-gun celebrities have been in? Ask yourself if there isn't a whole lot of hypocrisy going on with their anti-gun stance?

For many on the list above, as it is with Matt Damon pictured above, if it weren’t for roles which required him to use guns as deadly weapons, they wouldn't have made the millions of dollars that they have from their shoot'em up movies.

As for pro-gun celebrities, lately more and more pro-gun, pro-Constitution, celebrities are stepping forward to make their stance known.

Brad Pitt has been a gun owner for a very long time. As a matter of fact, the famous A-List actor has said that he inherited his grandfather's gun when he was a child.

He has also stated, "There’s a rite of passage where I grew up of inheriting your ancestors' weapons.  My brother got my dad’s. I got my grandfather’s shotgun when I was in kindergarten."

In one interview he revealed that he was given an air gun first and got the shotgun at age 6. He said he first fired a handgun at age 8.

The husband of Angelina Jolie -- and father of six -- has also said that he "doesn’t really feel that his family is safe unless there is a gun in his home."

"The positive is that my father instilled in me a profound and deep respect for the weapon," he said.
Brad Pitt was born in Oklahoma and raised in Missouri.

And frankly, maybe it is his Mid-Western roots that gives him the ability to stop the usual knee-jerk reaction that comes out of Liberals after a horrible shooting.

I base this on an interview he had with British magazine Live in response to more gun control following the Colorado movie shooting, where he said, "I absolutely don’t believe you can put sanctions or shackles on what is made. Nor do I want to pretend the world is different than what we witnessed that night… "

He went on to say, "America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange but I feel better having a gun. I really do. I don’t feel safe, I don’t feel the house is completely safe, if I don’t have one hidden somewhere. That’s my thinking, right or wrong."

While he is a Democrat and an Obama supporter, there are those on the Liberal side of the political spectrum who see his statements and stance as a legal gun owner as a total betrayal of the usual Hollywood Liberal ideology.

I'm sure that if the Hollywood elite and its Liberal Left would be absolutely furious with him -- if he were not the A-List Super Star that he is.

And yes, it is refreshing to see a Liberal, yes a Liberal, a pro-gun advocate .

While I still believe that Hollywood is made up predominantly of Liberals who are anti-gun and who want our Constitutional rights taken from us, it is great to see a Hollywood Liberal who is not anti-guns.

It seems that maybe Hollywood, even though it is overwhelmingly Liberal, is like any group of people in that there are those who support and those who oppose private gun ownership and self defense.

And yes, I'm thinking Brad Pitt also recently building a $400,000 shooting range as a wedding gift to fiance Angelina Jolie upset a few on the Left..

As for Angelina Jolie, I would think she would be ecstatic over such a gift as a shooting range of her own since she is an avid shooter.

It was reported lately that she has been very upset with the way Obama has conducted himself in the White House, and since she has expressed her support of the Second Amendment -- I can't help but wonder if that is one issue that she differs with the Obama Administration over.

In 2008, Angelina Jolie told the U.K.’s Daily Mail, "I bought original, real guns of the type we used in ‘Tomb Raider’ for security."

She went on to say, "Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one. And yes, I’d be able to use it if I had to … If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them."

Like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, there are others who are speaking out about their support for the Second Amendment.

Joe Perry of Aerosmith fame recently said, "I have always been fascinated with guns. I grew up in America so granted, it is part of our heritage and it is written into the laws of how this country is run."

He also said. "I’ve been fascinated with all kinds of weapons my whole life, and as I have been able to afford to acquire pieces, here and there I started to collect."

Johnny Depp, has been know to recall fond memories about shooting as a kid and plans to teach his children to shoot saying, "We would just go out and line up a bunch of cans and shoot with rifles, handguns and at times, submachine guns."

Johnny Depp admits, "When I was a kid it was a controlled atmosphere, we weren’t shooting at humans – we were shooting at cans and bottles mostly. I will most certainly take my kids out for target practice."

And yes, just like millions of other fathers and grandfathers, I'm sure Johnny Depp's children will be taught smart gun handling and safety first.

While I don't know much about the actor known as Ice-T, he is not only a supporter of the right to bear arms -- but also understands the historical point of the Second Amendment better than most.

We can tell this from a statement he made after the shooting in Colorado, when he said, "The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt."

Ted Nugent's support of the Second Amendment is unquestionable as he has become one of the most outspoken celebrities who supporter of the Second Amendment.

Clint Eastwood has been a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment and also supports the NRA for many years. He’s credited with saying, "I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it."

Tom Selleck is a board member of the NRA and proud supporter of the right to bear arms.

Tom Selleck has probably spent more time defending his beliefs throughout his career than he has anything else. Fortunately, outside pressures haven’t changed his views and he still proudly supports the Second Amendment And yes, he is in fact one of the NRA's spokesmen.

Tom Selleck has long found himself defending his views throughout his career, but has remained a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment.

One surprise for me was when I found out that musician Eric Clapton is a pro-gun supporter.

According to an interview with The Sun in 2008, Clapton took up shooting in 2003 and has built up quite the collection of firearms including many high end shotguns. The singer/songwriter said, "I like a gun to look like a working tool but it’s a magnificent piece of art as well."

Joe Mantegna of Criminal Minds has been an outspoken supporter of gun rights, giving interviews and hosting pro-gun TV shows as well.

Like many other pro-gun celebrities, Joe Mantegna is an avid shooter. In his case, he is a skeet shooter and competition shooter.

In an interview with the American Rifleman, Mr. Mantegna said this about his favorite guns, "I guess we’d have to break it down into categories. For a handgun? No question. It would be the M1911. That wasn’t the very first handgun I shot, but it was the one I ultimately used competitively."

He went on to say, "I just enjoy the caliber, I’ve shot pretty much every handgun caliber you can think of, and the .45 ACP is perfect. It has mass, the recoil is a little more, you get a lot of push, but you don’t get a lot of torque. And it’s just the aesthetics of it—it’s old school—it’s what I carry on 'Criminal Minds.' I made that choice as I thought this guy would be old-school and this would be the firearm he would carry. The M1911 is classic. I think it’s the first one we’re doing in our series "Gun Stories."

Actor Adam Baldwin, no relation to the anti-gun Baldwin brothers, likes guns and is also an avid shooter, gun owner, and Second Amendment supporter.

Mr. Baldwin regularly uses his Twitter fan base of over 100,000 followers to promote pro-gun articles and ideas.

Yes, that's definitely showing your support. But he hasn't stopped there, as he has also wrote an editorial on Breitbart in the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting.

Kevin Sorbo has also gotten his fan base excited about supporting our right to keep and bear arms. He regularly uses his Facebook page with over 150,000 followers to talk about the issue of gun rights.

Mr. Sorbo posted the following to one status update last year, “You can [take] all guns away and the bad guys will still get guns!! Do you honestly believe the bad guys care about any stupid law that is passed??!! This is why we call them bad guys!”

Dean Cain is also a huge supporter of our Constitutional Rights.

Imagine that for a minute, here we are in a place and time when we have to celebrate the fact that someone supports our Constitutional Rights?

And please don't kid yourself, anti-gun Liberals hate the fact that we are saluting celebrities who stand up for our Constitution. And yes, as awful as that is in that we have reached this point in our nation, we need to acknowledge those who are indeed fighting for our rights.

And yes, Dean Cain, the man who made Superman look better than anyone before him, is a very ardent pro-gun supporter.

Mr. Cain repeatedly uses his Twitter account to slam gun control policies and he told fellow celeb Rob Lowe that he "would be keeping his guns" during one exchange.

Yes, as the gun rights debate rages on, many Hollywood celebrities have come out against our Second Amendment rights and supported the anti-gun crowd’s stance that private ownership of firearms is a bad thing.

Country singer Miranda Lambert told the website that she does in fact carry a concealed weapon because she had gotten a death threat some time ago.

Because of that, she decided to get a permit and now carries a weapon with her all the time because she was "really scared."

Ms Lambert sums up her stance beautifully with this simple statement, "I am my own security."

Remember, as Angeline Jolie said, "If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them."

And that's one of the basic premises behind our Constitutional Rights as provided to us by way of the Second Amendment -- we can protect ourselves.

The concept that we do not have to depend on the government to be there to protect us when it is a fact they simply cannot be everywhere and protect everyone.

That is part of the reason we have the rights we have.

James Earl Jones is an active member of the NRA and is quoted as saying, "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

Wile I don't know if actor Robert DeNiro is pro-gun and a supporter of the Second Amendment, I did find out that the man who plays gun-wielding men onscreen a great deal of the time also has a license to carry a gun in real life.

Howard Stern is licensed to own a gun, and according to celebrity gun enthusiast Ted Nugent, Howard once showed him his personal .32 caliber Seecamp pistol when they were filming together.

Donald Trump also has a license to carry a gun.

And yes, Jennifer Lopez present husband Marc Anthony is supposedly licensed to carry a gun.

Bruce Willis, the Super Star of hits like "Die Hard” is also a die-hard supporter of our right to bear arms.

Besides giving of himself, like Gary Sinise, to support our troops, Bruce Willis is a huge supporter of our rights and flatly states, "Everyone has the right to bear arms, and that taking guns away from the law abiding would only result in bad guys having them."

Mr. Willis also believes that if threatened, even a pacifist would use violence against someone, "You would fight for your life. You’d use a rock or tear one of these chairs out of the floor."

Chuck Norris has also been a long time defender of the right to bear arms. While Chuck Norris has proven himself effective with just about any weapon, he supports our right as American citizens to own them.

He even did a commercial for “Trigger the Vote” campaign.

Mr Norris has made it his mission to support and defend the Constitution and our right to keep and bear arms because he in fact supports our right to self-defense.

Gary Sinise makes the point that it’s a Second Amendment right and that "good people need to be able to protect themselves."

Gary Sinise, also a proud supporter of our military, supports our rights under the Second Amendment stating, "bad guys won’t be turning in their guns any time soon, so good guys shouldn’t give them up either."

And yes, there is the difference between those who are anti-gun and those who are pro-guns -- one says we don't need guns while the other side says we do.

As strange as it sounds to most of us who understand our need for guns, the left has this notion as unrealistic and childish as it might seem that if we all just got rid of our guns in the United States that the whole world would instantly be a better place.

While this has been tried time and time again by Dictatorships around the world who do not want an armed citizenry to force a show of arms, Americans prize our freedoms and do not believe that we should turn over control of our lives to the government or to criminals.

And yes, if we were unarmed, we would be at the whim of both the government and the criminals.

No matter what anyone says, a government out of control and hungry for more power and control is just as dangerous to the law-abiding public as the criminal out there is.

One instills tyranny while the other terrorizes people who have no means to fight back.

Because of that, more Americans today understand that one’s own destiny and safety has to be left up to ourselves.

As Miranda Lambert said it, "I am my own security."

As James Earl Jone stated flatly, "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

There is a reason that actor Christian Slater prefers to own a gun, as he states, "It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it." Yes, he understands what he needs to remain safe.

And yes, even Alexis Stewart, the daughter of media mogul Martha Stewart, understands the reason that she has a permit to carry a gun -- it is for her security.

So why should I care so much about celebrities being anti-gun or not?

Some may be asking why I care what celebrities think? Fact is, sure I do. Granted, not on everything -- but on some issues their stance matters.

Do I care about their endorsement of Obama or them voicing their desire to see my rights taken away? Yes. You bet I do.

I care what celebrities think because I'm not naive to the influence that they have on people who admire them for one reason or another. And yes, I know that they can sway popular sentiment to some extent. And whether I like it or not, I know real well that popular sentiment matters when it comes to policy making.

Do I think we need more pro-gun celebrities to stand up and be counted? Sure we do.

But I also think they could be harmed, and become victims of a system of Liberal Leftist bias in Hollywood that may affect their careers adversely.

I understand real well that alliances mean strength. And yes, strength is something that we need in our battle to combat those who want to take away our rights.

Having alliances with pro-gun celebrities is a good thing for all of us who are fighting to preserve our rights. The reason is that if more pro-gun celebrities make their position known, than that positive exposure for private gun ownership helps our cause of maintaining our freedoms.

Fact is, while I hold fast to my support of our Constitution and fight to save our rights, I understand real well that having pro-gun celebrities on our side certainly doesn’t hurt.

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

Tom Correa

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Democrats Lie about NIH and CDC Budgets while Covering Up Waste

First the Democrat Lie

Democrats and their stooge groups are spreading claims that the Ebola response is suffering from a budget crunch that is all the fault of the Republicans.

Of course, independent fact-checkers are now taking the Democrats to task as openly lying to the American public.

One of the reasons that independent fact-checkers are looking into the Democrat claims is because on October 16th even ultra-Liberal Democrat of San Francisco House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who was the Speaker of the House and still has the record for wasteful spending while heading Congress, demanded that Congress return to Washington DC to increase the budget for the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Center of Disease Control (CDC).

The Pelosi lie follows the rest of the Liberal establishments propaganda, as follows: "The Appropriations Committee should return to Washington immediately and convene hearings to discuss and debate the issue of funding levels for NIH, CDC and related agencies in light of the public health challenges posed by the Ebola virus."

Yes, she actually had the nerve to make the lie sound like an emergency situation that must be looked at with extreme urgency. And yes, she even put this in a statement that her office released.

Other Liberal groups don't beat around the bush and openly blame Republicans with the lame Ebola response by the Obama White House.

For example, on October 12th, an ultra-Liberal political propaganda group called the Agenda Project Action Fund released a political ad called "Republican Cuts Kill."

No kidding, that group is actually saying that Republicans are responsible for Ebola deaths.

Believe it or not, the Liberal propaganda group is to air their lies in Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, and South Dakota – all states with high-stakes Senate elections in November.

The ad juxtaposes pictures of dead bodies and body bags in West Africa with Republican lawmakers like Sens. Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.

They go on to say, "Like rabid dogs in a butcher shop, Republicans have indiscriminately shredded everything in their path, including critical programs that could have dealt with the Ebola crisis before it reached our country."

The ad is a no shame way of saying that Republicans McConnell, Cruz, and Paul are directly responsible for the dead bodies in West Africa.

The ad producer is a woman by the name of Erica Payne, who is the founder of Agenda Project Action Fund.

While I'm sure she wished she had thought of such bullshit on her own, the Liberal claims are all part of statements made by National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins to The Huffington Post on Oct. 10th, 2014.

As unbelievable as it sounds, Dr. Collins said, "Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would've gone through clinical trials and would have been ready."

Collins added that some therapeutics to fight the virus "were on a slower track than would've been ideal. ... We would have been a year or two ahead of where we are, which would have made all the difference."

Why do I say, as unbelievable as it sounds when addressing Dr. Collins statement? Well, because it is completely false and criminally misleading.

Facts Disprove Their Lies

Fact-checkers and number-crunchers do not agree with the ultra-Left Agenda Project Action Fund or the politically appointed Collins.

On July 8th, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Collins as Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Senate unanimously confirmed him for the post. He was sworn in by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on August 7th, 2009.

Facts show that the actual budgets do not bear out claims that Republicans have starved research for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIH through the Obama administration.

"Claims that CDC and NIH have not had enough funding to do Ebola research are nonsense," said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute.

At the CDC, funding has remained relatively steady.

In fact, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler notes that the CDC budget has "bounced around" $6.5 Billion for every year of the Obama administration.

The lie is proven even worse when findings show that, in both 2013 and 2014, the Republican controlled Congress actually boosted the funding after the administration had proposed scaled-back budgets.

According to reports, when the 2014 budget was passed in January by the Republican Congress, the CDC’s budget was raised to $6.9 Billion.

Remember, Dr. Collins said, "Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would've gone through clinical trials and would have been ready."

But wait a minute, the CDC was raised by $567 Million more than it received in 2013.

And yes, that was more than Half a Billion Dollars more than the agency anticipated since the Obama White House only requested $6.6 Billion.

While it appears stagnant from 2009 numbers, it is still double the budget the CDC was getting in 2000 ($3.4 billion), the Cato Institute points out.

With the National Institute of Health (NIH), facts show that their budget number was also increased under the Republican Congress.

The NIH budget was raised from $28.5 Billion in 2006 to $30.14 Billion in 2014.

The NIH was given an extra $10 Billion in stimulus funds in 2009.

So where is this slide that Dr. Collins was talking about? There has been no slide. The NIH and the CDC have have huge increases of the last 6 years for certain.
The Washington Post fact-checker gave the Democrat allegations that Republican budgets are at fault for the poor Ebola response four “Pinocchios,” and called them “absurd.”

Chris Edwards from the Cato Institute said a better way to connect the budgets with the Ebola crisis is to look at how the money is being spent.

Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal complained in a recent op-ed that “in recent years, the CDC has received significant amounts of funding. Unfortunately, however, many of those funds have been diverted away from programs that can fight infectious diseases, and toward programs far afield from the CDC’s original purpose.”

And really, how is the CDC and the NIH spending the Billions of Taxpayer Dollars they have gotten a year?

Now that we know that the Democrats are lying about funding cuts, how are they spending the money they have gotten -- along with the budget increases?

Independents and Republicans are trotting out various NIH funding projects they say show questionable – even wasteful – spending.

"It’s funny that the Democrats are quick to point fingers when it’s been this administration pushing the CDC to spend time and resources on bike lanes and farmers markets instead of prioritizing national security and the health of Americans," Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said.

The Washington Free Beacon rounded up several projects that the CDC and NIH has spent funds on instead of spending those funds on Biological threats to America.

Want to know why else the Washington Post and others are calling the Liberal Left’s argument blaming budget cuts on the GOP as "absurd," check these out:

$53,202 to study: Sighs. Yes, sighs.

$39 Million developing Origami Condoms.

$544,188 to study "how to convince young girls to get the HPV vaccine."

The NIH did research on Drunken Monkeys at a cost of $3.2 Million.

OK, since I wrote about my experience with a Drunk Monkey in my non-fiction Tale of a Drunk Monkey, I think the NIH owes me a great deal of money since my research was years ahead of theirs.

Whether or not the NIH will send me a check or not, believe it or not, it is true that the NIH spent $3.2 Million getting monkeys drunk just to see what would happen.

While I spent less than $20 to get a monkey drunk back in 1975, the NIH spent $3.2 Million!

While I only got that one animal drunk, I have learned that the NIH has quite a fascination with excessive drinking.

The NIH has in fact "doled out money in recent years for research on binge-drinking mice, inebriated gamblers and pilots seeking the sensation of flying drunk," according to The Washington Times.

The CDC spent $15 Billion to Tell Taxpayers How to Eat.

Yes, in a massive overstep of government power, the great folks who run ObamaCare gave more than $15 Billion to the CDC so that they would convince Americans to make "healthy" choices through "Community Transformation Grants" (CTG).

The CTG program "supports efforts to modify behavior through anti-obesity campaigns, as well as anti-smoking and pro-sin tax regulations and legislation" at the state and local levels, according to the bipartisan Citizens Against Government Waste.

The NIH awarded $90 Million in Grant Money to China.

It's true. The NIH awarded more than $90 Million to Chinese researchers.

Including $2 Million to develop a vaccine for a parasite disease common in China.

The Traditional Values Coalition asked, “As our country heads to fiscal ruin, why are we giving millions in taxpayer dollars to Chinese science — which benefits China and its institutions — when they hold more than $1 Trillion in American debt?"

No answer from Dr. Collins on that one.
The CDC spent $22 Million to Duplicate Agricultural Programs. 

The CDC spent $22 Million on their Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Program.

The problem? This project was nearly identical to efforts already underway at the Department of Agriculture.

CDC spent $181,966 for developing a smart phone app for specialized farmers in Tennessee.

"Why Are Lesbians Fat?"

The NIH has spent, so far to date, since this study is on-going, $3 Million to find out "Why Are Lesbians Fat?"

Besides spending $3.2 Million on getting a monkey drunk, this is my favorite example of insane government waste which I think could have been solved by a simple phone call to Rosie O'Donnell.

One phone call to the outspoken Liberal who has made the world aware of her Lesbian lifestyle would have saved the American public Millions of dollars.

Instead, that one question has cost taxpayers almost $3 Million so far. Yes, so far, as the research is not ended. And yes, the NIH research has been going on for the last four years -- so expect the bill to go up!
The ongoing study is said to help explain why the vast majority of lesbians are obese?

Yes, for $3 Million, the NIH has found out that their being extremely fat is due to their lack of self esteem and a desire to look like men.

First funded in 2011, the study is slated to continue into 2016 to the tune of at least another $4 Million.

But no, they can't find funds to study a Biological Threat such as Ebola or Anthrax!

The CDC spent $544,188 to Promote HPV Vaccine for Young Girls

CDC provided $544,188 for a study on how to boost the number of young girls getting Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccinations in Los Angeles County.

Although the CDC says the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk, it counts 772 serious adverse side effects, including 32 deaths, among the millions of doses administered to young girls between June, 2006, and December, 2008.

Parents have raised moral objections as to whether young girls should receive the vaccine, which covers four sexually transmitted diseases.

How about the NIH spending $1.5 Million for something they call "Bizarre Sex Studies"

The NIH has used $1.5 Million so far on four obscure sex studies:
1) "Mood Arousal and Sexual Risk Taking,"
2) "Study on Sexual Habits of Older Men,"
3) "Study on San Francisco’s Asian Prostitutes/Masseuses," and
4) "Study on American Indian Transgender Research."

Yes, that's right, this study targets most of the delegates at a Democrat Party Convention!

NIH still received the requested funds from Congress, despite efforts by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn., as far back as 2004 to defund the projects.

Why did the CDC find it needed give $1.4 Million to something called "Funds for Homosexual Activists in Public Schools"?

Believe it or not, the CDC gave The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a Homosexual Activist Group, $1.4 million to create "safe spaces" in public schools starting in 2011.

The funding will be distributed during a five year period, as GLSEN works in 20 targeted school districts across the country.

GLSEN Executive Director Eliza Byard claimed in 2011 that safe spaces "are vital to these students’ health, success in school and life prospects."

Of course, most who understand politics understand that this is just a way for Homosexuals to get into school systems and establish themselves as something other than an alternative lifestyle.

Frankly, besides this being an attempt at Social Engineering, it is payback from the Obama administration for the tons of money sent to Democrat Party coffers from gay lobbyists and gay donors who want to indoctrinate the young to their lifestyle.

Did the CDC need to $2.6 Million to anti-gun group called the "Centers for ‘Gun Disease’ Prevention"?

Yes, the CDC spent $2.6 Million to disarm Americans.

In what they label as studies to prove the need for greater gun control.

While Congress defunded the research in 1999, apparently Congress thought the CDC had more important issues to study, like say how to control actual diseases, President Obama is asking Congress to grant CDC $22.2 Million in new funding to study and prevent gun violence for Fiscal Year 2015.

Why did the CDC and NIH feel they needed to give a total of $10 Million to the National Institutes of ‘Gun Control'?

The CDC and the NIH handed out nearly $5 Million each for research promoting gun control as of October, 2009, according to an article in The Washington Times.

The NIH pursued research on "gun related violence," despite the issue being well outside the organization’s typical domain.

Grants from the NIH to gun-control groups included "$642,561 in taxpayer funds to learn how inner-city teenagers whose friends, acquaintances and peers carry firearms and drink alcohol on street corners could show up in emergency rooms with gunshot wounds.”

As if they have no idea how that happens right?

Obama wants the CDC and the NIH to claim that Gun Violence is a health hazard or label it a "disease," so that Obama and the Democrats can justify more restrictions on legal firearms.

Why is the CDC and the NIH in the business of spending money to support gun-control? Besides it not being their mission to do so, it is a Liberal ploy to find another way to justify and enact stricter gun-control measures.

Did you know that the NIH spent $181,406 in a study to find out that "Cocaine Enhances Japanese Quail’s Sex Drive"?

No joke, this was a real study sponsored by NIH and slated to run through next year.

Why a Japanese quail? Well, it is because our National Institute of Health, the NIH, believes that a Japanese "quail provide a convenient and interesting alternative to standard laboratory rats and pigeons."

Yup, that's it! They wanted something other than lab rats, and since money is no object -- they wanted Japanese quail.

The NIH spent $279,789 to help to ''Empower Women to Choose Contraception in Jail"
Liberals have long battled to expand women’s access to contraceptives.

So in June 2012, the NIH allocated $279,789 with the mission "to improve contraceptive use for incarcerated women" as they neared the end of their jail time.

Of course the first thought that hit me when I read that was, why do women inmates need contraception of any sort while in the joint?

And no, I could not find an answer to that question.

The program, which ran from June 1, 2008, through on May 31, 2014, was ultimately intended to reduce unexpected pregnancies and Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) among recently incarcerated women.

Yes, then we get people like Dr. Collins who says they have no funds to prevent Ebola!

The NIH spent $4.9 Million on "Fraudulent AIDS Experiments".

Results of an HIV/AIDS vaccine study funded by the NIH were faked by researcher at Iowa State University (ISU), calling into question $19 Million in Grants awarded to the same researcher over the years.

"Inauthentic" samples throughout a period of four years made the vaccine reportedly appear far more effective than it actually was.

Although the NIH finally refused to pay ISU the final installment of the Grant money, ISU was allowed to keep more than $4.9 Million after paying back the researcher’s salary.

And yes, besides none of the money ever being recovered, no one went to jail for fraud!
The NIH spent $675,786 on a study called "Sex Workers Spreading STDs"

Ever wonder why "sex workers," aka prostitutes, spread HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)?

First, you just have to hate the way Liberals relabel illegal behavior. To them, they are not "Prostitutes" or "Hookers" but instead are "Sex Workers."

The answer might seem obvious to everyone and anyone who understands what prostitutes do, but the NIH is spending $675,786 to find out exactly how and why in an ongoing study right now.

Researches are continuing the regular testing of 600 female prostitutes on the U.S.-Mexico border for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and Chlamydia.

Who knows, maybe they will spend as much on 1200 male prostitutes in San Francisco and Seattle looking for all the same STDs?

In a study called "Examining ‘Barriers to Correct Condom Use", the NIH spent $423,500. Well, it turns out "young, heterosexual adult men" weren’t using condoms as frequently as the NIH would like.

So in 2009, that study investigating the apparent problem came with $423,500 price tag.

So what did the American taxpayer get for almost a half million dollars? The result, nothing conclusive.

The Bottom Line

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has spent Billions of Taxpayer Dollars on obese lesbians, origami condoms, texting drunks, and dozens of other projects that could have been scrapped in favor of developing an Ebola vaccine.

Dr. Collins statement that "Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would’ve gone through clinical trials and would have been ready" is just pure political bullshit!

Taxpayers have spent $466,642 on "Why fat girls have a tough time getting dates;" $2,075,611 was spent "Encouraging old people to join choirs"; and all sorts of things including "Text message interventions" where researchers sent texts to drunks at the bar to try to get them to stop drinking.

That project alone received an additional Grant this year for a total of $674,590.

The NIH also sent texts to Older African Americans with HIV at a cost to the taxpayers of $372,460; texts to HIV and drug users in rural areas at a cost of $693,000; texts to HIV smokers at a cost of $763,519; texts to pregnant smokers at a cost of $380,145; texts to teen moms at a cost of $243,839; and texts to meth addicts for a cost of $360,113.

And yes, text message interventions to try to get obese people to lose weight have cost $2,707,067.

The NIH’s research on obesity has led to spending $2,101,064 on wearable insoles and buttons that can track a person’s weight, and $374,670 to put on fruit and vegetable puppet shows for preschoolers.

The CDC spent $10 Million in 2013 to study "Video Games and TV Violence".

President Obama requested they do so in the wake of high-profile school shootings, and the CDC responded by spending $10 million to study violent video games and media images, as well as to assess “existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact.”

Yes, they used their money to try to justify more gun-control.

And frankly, as with most of the above waste, one has to ask the question, what business is it of the CDC or the NIH to get involved in any of these things?

Why aren't they doing their jobs, the jobs they're supposed to be doing? Simple, Lousy Management and No Oversight!  

On of the worse things that can happen to a bunch of government bureaucrats is to have a spotlight shine on their waste and miserable management.

That is exactly what is now taking place since the head of the NIH Dr Collins decided to pass off his departments horrible performance during the biological threat  of the Ebola Virus to budget cuts.

Now the American people are being made aware of a much bigger issue. It is the political influence that the CDC and NIH are operating under and the wasteful spending at both NIH and CDC.

Between the two, they award about 64,000 research Grants annually with little incentive for responsibly spending under "secretive, autocratic and unaccountable" leadership, according to a former health official.

Many of these taxpayer-funded studies are a combination of the absurd which only demonstrates the horrible ways these two agencies are run.

At $7 Billion, the Centers for Disease Control 2014 Budget is nearly 200 percent bigger now than it was in 2000.

By way of comparison, the combined budgets the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, the FBI, the DEA and the Secret Service are almost $1 Billion less than the NIH and CDC combined budgets.

If the NIH and the CDC are having trouble coming up with the needed funds to wage a good fight against Ebola, it is not due to a lack of funds -- but a lack of priorities.

They may have to cut some of their politically motivated spending. It is just that simple.

After all, putting drunken monkeys, origami condoms, text interventions, and the like, all ahead of disease control and new biological threats which may take place on any given day is totally inexcusable.

They are into things that are none of their business, and maybe it is time for Congress to take a hard look at how the CDC and the NIH are run?

If those in charge of the CDC or the NIH cannot understand that the mission of the CDC and the NIH is not Social Engineering, Gun Control, or implementing a Liberal ideology in America, then they need to be replaced with people who want to wage war on diseases and biological threats to the United States.

Right now, the CDC and the NIH fail in the aspect of preparedness. And yes, this has to change.

They need to change from agencies involved in Social Engineering and return to their core mission which they are failing miserably.

Like everyone in our military, I was trained to be ready in case of an NBC attack. NBC stands for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical.

Since 9/11/2001, Americans have been under the impression that our Federal Government is doing everything in their power to be ready for an NBC attack from terrorists.

Whether it was Anthrax or a Dirty Bomb, up until Obama entered office -- most of America felt secure in knowing that the Federal Government was on top of things.

I don't believe that that's the case today. I believe more and more Americans are seeing the Federal Government for what it is -- bloated, power hungry, and sorry to say extremely incompetent on so many levels in so many agencies.

Now we can add the CDC and NIH to the list of shabby run agencies along with the IRS, the EPA, and others.

It is no wonder that Americans felt safer and more secure under President George W. Bush. We knew his priority was to keep America safe, to prevent another attack, and take the fight to our enemies.

No, it is no wonder at all that many do not feel the same today since President Barack Hussein Obama has shown that his last priority is to keep America safe against any form of attack -- especially an NBC attack, this Ebola threat proves just that.
And yes, that's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa