Monday, June 29, 2015

Keeping It Simple -- The Obama Family: Owners And Sellers Of Slaves

By Terry McGahey

With all of the racism accusations being made today by the far Left, why is it that no one wants to point out that president Obama had family members involved in the slave trade on both sides, white and black ancestors alike?

Since he has spoken about slavery reparations, I would believe that he would owe twice as much to this outlandish scheme to gain more votes for the democrat party, once for the white side of his family, and once for the black side.

On his mothers side, Obama's great, great, great, grandfather George Washington Overall, owned two slaves who were recorded in the 1850 census in Nelson County, Kentucky. The same records show that his great, great, great, great, great, grandmother, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves.

Back in the 1700s, Obama's fathers side of the family was from the Luo tribe which was involved in the capture and selling of other black tribesmen in Kenya, which was also one of the main slave-trading centers of that time. When the Muslim slavers moved into Kenya it was for the purpose of exploiting the tribal blood rivalries.

The Muslims encouraged warring tribes to capture members from other tribes and sell them into slavery, and the Luo tribe, Obama's ancestors on his fathers side, did just that.

Isn't it funny that this information hasn't been made public by the liberal and progressive left? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Everyone knows that white people owned slaves in the South many years before, and during the civil war, as well as many others even in the north, but most people don't know that free black's also owned slaves.

At one time free black people owned slaves in all thirteen colonies. This practice had begun from at least 1654, continuing through the civil war. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston in 1724, in Connecticut by 1783, and by 1790, 48 free black people owned 143 slaves.

One black slave trader by the name of Nat Butler regularly bought and sold other black people for the Southern slave trade markets. A Black man by the name of Nicolas Augustin Metoyer of Louisiana owned slaves also. He and his family members collectively owned 215 slaves.

No different than, not all white people owned slaves, not all black people in Africa were part of capturing and selling other tribal members as slaves. Bottom line, The slave trade was all about money.

As I have stated once before, the color of a mans skin has nothing to do with the selling or owning of slaves. Only the greedy people of all colors seeking wealth and power owned slaves.

Should reparations ever get passed, every family within this country would have to dig into their ancestry to see who would have to pay. Not just white people, but blacks alike.

It is time for black people and white people alike to wake up and realize, we must join together to stop this racial hatred towards each other, and start paying more attention to what our government is doing.

Many of our elected officials, white or black, have been promoting racist views, because they want us to keep looking at each other instead of paying attention to what they are doing.

If we don't pay more attention to them, we will all become slaves to the system, no matter our color, and no different than in China. I realize that I have made this statement before but it cannot be said enough.

If some readers of this little column choose not to believe what I have written about here, I say, do the research yourself, just as I have done.

If you are willing to do so, you will find that every bit of this article is the truth and not racially motivated lies like our government likes to put out.



Sunday, June 28, 2015

Separation of Church and State -- The State Should Shut Up Already!



President Obama came out to say Americans need to shift religious views to accept gay marriage.

My first reaction was to say just because he is so uncommitted to his religious views -- most Americans believing he's a Muslim and not a Christian as he says -- why should others be so uncommitted as he is? 

Then I started thinking about it and found myself asking why is a representative of the federal government instructing Americans on religious matters? 

What happen to separation of Church and State? Or is that only used when it's convenient like when trying to stop Christians from praying in public schools?

Democrats have made it clear that they hate Christians, so what gives Obama or any other Government representative the right to discuss what my beliefs are -- or if I need to change them to suit them? 

Barack Obama says America must shift religious views on gay marriage. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling on gay marriage, President Obama gave a speech in which he said Americans need to change their religious views to be accepting of gay marriage.

To that end, he encouraged gay marriage supporters to "help” people overcome their deeply-held religious views. Imagine that!

I have to tell you my readers that I find this very offensive! He oversteps his position as a government rep. He says people who believe in traditional marriage need to change your beliefs!

I do not like the Holier than thou attitude of anyone, especially when it's a representative of the government who now decided that he knows what's good for me when it come to my religious views!

Basically, the President can shut up and keep his opinions to himself when it comes to the beliefs of American Christians. Like the Pope, who has shown himself to be nothing but a politician, Obama too has no moral compass.

And yes, Obama is the last man to tell devout Christians how they should approach their religious beliefs. I for one know for certain that he is the last man on earth to tell me about how I should approach my belief system.

The idea of his condescension with it's "I'm smarter than you and you need to do as I say" attitude is something that I do not need. Besides, I thought as a Government Representative that he was supposedly forbidden from interferring with how I worship.

While the Bill of Rights said that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- maybe it should also say that the President should keep his sermons to himself.

While Obama might not be burdened by bothersome moral standards, that doesn't mean that I should give up mine.

I interpret Obama's latest "advise" pertaining to my religious views as him saying, "You lost the fight, gay marriages are legal, so knock off your religion crap!"

If pedophiles and polygamists have their way, with the support of the Democrat Party, Obama may be out soon to again say, "You lost the fight, child molesters and Muslims wanting to marry children, and group marriages are legal, so knock off your religion crap!"

I remember my grandfather once asking me why I was listening to a man who he knew was a thieve and a liar. After I said he was just telling me something, he said "I wouldn't believe a thing he said. I'd even check for myself if he said that I was on fire."

Obama is morally repugnant! Obama's actions have proven him to be in direct conflict with morals. He is completely incompatible with the teachings that I received as a Christian and a man.

How can I say that you ask? He has shown himself to be a politician and not a statesman. He has shown himself to be a Muslim and not a Christian.

He has shown himself to be a liar. He lacks character and I would not trust him to work for America even if I were able to watch his every move. I do not see him as an honorable man -- and he is someone who is certainly not qualified to advise anyone in regards to their religious beliefs -- unless maybe Muslim religious beliefs.

In other words, his attitude of "you'll get used to getting screwed" -- totally sucks! 

Obama, was once said to be a man shifting and evolving on the issue of gay marriage. I think that's crap! For him, politics and not a moral compass steer his belief system.

As for me. let me make something clear to anyone about to write me to call me anti-gay. I am not anti-gay. Frankly I don't care if some deviate wants to screw sheep, or want to marry a ewe. Disgusting acts will always be disgusting acts.

While I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and everything else is just a sham -- I could care less if gays get married or not because it will never be real no matter what they call it.

Let's be frank her, all the glitz and glitter and ceremony in the world and a gay "marriage" is still going to be between two gay people of the same sex -- and that means nothing.

To put it another way, all the glitz and glitter can't make Bruce Jenner a woman. He will always be just an old Drag Queen.

Whether Liberals like it or not, males, you notice I didn't say men, who want to act like woman will never be part of the norm -- the same goes for females who want to act like men. Good or bad, people will always look at them differently because they are.

What I do care about is that Christian clergy will now be "forced" with threat of punishment under the law to conduct a marriage ceremony for gay people, and the Federal Government will be complicit in taking away the right of that Christian to abide by one's own conscience when it comes to doing the ceremony or not.

Do I think Muslims will be forced to preform gay marriages? No. Besides, in America, Muslims are a protected class right up there with thugs.

As far as the law goes, granted that in a civilized society the government does force us to maintain civility to have harmony in our society. But frankly, I hate the idea of the government forcing us to do anything -- especially when it goes against one's moral principles.

There is another concern of mine, a bigger concern, and that's on the legal end and not the moral end of the spectrum. Like it or not, this Supreme Court ruling opens the flood gates for other deviant lifestyles to achieve protection under the law.

Gays want to be considered normal. Pedophiles want to be considered normal. Polygamists want to be considered normal. And yes, there are others who want their deviant practices considered normal and acceptable.

And now, since they believe that America has people in government who cannot discern normal form abnormal, they will come forward to be legalized. With this Supreme Court decision, the Democrats have made this possible in a legal sense. As for a moral sense, Obama and other government representatives can wish and bribe and threaten, but none of that will make it happen.

Fact is there will always be certain practices that will always be immoral in the eyes of God, no matter how some government representative tries to spin it.

As for the Separation of Church and State, the Federal Government should be made to respect the rights of Christians and leave the sermons to people who are qualified to give them. Obama is not.

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

Tom Correa








Friday, June 26, 2015

Democrat Party -- America's ISIS


Like ISIS on the march to destroy any semblance of the historic past in the Middle East, Democrats are seizing the opportunity to destroy American History involving the Civil War in the South.

And yes, that is how I see the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag and the attack on artifacts that were erected after the Civil War -- namely statues and plagues and such. 

While the Confederate Battle Flag certainly belongs in an honored spot in any museum, Democrats are acting out a desire to purge, to scrub, to completely disrespect and disregard the sacrifices of men and women who fought for the South.

As for the Confederate Battle Flag itself, like it or not, it is a part of American History. And whether Liberals like it or not, it represents the Rebel in the American psyche. But frankly, that is our heritage as a nation. And really, maybe that's what they hate so much.

Like it or not, we are a nation that rebels and demands to live differently than what is being forced upon us. Because of that, we fight to stop government intrusion, we fight to stop government over-reach, we fight to stop government abuse of power.

Yes, we fight the Democrats and the Obamas of the world, and their need for power at the price of our liberty.

Liberal comedians can take silly pot shots at the Confederate Battle Flag all they want, but the fact remains that the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of the 98.4% of the Southerners who did own slaves but fought during the Civil War because they were feeling oppressed by a central government -- the Federal Government, which they saw as a foreign government.

And frankly, if it was strictly over slavery, if so, then why did non-Southern states see it as oppression by the Federal Government?

Yes, along with the South, efforts to secede were also made by Northern states including Maryland and Delaware. Maryland's secession from the United States was halted by Federal imposition of Martial Law. Delaware failed to secede because of divided loyalties.

With that fact alone, one can see that history shows that, like it or not, we today more than 150 years later cannot truly understand the allegiances of the people at that time -- or their distaste for oppression.

Remember, General Robert E. Lee himself, long before taking command of the South's army, spoke about defending his county -- which he saw as the nation of Virginia.

And yes, it is important to note, the United States formed from 13 individual colonies that were no different than 13 individual nations. Each had it's own laws, each had it's own currency, each had it's own trade tariffs, and each joined together to oppose a common enemy.

I believe that the 13 colonies banned together to make a united front against England, no different than the United States joined with England and France and other nations in a united front as allies to take on Hitler and Japan during World War II.

And yes, I believe that all of those who united in the cause to fight England saw themselves as independent nations, sovereign states that could pull out of that association at any time they pleased. 

For the record, back in the late 1980s, in Eastern Europe, Poland was pulling away from the Soviet Union. Poland was one of the Soviet Union's Iron Curtain countries. Poland was trying to shake off the shackles of an oppressive central government. The Soviet Union was threatening Poland with a use of military force if they decided to try to secede.  

I remember a story that was related to me during that time about an American diplomat in Europe who said that "Poland had the right to pull away from the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union should respect their desire to make to be a sovereign nation."

The answer he received shocked him. He was asked if that was "the same right that South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina had when they tried to pull away from the United States because they saw the American Federal Government as oppressive?" 

The man asked another question, "What is the difference between occupied Poland after World War II with the Soviet-installed government in Warsaw and the occupied South after the Civil War during Reconstruction?" 

The diplomat was silent for a moment then answered, "We were all Americans." 

The man answered, "Yes, but it took a bloody war with over 650,000 dead to keep you all in the United States, even though some Americans did not want to."

Since the Polish Flag today has the design that was banned under the Soviet Union, I can't help but wonder if one day the banned Confederate Battle Flag will resurface over an independent Southern nation? Who knows?

Can you imagine for a moment if a nation, say France for example, which belongs to NATO, were told that the United States would invade that country if they did not stay in NATO?

Can you imagine if a nation belonging to the European Union, say Germany for example, were told that they would be invaded by the other European Union states, nations, if they decided to leave the EU?

I see the Confederacy in the same way. And yes, I truly believe that those states, those independent nations, those which joined the United States, would have never done so if they thought they could not leave the association they decided to join.

No, many of those states, with independent governments and laws, would have never been part of the United States if they felt that one or a few other states could tell them how to live and prosper. 

Need proof of that? Read the debate that took place of the Declaration of Independence when the South did want to go along with war against England. The Southern colonies were promised strict observance of their sovereignty if they because part of the union.

And frankly, while others can say that the Civil War was fought solely over the issue of slavery, they are being dishonest. 

Since only 1.6% of the Southerners alive at the time owned slaves, what motivated the other 98.4% of the Southerners to want to go to war?  What motivated non-slave holders to fight for the South?

I believe the Federal Government was seen as oppressive. Besides, one factor other than slavery was the effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90% of all Federal revenue. It effected the South mush harder than it did the North.

After the U.S. increased the tariffs, foreign governments retaliated with higher tariffs of their own. Since Southerners were generating two-thirds of U.S. exports at the time, they were hit the hardest and bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs from foreign countries.

Federal tariffs also had more of an effect for making Southerners want to secede, more than slavery did, because the heavy tariffs meant that 18.5% of America's population, those Americans who lived in the South, were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the Federal Government's costs. 

Yes, that is a big part of what made Southerners pick up arms besides the issue of slavery. And also, Southerners don't like to be pushed around.

I've spend a lot of time in the South. I've worked on jobs throughout all of the states. If there is one thing one learns quickly down there is that Southerners have a pride of their homeland the likes that Northerners do not.

And yes, it is Southern pride that makes them cling to their heritage for the better. All of their heritage for the better.

Now the Democrat Party, who's legacy is the promotion of slavery, and the creation of both the Ku Klux Klan as well as Segregation, wants the symbols of the Civil War destroyed. 

Now they, along with a few Republicans who have hitched their wagon to a couple of Political Correctness jackasses, want to erase from view any symbol of the history of the American Civil War in the South.

Those doing this are saying that the South's Confederate Battle Flag is a banner of slavery and oppression, yet it was the North who reaped the benefits of slavery by way of the manufacturing of the materials that those slaves harvested.

I find it interesting that the slave labor and the oppressed in the cities in the East are not talked about today. The factories where children were chained to machinery during the Civil War and into the 1920s. 

And yes, the North used convict labor, prison camps, established a military Daraft to force men to fight for the Union.

But then again, I know these things because I've decided to find out how things were in the North at the time. Unlike Southern children who learn about the mistakes and reasons for the Civil War, Northern children are not taught the history of an event that had such an impact on the United States as a nation.

Yes, whether Liberals get it or not, whether they can truly understand it or not, Southerners are taught the great sacrifices, the turmoil, and the lessons of that conflict. 

Southerners are taught at a young age that freedom from oppression is something worth fighting for, even if you lose the fight.

While Northerners are not taught these things, that does not mean they do not care. You see, many Northerners fly the Confederate Battle Flag just as many do in the South. Many in California do, and yes there are even people in Alaska who fly the Rebel flag because they see it as a symbol of defiance.

Like ISIS blowing up ancient works and monuments to their ancient past in Syria and Iraq, today we Americans have Democrats who want to tear down the statues of the men who fought against what they saw as oppression. 

Democrats want to rip down the flags, and they want to desecrate the graves and the sacrifices of soldiers who fought what they saw as oppression. 

And don't fool yourself into thinking it's only the Confederate Battle Flag and Confederate Statues and grave markers they are after, Democrats are going after anything that has to do with the Civil War.

Reports are out now that the classic film "Gone With The Wind" based on Margaret Mitchell's book of the same name, a book which painstakingly examined the South during the period of just prior to and during the Civil War, is now considered Racist.

By the way, Margaret Mitchell won the National Book Award for Most Distinguished Novel of 1936, and the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1937 for Gone With The Wind

It was a movie that gave an unknown English actress her big break. And yes, while Hattie McDaniel was the first black American to take home an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for Gone with the Wind, she was criticized by the Black community for consistently playing a maid. 

Her portrayal of a maid is considered an endorsement of racial stereotypes, and her absence from the Civil Rights movement drew further criticism of her. While she personally stated that she was a neutral party avoiding political issues, the black community saw differently and attacked her -- her career paid the price. 

Hattie McDaniel’s film roles seemed to dry up as a result of the pressure that was put upon the studios at the time. 

So yes, though millions of Americans were out of work during the Great Depression and were doing anything to make an honest dollar, some felt she shouldn't have accepted the role that made her famous -- simply because they say it was demeaning, even though it was historically accurate,

And now, because of Political Correctness, Democrats want the movie Gone with the Wind banned. 

Those who believe in this sort of horseshit would have fit very well in Nazi Germany's purge of books that they found unacceptable. 

The person who came up with this idea of banning Gone With The Wind would have been perfect working for the Nazis burning books. 

Democrats see the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag and statues, or even books like those of Mark Twain, and films such as Gone With The Wind as purging what they perceive as "racist cultural relics."  

Too bad they do not understand that a relic is defined as an object surviving from an earlier time, especially one of historical or sentimental interest. An antiquity. An object of reverence.

I see these things as simply parts of American History. Their purge is not needed and will not accomplish anything other than destroying American History. 

Frankly, I think this whole thing is just more proof of the Democrat's visceral hate for America. I see it as their attempt to purge their own history as a political party and conceal their past. Their actions say there are no limits to their wanting to destroy America.

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

Tom Correa


Thursday, June 25, 2015

Feeding Elk Grove Milling's Stable Mix


So OK, it seems that I'm answering a lot of email lately. And frankly, I don't mind -- especially if I can be of help. For example, a few of my readers have written to ask about the high price of hay and finding options out there.

In this area, the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains, we are finding that Alfalfa is ranging anywhere between $17 and $20 a bale.

I know, it's insane to think about paying that much. And yes, it does answer as to why more and more horse owners are getting rid of their horses -- cost to feed has gone through the roof!

If you're finding the battle of the soaring feed bill, you might want to consider going to pelleted feeds while hay is so high. I've been feeding Elk Grove Milling's Stable Mix, a pelleted feed, to help save some money yet still feed my horses what they need.

As for the Pros and Cons of pelleted feeds, well pelleted feeds tend to be significantly less dusty than unprocessed grains. This can be an important factor if you are feeding a horse with respiratory problems.

Because pellets are not coated with molasses, as are most textured commercial sweet feeds, they are generally easier to handle in the winter.  And yes, storage is easier than bags and hay in the winter months.

Horses can’t sort ingredients in a pelleted feed. If you have a picky eater that likes to sort all the oats out of his sweet feed and leave the rest, he is likely not getting the nutrition the ration is designed to deliver. 

With a pellet, he has no choice but to eat the whole thing. The unpleasant taste or texture of some ingredients, such as fats and oils, can also be “disguised” in a pelleted ration.

Because pellets are made up of feed ground into particles, they are, in a manner of speaking “pre-chewed.” This makes them a much more digestible choice than whole grains or hay for very young or old horses, or for any horse with a mouth or tooth problem.

Pellets can also be soaked into a mush to be fed to elderly horses that have little or no grinding surfaces left on their teeth.

And yes, some say that because pelleted feeds are compacted and bulky, pellets can carry a slightly increased risk of choke, especially in horses that bolt their feed. But strategies to help address this problem include placing a few large, smooth stones in the feed tub; feeding small amounts often; mixing in some chaff, chopped hay, or soaked beet pulp; and placing some bars across the feed tub, similar to a foal feeder. Or, choose small pellets and spread them out thinly in a large, shallow feed tub to make your horse slow down and work for his meal.

Assessing the quality of a pelleted product can be difficult because the ingredients are compacted and ground.  But with that being said, the manufacturer’s nutritional analysis should provide you with some assurance, but the only way to be sure of the quality of a pelleted ration is to examine it visually for a firm texture, a pleasant smell, no visible signs of mold, weeds, or foreign material, and few fines.

You can also send a sample of the product for a nutritional analysis by a commercial or university laboratory.

I have had real good results with Elk Grove Milling Stable Mix.

According to Elk Grove Milling their pelleted feed "provides your horse with a mixture of different grain hays and alfalfa for a diverse nutrient profile. Stable Mix also contains almond hulls a form of super fiber which provide more calories to your horse than hay, but is a safer form than grains. For that extra glow in your horse’s coat Stable Mix includes rice bran a source of essential fatty acids. Unlike hay, Stable MixTM comes with all the necessary vitamins and minerals to insure that all of your horse’s nutritional needs are met. Elk Grove Milling uses Zinpro Performance Minerals."

Stable MixTM:
  • No corn or molasses
  • Certified weed free
  • Zinpro 4-plex EQ Vitamin
  • Pelleted, no waste
  • Available in bags, barrels and bulk
  • Vitamin A, IU/lb 2500
  • Vitamin D, IU/lb 500
  • Vitamin E, IU/lb 20

Lately, because of the high price of hay, I've seen more and more horse owners feed Stable Mix and really place their trust in Elk Grove Milling.

From talking to people in Elk Grove who know him, Elk Grove Milling owner, Bob Lent is a stand up guy who as his website says "strives daily to produce a top quality and consistent product that exceeds other horse feed manufacturers."

Elk Grove Milling's mission statement says that they are in business to manufacture and distribute a high quality horse, cattle, goat, sheep, mule and rabbit pellet feed which provide 100% of your animals' daily requirement of vitamins and minerals in a convenient pelleted feed that your animals will love.

Elk Grove Milling is located about 45 minutes away in Elk Grove, California, but I find many feed stores in my area carry their feed. According to my Vet, it is true that their products are recommended by a number of veterinarians.

While their products are available for purchase in bulk feed tanks (8, 10 and 12 Tons), I buy the 250 pound barrels which I find are easy to manage.

Elk Grove Milling has been producing high quality complete animal feeds since 1982. I like their product and know that I can either feed it alone or supplement it with hay or cubes as I have in the past.

As for my older horses, I find that they eat better -- and do better on the overall when they are on Senior Stable Mix with glucosamine and chondroitin.

While pelleted feeds don’t always exude the tempting aroma of most molasses-laced sweet feeds, textured feeds, they more than make up for that in terms of convenience and digestibility and price.

So yes, there are a lot of advantages and only a few disadvantages as I can see it -- though I still supplement my horses feed with hay.

But frankly, with the results that I've been seeing with feeding Stable Mix pelleted feed, I might be feeding their product to my horses even after hay prices come down from the sky high prices they are today. If they ever do.

Tom Correa


Tuesday, June 23, 2015

The VA and Michele Swenson

While I know real well that the VA is getting all sorts of bad press these days, I am thankful for the treatment that I receive at the VA.

I have been in the VA system since 1995. And yes, over the years, I've seen a lot of changes. I saw Bill Clinton close VA Hospitals to help him balance the budget. I saw George W. Bush open hospitals and extend care to Veterans, especially after 9/11.

Recently, we've all seen the reports about the VA waiting lists around the country. And yes, Barack Obama has routinely under-funded and closed facilities just as Bill Clinton did in the 1990s and Jimmy Carter did back in the late 1970s.

And while administrators change, and yes some of them have needed to be replaced, there are those who do the job and provide some of the best health care in the world.

As I said before, I am thankful for the treatment that I receive at the VA. On the overall, it has been a wonderful association with some very caring professionals.

Last night I had an appointment at the VA Hospital in Sacramento. I had to be there at 9pm because of my problems with Sleep Apnea. for a "sleep study" to find out if I have , how bad it is, and how do I respond to a CPAP machine.

Sleep apnea is a potentially serious sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts. You may have sleep apnea if you snore loudly and you feel tired even after a full night's sleep.

CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) machines help by delivering air pressure through a mask placed over your nose while you sleep. With a CPAP (SEE-pap) machine, the air pressure is somewhat greater than that of the surrounding air, and is just enough to keep your upper airway passages open, preventing apnea and snoring.

Last night I arrived at 8:30pm, then at promptly at 9pm, I was met by VA technician Michele Swenson. She was very pleasant and professional and caring.

I like personable people. I like people who are not robots. I like people who  like their job. People who enjoy their work, their job, their employer are friendlier and more proficient in their job. 

When I go to a restaurant, I like to have a server who has a personality and is not there just going through the paces. The same goes for in the business world. When refinancing my home, I wanted to deal with someone who understood my concerns and was a real person -- instead of someone who I know is just there to make a dollar off me and could really care less about my concerns. 

There are a few wooden people in the VA system who are just there going through the paces to get through their shift, but honestly they are the minority. 

Many of the people I have met at the VA over the years are friendly and caring. The VA is fortunate to have a technician like Michele Swenson. She is intelligent, professional, very personable, and absolutely caring. Shen cares about the Veterans which she is assigned to. She cares if their medical needs are being met. And yes, she cares if they are getting the assistance they need. 

She is one of those people who you meet and realize immediately that she is what the VA and other hospitals need more of. 

Years ago, I knew a man who was married to an RN who was as cold as a fish. She had build a wall so high that no one could get over it, and her sense of caring was in the toilet. 

That is not the case with Michele Swenson. She looks at the Veterans in her care as "her Veterans." She feels a personal sense of accomplishment knowing that she provides "her Vets" with what they need. 

No, no short cuts and half-ass measures with Michele Swenson. From making sure that the CPAP mask in positioned correctly to making sure that her hospital folds on the bed is perfect after she changed them out, she is all about making sure everything is as perfect as possible. 

I thought I was going to be a little claustrophobic with the mask that seemed more like something used by fighter pilots stuck on my face, but because of her care and instruction -- it was great. 

While I have had problems with getting to sleep and staying asleep for many years, I was very impressed with the CPAP machine. And yes, Michele Swenson's explanation as to how it works and what it can do was spot on! 

Frankly, though I arrived with some doubts, I fell asleep faster than I normally do and woke this morning feeling better and more rested than I have in a very long time. 

So why tell my readers about Michele Swenson and the wonders of the CPAP sleep therapy? 

First, if you have Sleep Apnea, it is no joke and can be dangerous to your health and I hope you look into doing something about it. Second, the VA gets a lot of negative press these days. And yes, some see the whole VA system as bad when in fact it is not.

And lastly, I love passing on a good word about a great gal like Michele Swenson because she is so caring and she really does epitomize most who work in the VA system. 

I truly believe that not enough people get the praise they are due. More praise and less negative knit-picking can make this a better world -- especially when the person being praised really does deserve it.  

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

Tom Correa




Monday, June 22, 2015

Horse Care -- Strangles (Equine Distemper)

A reader wrote asking about Strangles. While I am not a veterinarian, I will attempt to answer her questions as to what is Strangles, what are the warning signs, the treatment, and the prevention measures, for horse owners?  

Strangles, also known as Equine Distemper, is a contagious upper respiratory tract infection. The name "strangles" was coined due to the strangling breathing sounds made by affected horses.

Caused by the enlarged lymph nodes of the jawbone, it is caused by a bacterium called streptococcus equi. Strangles is enzootic in domesticated horses worldwide.

The contagious nature of the infection is a real concern for horse owners because the disease is spread when the nasal discharge or material from the draining abscess contaminates pastures, barns, feed troughs, stables, etc. 

While direct contact between horses is the most common way that strangles is spread, it can also be spread by contaminated equipment. Improperly cleaned and shared buckets, stalls, and tack can spread the disease between horses. Fortunately, the bacteria dies fairly quickly in the environment.

Warning signs include fever, heavy nasal discharge, a swollen or enlarged lymph nodes in the neck and throat-latch, and stop eating.

The first signs of strangles are poor appetite, depression. and a high fever,

Owners will also notice a thin, watery discharge from the horse’s nostrils. This discharge quickly turns thick and yellow. The horse’s upper respiratory lymph nodes become enlarged, most noticeably the ones between the jawbones. These can even abscess.

My recommendation is if you suspect that your horse has Strangles, call your veterinarian immediately. 

Let him or her come out to confirm the presence of the disease, and set a course of treatment. Remember, the sooner a positive diagnosis is reached, the less "down time" the stable will have to tolerate.

If your horse was stabled near one who had strangles at a show or rodeo, it is reasonable to treat it with antibiotics for at least six days after exposure. This is because horses usually don’t show the first signs of the disease for two to six days.

Strangles is not usually fatal to horses, but it can be.

The disease is usually acquired after exposure to another horse that is shedding the streptococcus equi bacteria, either during or after its own bout of the illness.

This commonly occurs when new horses are introduced to an established herd.

Although the infectious horse may no longer show signs of strangles, it can still spread the bacteria. Around twenty percent of horses remain contagious for a month after all symptoms vanish.

Strangles can affect horses of any age, but younger and elderly equines are more susceptible. Young horses may lack immunity to the disease because they have not had prior exposure, while elderly horses may have a weaker immune system.

The treatment of strangles is dependent on the stage of the disease.

Once a horse is exposed to the bacteria, it will begin to show symptoms in two to six days. If left untreated, it will develop abscessed lymph nodes within one to two weeks after the onset of illness. These lymph nodes will rupture and drain, and the drainage is highly contagious. Most horses will recover, but around ten percent of untreated horses die, usually from a secondary infection which causes pneumonia.

Rarely, the abscesses will spread to other parts of the horse’s body, such as the lungs, internal organs, or even the horse’s brain. This condition is called “bastard strangles.” It is uncommon and is usually fatal.

Precautions to limit the spread of the illness are necessary and those affected are normally isolated.

To control the spread of the strangles bacteria, any new horse with a vague or unknown health history should be isolated for 4 to 6 weeks before being added to the general population of the stable or paddock. Yes, an isolation period of 6 weeks is usually necessary to ensure that the disease is not still incubating before ending the isolation.

Nasal swabs can ascertain whether the horse is shedding the streptococcus equi bacteria, but because affected horses shed the bacteria sporadically, one swab test is not enough. Three nasal swabs over a period of seven days are required before it can be assumed that the horse is negative for strangles.

As with many streptococcal infections, penicillin or penicillin-derivative antibiotics are the most effective treatments. Also, if a horse begins antibiotic treatment in the early stages of the disease, lymph node abscesses can be prevented.

Supposedly old veterinary practices warned against using antibiotics for strangles because of the suspicion that it could cause bastard strangles, which has a much higher mortality rate. But, the problem with that is that it hasn't to be proven true or not.

When horses are treated with antibiotics in the early stages of strangles, they will recover unless the antibiotics are not given in the correct amounts or are stopped too soon. Either way, if the horse is on antibiotic therapy -- it must be isolated from the rest of the stable and herd to prevent the spread of the illness.

After an abscess has burst, it is very important to keep the wound clean.

It cannot be emphasized enough, once lymph nodes have enlarged and become abscessed, antibiotic treatment will only prolong the horse’s illness.

So if the abscess has not burst on its own, it is believed that it is better to allow the abscess to open -- which means that a veterinarian may have to lance it so that it may drain.

The best treatment at this point is to flush the drainage site. A diluted povidone-iodine solution has been used with good results to disinfect the open hole, flushing the inside with a syringe tipped catheter or with a teat cannula, followed by gentle scrubbing to keep the surrounding area clean.

After that, keep the area as clean as possible and maintain strict isolation of the ill horse.

Complications can occur. Possible complications include the horse becoming a chronic carrier of the disease, asphyxia due to enlarged lymph nodes compressing the larynx or windpipe, bastard strangles (spreading to other areas of the body), pneumonia, guttural pouches filled with pus, abscesses, purpura haemorrhagica, and heart disease. The average length for the course of this disease is 23 days.

The good news is that prevention measures can be taken. Strangles can also be controlled by vaccinations. Although modern vaccines are more effective than those of the past, providing better protection with fewer side effects, they are not a complete guarantee against the disease.

Still, vaccinated horses tend to have a less severe illness if they do contract strangles. Horses cannot contract strangles from the vaccine itself, since it is made from only parts of the pulverized bacterium.

Both intramuscular and intra-nasal vaccines and isolation of new horses for 4 to 6 weeks, immediate isolation of infected horses, and disinfection of stalls, water buckets, feed troughs, and other equipment will help prevent the spread of strangles. As with any contagious disease, hand-washing is a simple and effective tool.

Strangles is a highly contagious disease. It can be terrifying to those running boarding stable for good reason because of how fast it spreads. But like with anything else, the more horse owners know -- the better prepared one will be when dealing with this.

As I said previously, I am not a Veterinarian. But still, I do hope this helps as it is compiled from various sources. 

Tom Correa

Friday, June 19, 2015

The Tale of the Miraculous Minnie Ball

A bullet, a Civil War minnie ball, with a strange tale?

The Minie ball, also known as the Minié ball, is a type of muzzle-loading spin-stabilized rifle bullet named after its co-developer Claude-Étienne Minié. It was the prominent round in the American Civil War.

So what can be so miraculous about a Civil War minnie ball?

Well the story behind one minnie ball took on a life of its own in November of 1874 when an unusual article appeared in The American Medical Weekly, a Louisville Kentucky medical journal. 

In the article Dr. L. G. Capers recounted an unusual case of artificial insemination which he had claimed to have witnessed on a Civil War battlefield in Mississippi. The story goes that a bullet had passed through a soldier's testicles, and then traveled on before hitting a woman and impregnating her. Imagine that! 

The event supposedly took place on May 12th, 1863 at around 3pm during the Battle of Raymond where Brigadier General John Gregg of the Confederate forces fought General US Grant's Army led by Major General John A. Logan. 

For those of us who may be American History fanatics but can't keep track of every battle in the Civil War, the Battle of Raymond took place on May 12th, 1863, when Lt. Gen. John C. Pemberton, Confederate commander at Vicksburg, ordered Brig. Gen. John Gregg to lead his force from Port Hudson, Louisiana, to Jackson, Mississippi, and out to Raymond to intercept approaching Union troops. 

Before dawn on May 12th, Maj. Gen. James B. McPherson had his XVII Army Corps on the march, and by 10:00 am they were about three miles from Raymond. Gen. Gregg decided to dispute the crossing of Fourteen Mile Creek and arrayed his men and artillery accordingly. As the Yankees approached, the Rebels opened fire, initially causing heavy casualties. 

Some Union troops broke, but Maj. Gen. John A. Logan rallied his force to hold the line. Confederate troops attacked the line but could not as more Union troops arrived. The Union force counterattacked. Heavy fighting ensued for more than six hours, but the overwhelming Union forces prevailed. Gen. Gregg’s men retreated and lost the battle. 

According to Dr. Capers, who was a Confederate army doctor at the time, he was with his regiment as the fighting took place. He described the scene saying that a house stood about 300 yards behind the Confederate lines, and the house was occupied by a mother, her two daughters, and their servants. 

All were standing in front of it watching the battle and waiting to aid any fallen Confederate soldiers. Then suddenly Dr. Capers noticed a soldier fall to the ground, and at the same instant he heard a scream from the house. 

He attended the fallen soldier who had been hit in the leg by a minnie ball. During his treating the fallen soldier, Dr. Capers noticed that the bullet had also "ricochetted from these parts, and, in its onward flight, passed through the scrotum, carrying away the [soldier's] left testicle."

Then while dressing the soldier's wounds, the mother from the house supposedly ran up to him and urged him to attend to her daughter. 

The doctor complied and found that the eldest daughter had been also wounded by a minnie ball. In her case, the bullet "had penetrated the left abdominal parietes, about midway between the umbilicus and anterior spinal process of the ilium, and was lost in the abdominal cavity, leaving a ragged wound behind."

The doctor said that he only had time to prescribe the girl an anodyne before he was forced to retreat from the house with his regiment. However, over the course of the next two months, being stationed with the wounded at the nearby village of Raymond, he was able to visit the young woman regularly and watched her fully recover from her wound. 

Six months later, he was in the neighborhood of Raymond again and visited the girl. He found that her stomach had begun to swell. Three months further on she gave birth to an eight pound son. 

Amazing in many ways. Since her family's morality was said to be very strict as was common during those times, they were said to be mortified that their unmarried daughter had given birth.  The daughter, however, repeatedly insisted that she was a virgin and didn't know how such a thing could have happened. 

Dr. Capers examined her and verified that she was indeed a virgin and that her hymen was intact. But even though that was the case, Dr. Capers said he simply did not believe her even though she insisted she was a virgin. 

Then three weeks later, the girl's grandmother asked Dr. Capers to examine the child because the child's scrotum was dangerously enlarged and sensitive. The doctor examined the infant boy, decided to operate and, to his astonishment, found a minnie ball embedded inside the child. 

Thinking about this, Dr. Capers tried to figure out how a bullet could have become lodged inside the child? Then he recalled the events at the Battle of Raymond and figured out the incredible series of events that must have happened.

He remembered treating the young man who had suffered from a bullet passing through his left testicle. This same bullet, that minnie ball, the doctor determined must have then continued on its flight and hit the young girl.

That bullet, he reasoned, must have been carrying particles of semen with it upon impact on the young women's abdomen. He believed that the bullet impregnated her, and afterwards working its way into the child's flesh.

In his story, Dr. Capers stated that he explained the bizarre situation to the family.  And yes, after they heard the fanciful tale, they requested to meet the soldier. He then went on to say how the soldier and the young woman met and ended up marrying each other. He even said that they produced two more children in a more conventional manner. 

After appearing in the American Medical Weekly, this Civil War story became something of a legend. Its origins and details became obscured, but the basic outline of the tale was frequently repeated.

Believe it or not, a medical journal even repeated it as being "factual" as late as 1959 by F. Donald Napolitani, "Two Unusual Cases of Gunshot Wounds of the Uterus," New York State Journal of Medicine, 59, 1959, 491-93.

But friends, fact is the story is not true. The entire tale was created by Dr. Capers who apparently wanted to poke fun at the numerous highly embellished, often spurious, Civil War stories then were being told in the 1870s.

LeGrand G. Capers, Jr. studied medicine as the assistant to his brother-in-law, Ebenezer Swift, and graduated from Jefferson Medical College. Later he practiced as ship physician on Vanderbilt's steamers.

When American Civil War broke out, Dr. Capers participated in the foundation of Confederate Medical Department in Alabama. On July 19, 1861 he became assistant surgeon in the 4th Georgia Volunteer Infantry.

On October 30, 1863 he was promoted to chief surgeon in Cutshaw's battalion. After armistice, Capers moved to New Orleans and became demonstrator of anatomy in New Orleans School of Medicine.

The rest of the story is that Dr. Capers, who was said to be highly respected doctor, submitted the story to the American Medical Weekly anonymously. Yes, it is believed that Dr. Capers did so intending not to be attached to such a ridiculous tale. But, as luck would have it, the editor of the journal, Dr. E.S. Gaillard, recognized Dr. Capers' handwriting.

Dr. Gaillard also recognized that the story was false and decided to do something unexpected. He decided to give Dr. L.G. Capers full credit for the story by printing the piece as being written by Dr. LeGrand G. Capers.

So yes, when the story appeared it was titled, "Attention Gynaecologists!—Notes from the Diary of a Field and Hospital Surgeon, C.S.A." written by Dr. LeGrand G. Capers.  

The editor's note in a subsequent issue of the journal revealed the case to be a joke, it stated:

DR. L.G. CAPERS, of Vicksburg, Miss., disclaims responsibility for the truth of that remarkable case of impregnation by a minnie ball, as reported in No. 19 of this Journal. He tells the story as it was told to him. He does not say it is untrue, but is disposed to appositely remember the truth of the old adage, that "accidents may happen in the best regulated families." The joke is, that the Doctor reported the case without any signature, but as the editor is indisposed to be made the victim of canards, and recognized the writing sent, he was unwilling to deprive the author of the contemplated fun, and allowed him to enjoy even more of this than was anticipated. The readers have enjoyed the story much, but not enough "to cut capers" after reading it.

While it appears the editor got the last laugh, no one knows if Dr. Capers authored other hoaxes. If he had as "anonymous," no one knows.

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

Tom Correa


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Keeping It Simple -- Moving From Big Cities to Small Towns

By Terry McGahey

I get a kick out of some people who want to get out of the hustle and bustle of the big city, so they move to a small town.

Now the people I am talking about have never lived in small town U.S.A., and don't understand the difference in lifestyles, but while visiting a town like Cody, Wyoming, where I live, they see how clean the town is and how clear the sky's are, along with the mountainous scenery, and believe this is the place for them.

Once they decide to move here one of the first things they don't like, and begin to cry about, is how many of us carry guns. Now, not all of those who move here do, but I would say about fifty percent of them or better don't like it because of the anti gun hype they have been brainwashed to believe. The next thing they regret is that there are no shopping malls or big box stores. They have to travel to Billings, Montana which is a little over one hundred miles away.

Then you have the wives who can't get over the fact that during hunting season the locals have a fresh gutted kill in the back of their pick up truck, right in the middle of town, showing their trophy to friends and family. You can normally spot these women because they are still dressed to the nines like where they came from, while the local women dress nicely but more relaxed with many wearing jeans and western shirts.

It has always amazed me how many people from large metropolitan areas move into an area such as this, then want life to be just like it was back in the city or state from which they came, and also believe that we should change to suit them. They want to teach us country bumpkins how to live.

If you don't like the way of life and the laws in an area you are about to move into, then don't move there! If you do decide to move into a new area, then just fit in and go along with the status quo. People would find that they would be accepted more readily into their new environment, and that their life would be a lot easier, if they would just leave where they come from, where they came from. You may be surprised at how many people from other states think the laws are the same here as the state they moved from.

I remember one fellow who moved here from Chicago, He was a little too pushy, trying to get to know people too quickly rather then ease himself into the fold. People here are friendly, decent people overall, but with the influx of big city folks, with different ideas of how to live than what we do, most of us want to know the kind of person we are dealing with before getting to friendly with them. The people here don't care where you come from as long as you are a decent sort, but it takes a little time to find that out.

One day I was in Wal-Mart after being out target shooting and I was wearing my gun on my hip which I normally do anyway, when that fellow from Chicago walked up to me and said "You're wearing a gun!" I then told him, "Sure, why not it's legal."He then told me, "We don't allow such things in Chicago." Knowing right then and there that I wanted nothing to do with this guy, I replied, "Then buddy, you need to move back to Chicago."I guess he must have done so because I haven't seen him since.

Now, on the lighter side of things, I would like to pass on some of the silly questions some of the big city tourists come up with before visiting Yellowstone Park. Questions like, What time do they let the animals out in Yellowstone? How long does it take for a deer to turn into and Elk? How many coyotes will a wolf pack take in as slaves? How close can we get to the bears, and are any of them tame enough to pet? And my favorite, does Yellowstone give Moose rides?

Back when I was working at the airport as an armed security officer these questions were put to me more than once by people from places like inner city Los Angeles, New York City and a few others. Now I realize that the majority of folks from those places know better than that, but the people who asked those types of questions were mainly from areas such as those.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

I Don't Dial 911


For the record, I don't dial 911!

It's not just a slogan for me. Fact is, while I have a great deal of respect and certainly do support law enforcement efforts, I do not dial 911.

The bottom line reason is that I do not depend on others to protect me. I assume the responsibility of protecting myself, my wife, my family, my home, my friends, my community. I have not dialed 911 in over 30 years.

While in the Marine Corps, and then the security field, I found that the one person that I could absolutely depend on to ensure my safety and security is me.

Because of great training and a sense of responsibility that my parents taught me, I trust myself to handle my problems and I provide for my own security needs.

And really, not taking anything away from the job that the police do, but frankly to expect the police to protect us is just fantasy. To think that they can reliably protect you or the ones your care about is just fooling yourself. And yes, reliability is the issue.

For me, besides the many times when the police were late when needed urgently when I was in the security business and providing security coverage during strikes. Yes, strikers can get out of hand. Some turn to physical violence, others take out their hate on their employer by trying to burn down the plant or businesses. Others just want to destroy property of the people they are asking  more money from. Imagine that.

Among the many instances where the reliability of the police was shown to be questionable at best was something that happened to my youngest sister back in the early 1980s.

My sister called 911 when she and two young friends were being bothered by a group of boys who followed them home. The young men sat outside  my parent's home and called out for her and her friends to come out. They also told them in not a vague way what they had in their vulgar minds.

She kept the door locked and called 911. Thankfully after a while those punks jumped in their car and left. They left about 10 minutes before I came driving up.

I met my sister at my parent's door. She was still in high school and my parents weren't  home. She was in a panic, scared to death, crying, and her friends were in about the same condition. Their slumber party turned into a nightmare and calling the police was as useless as always.

I was there for about 5 minutes or so when the police arrived. The police station was less than 2 miles away. They took well over an hour to show up. And once there, they wanted to take a report.

When this same sister was working at McDonald's, she started getting harassed by a customer. Soon she became the victim of a stalker.

When I spoke with the local police department, I was informed that even though we knew who the person was -- they said a crime had not been committed so their hands were tied. Yes, she had to be raped or assaulted first before they would do anything about the stalker.

For many years, I had learned again and again that the police were essentially worthless until after the fact. And to be fair, we should not expect anything a else but that from our Police. They have a tough, and thankless job, but our security is our responsibility -- not theirs.

Knowing this, after talking to my youngest brother, and after letting her manager know what was going to take place, my brother and I arrived at the McDonald's carrying shotguns in the open to escort our sister home safely.

After they drove off, I spotted the creep but was only able to get within a few yards of his car before he sped off. I was going to explain to him the theory of life and death and why it's smart to leave young girls alone.

The barrel of my shotgun puts a lot of emphasis on the point of leaving someone alone. I have found that there is no better tool than my shotgun when wanting to enlighten a punk ass thug on the benefits of leading a righteous life.

These are just a couple of instances in my life when I learned that I needed to handle things on my own and not bother the police. Over the years there have been other circumstances.

I've read lately how Baltimore and Chicago are "America's Killing Fields". Some are saying that it is a result of the police not wanting to put themselves in harm's way for cities that do not appreciate their being there.

Friends, people seem to forget that there is two types of police work: Proactive and Reactive.

Proactive police work is that work police do on patrols dealing with the animals on the street who make victims out of good citizens. It is the self-initiating work where the police officer sees the drug dealer or the assailant with a gun and he or she is there to stop it. It is being in a position to try to stop crime before it happens.

While a police presence helps deter crime, it is impossible for police to be everywhere and protect everyone. It is just not practical to expect that to take place. Besides, I do not want to live in an armed camp guarded by the police. I do not need watching.

Reactive police work is answering their calls as soon as they can get to it.  In many situations their "immediate response to calls" ends up only being their "follow-up investigations." Like it or not, the vast majority of calls are answered by police officers after the fact. Fact is, on the overall, police departments are a reactionary force.

My knowing that most police work is response oriented means that when a crime takes place, they are useless until they arrive. And yes, in many instances that's too late. Consequently, I do not call 911 and instead handle it myself. And yes, that is something that I would recommend more people do.

And by the way, these days, as for thefts and such, most departments will tell you to go on-line and fill out a report there.

As for more serious altercations, since as an American I have the right to protect myself, I call the police on their non-emergency line to report what took place to make a police report if I feel that is even necessary.

More people should think about taking care of themselves and not being so dependent on the police. I don't dial 911 for that reason. I'll call them when I need them or to cover my ass legally.

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

Tom Correa

Sunday, June 14, 2015

2014 Veterans Spending Bill -- Another Look At What Republicans Blocked


After years of over-spending, last December, 2014, Democrats wanted to portray Republicans as over-spenders. To do so they tried to paint the Republicans into a corner where they simply couldn't win.

On one hand if the Republicans had gone along with that 2014 Bill, then they would have been called "big spenders" on pork. And in the other hand, by not going along with it, Republicans were labeled by the Democrats and the Liberal Media as being anti-military and against funding our Veterans.

This trickery was bait meant to trap the Republicans in a corner after the Democrats took the biggest beating at the elections since the 1920s.

It was a trap that the Republicans did not take. And frankly, thankfully that Bill was blocked. After all, as you can see for yourself above, it had very little to do with Veterans -- and more to do with wasteful spending, political power, and partisan game playing by Democrats who had just lost an election.

The Veterans Spending Bill that the Republicans blocked in the Senate on December 10th, 2014 was a $1 Trillion Spending Bill.

This is what the Republicans blocked:
  • ABORTION funding increase undisclosed amount to be determined at a later date.
  • AFFORDABLE CARE ACT funding increase undisclosed amount to be determined at a later date.
  • AFGHANISTAN funding for the Afghan government -- amount to be determined at a later date.
  • CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL increase to $6.9 billion
  • CLEAN WATER ACT increase in funding for the EPA -- increase amount to be determined at a later date.
  • EBOLA fund by $5.4 billion.
  • EGYPT funding $1.3 billion in military aid, and $150 million in economic aid.
  • ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY funding increase by $8.1 billion.
  • FOOD SAFETY (FDA) increase by $2.589 billion.
  • IMMIGRATION funding $948 million for the Department of Health and Human Service's unaccompanied children program -- an $80 million increase.
  • JORDAN funding $1 billion.
  • METRORAIL funding $10.9 billion.
  • NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY funding $24 million.
  • NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH funding $30.3 billion, a $150 million overall increase.
  • PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY funding undisclosed amount.
  • EDUCATION funding $70.5 billion.
  • SAGE-GROUSE funding $15 million for the Bureau of Land Management to conserve sage-grouse habitats.
  • UNITED NATIONS funding undisclosed for the renovations of U.N. Headquarters in New York.
  • WHISTLEBLOWERS funding for Occupational Safety and Health Administration would receive a $500,000 increase for its enforcement of existing whistleblower laws.
  • WHITE HOUSE BUDGET funding increase to $222 million for executive mansion operations and the first family.
  • WOLVES funding $1 million in the bill "to compensate ranchers for livestock killed by wolves."
  • OVERSEAS MILITARY OPERATIONS funding $1.3 billion for a new Counter Terrorism Partnership Fund; $5 billion for military operations to combat the Islamic State, including $1.6 billion to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces; $500 million for a Pentagon-led program to train and equip Syrian opposition fighters; $810 million for ongoing military operations in Europe, including requirements that at least $175 million is spent in support of Ukraine and Baltic nations.
The above were all parts of the spending portions of that Bill that the Republicans blocked last December. 

None of the above funds would have went to Veterans or our troops. None of the funds was designated for our military. 

The only parts of the Democrat's December 10th, 2014, $1 Trillion Spending Bill that had anything to do with Veterans or our troops is listed below:
  • SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY funding $257 million.
  • MILITARY PAY AND PERKS -- 1% pay hike for 2015, then would have instituted an indefinite pay freeze across the board.
  • VETERANS funding $159.1 billion in discretionary and mandatory spending. 
Besides trying to institute an indefinite pay freeze on the salaries of our troops, there were other regulatory issues that the  Democrats were trying to pass as well.

Is this why Democrat Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) refused to allow any discussion on the Bill -- or for the Bill to go to even go to committee?

I find it amazing that the Democrats in the Senate called it a "Veterans Spending Bill" yet the amount of funds in the Bill going to Veterans and our troops was less than one sixth of all of of the spending in the entire Bill.

This failed Bill is a great example of why we are in debt as a nation. Friends, the White House doesn't need more money. It needs less.

It needs to cut out those lavish multi-million dollar vacations with an entourage of 200 all completely paid for by the American taxpayers.

And as for other spending, I don't care if abortion is legal or not -- but I do care that American taxpayers are funding it. We shouldn't be funding it.

Besides, I've heard that mantra about how the government (federal or state) should not be able to stop a woman from getting an abortion that government should tell them what to do with their bodies. Well, they should use their wallets. If they don't want the government to have a voice in what they are doing, then they should be just as proud and pay for their own abortions. 

Yes, I'm tired of people saying just give us money -- but they don't want any strings to their getting it.

And yes, a similar situation concerns the United Nation. The UN is an anti-American organization that has grown too big for its britches.                                  
It is not a nation onto itself. It is not a regulatory board and has absolutely no power of authority over sovereign nations. It's own Charter says that. So why has that organization been put in the position omnipotent ruling bodies while being one of the most corrupt organizations ever established?

We should cut our spending of the United Nations all together. And frankly, they can move out of the United States and try getting funded by others to stay afloat. Fat chance of that happening!

And for us in Afghanistan, why are we funding the people who hate  us? Egypt is a whole different situation, they are fighting the Muslim  Brotherhood and its allies who support terrorism.

In fact, Egypt has actually shut down of thousands of Muslim Mosques because they breed terrorism.       

As for increasing American taxpayer money for the EPA, the USDA, the FDA, and other Federal agencies, which negatively impact our national economy through over-regulation of American manufacturing, American energy, American resources, and American agriculture, I say cut them all. 

Turn the cloak back to when the American government worked for Americans. Force the government through cuts to understand that it works for us and not special interest groups, lobbyists, and Leftist Political Correctness.

There is another point here. In 2008, George W. Bush signed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 enacted on February 13, 2008. It was an economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. 

President Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. The law provides for tax rebates to low- and middle-income U.S. taxpayers, tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and an increase in the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government-sponsored enterprises (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The total cost of that bill was $152 Billion.

Even though that 2008 Stimulus Bill helped Americans by giving us back money from the Federal Government, Democrats across the country were not happy about giving away money they saw as "theirs" to spend.  Of course Democrats believe they know how to spend our money better than we do -- that is their mindset.

To prove that point, after taking office, the centerpiece of President Obama's domestic agenda was an $819 Billion Economic Stimulus Plan.  Of that $819 Billion, NONE was returned to the American public. 

Almost all was spend on social programs like Michele Obama's school lunch program; the instituting of Common Core; the arming the more than 70 Federal Agencies with armored personnel carriers, tanks, thousands of weapons, and billions of rounds; and a host of EPA and Environmental programs to appease their Democrats number one campaign donors.

Sure some of the Billions of dollars was supposed to be spent on America's deteriorating infrastructure, most of the funds from that have gone to everything other than what it was meant to. In fact, most of the $819 Billion Economic Stimulus package disappeared and to this day cannot be accounted for. 

Some say it became the best example of Government Waste and corruption.

In contrast to Obama's $819 Billion Economic Stimulus package which did almost nothing for the American economy, Bush's 2008 Economic Stimulus which gave back money to the American people had a huge effect.

Researchers have found that Bush's 2008 Economic Stimulus and the stimulus checks received by American families increased spending for the typical family by 3.5% when the rebate arrived, boosting overall non-durable consumption by 2.4% in the second quarter of 2008. 

The study concludes that the rebate payments for U.S. households were an effective stimulus method by increasing disposable income.

While this is the truth, today, because of the Bush Stimulus and the cost of taking the War on Terrorism to the enemy overseas instead of waiting to fight him here, Democrats complain that President George W. Bush overspent while in office.  

When Obama took office, we were $10 Trillion in debt. Because of Obama,  we are now nearly $18 Trillion in debt.

Today, Democrats refuse to admit the truth of the matter that Obama has spent more than all of his predecessors combined -- and has put us in a financial hole never seen before.

Then again, it's really no surprise that Democrats never make any mention of how Obama really has spent us into the hole we're in.

It is no surprise that Democrats spin the truth and lie their ass off. After all, that's just what they do!

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

Tom Correa

Friday, June 12, 2015

The United Nations is Not a Government -- They Have No Authority

Th United Nations is a world organization established in October 1945 to promote international cooperation.
Back in 2011, I wrote about the seriousness of the corruption at the United Nations and their attempts to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" Will Disarm Americans

Well, they are still at it! Besides what is going on around the world where the UN has placed itself, on Jun 10th, 2015, it was reported that United Nations peacekeepers had "transactional sex” with 225 Haitian women in return for UN supplies.

Yes, sex for food and medicine, according to a UN's new Office of Internal Oversight Services report. The report was reviewed by the Associated Press and the details are shocking, including the report that approximately one-third of the women were under the age of eighteen.

The 225 women were "coerced" and even threatened into trading sex for food -- all were victimized by the same UN peacekeeping mission who were supposedly there to help and not hurt.

It is not out of the ordinary to hear such stories in Third World countries where aid only trickles down to those who need it, corrupt foreign governments and aid organizations like the UN stop more than 90% of the aid ever getting to where it is intended.

Because of this, and other instances of corruption including the altering of "Gobal Warming" for their benefit and UN officials receiving bribes coming from Islamic countries, I believe it is time to explain to the United Nations that 1) they have no authority and 2) the world is better off without that organization.

Yes, from Agenda 21 crap to their attempting to negate the authority of Americans to run our own country, the United Nations has outlived its welcome!

But even though the vast majority of Americans feel that way, now the Obama administration wants to give the United Nations the authority to deal with foreign governments on our behalf. All  by way of giving the UN control of our treaties.

This all has to stop!

On March 12th, 2015, it was reported that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News, "If the U.N. Security Council attempts to undo sanctions on Iran imposed by the U.S. Congress, it can kiss its funding good-bye,"

While I haven't agreed with Graham on very many things in the past, but I do agree with Senator Graham and other Republicans who say it is time to rethink our financial support as well as the role of the United Nations.

Per the United Nations website:

"The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 193 countries.

When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes:

1) to maintain international peace and security;
2) to develop friendly relations among nations;
3) to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and
4) to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us"


So, according to the United Nations, it was established:

"to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations."

Yes, the UN admits that it "is not a world government and it does not make laws."
Numerous governments and multinational entities imposed sanctions against Iran.  Following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the United States imposed sanctions against Iran and expanded them in 1995 to include firms dealing with the Iranian government.

In 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696 and attempted to imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

But frankly, their sanctions have no teeth because the United Nations looks to other nations to support what they do -- if not everyone goes along, well so much for that!

U.S. sanctions initially targeted investments in oil, gas and petrochemicals, exports of refined petroleum products, and business dealings with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. It adversely affects Iran's ability to sponsor terrorism.

The sanctions encompassed banking and insurance transactions, shipping, web-hosting services for commercial endeavors, and domain name registration services. And yes, over the years sanctions have taken a serious toll on Iran's economy and people.

Since 1979, the United States has led international efforts to use sanctions to influence Iran's policies, including Iran's uranium enrichment program, which most in the United States see as being intended for developing nuclear weapons.

When nuclear talks between Iran and Western governments were stalled and seen as a failure, they were cited as a reason to enforce stronger economic sanctions on Iran.

On June 24, 2010, while the Democrat Party controlled both the US Senate and House of Representatives, Congress passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA).

President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010. The CISADA greatly enhanced restrictions in Iran.

But for months now the United Nations Security Council is considering lifting U.N. sanctions on Iran, which would make it more difficult for the United States Congress to thwart a deal signed by the Obama administration.

To fight against the United Nations' efforts of working against the United States, Congressional Republicans say the deal on Iran's nuclear program is a treaty and cannot be signed by the president without Senate approval per our Constitution and they better respect that fact!

Yes, President Obama is trying to use the United Nations to support a treaty with Iran. That is illegal since, as the United Nations states -- it is "not a government."

Republican leaders vow to retain current U.S. sanctions if they are not allowed to vote on the treaty with Iran.

And more so, Republicans believe it is time to put the United Nations in its place for attempting to disregard American sovereignty by disregarding our elected officials and Constitution which supersedes the United Nations Charter.

And no, unlike what Liberals tell you, the United Nation charter does not trump our Constitution! They have no authority!

Senator Graham was among a group of 47 Republican Senators who signed an open letter to Iran in March, saying that no treaty would be enforceable without Senate approval.

Friends, while Democrats can scream foul all they want, the Republicans are just stating the law of the United States as specified in the Constitution regarding treaty ratification.

FACT: The president can make all the treaties he wants, but none are legal treaties until the Senate approves them.

Democrats have criticized the Republican Senators for "interfering" with the White House during the ongoing talks, but President Obama has attempted to do end runs around Congress for years -- and now a vast majority of Americans believe that Obama cannot be trusted to do what's right for America.

Yes, as sad as that sounds, besides being the most incompetent, Obama has headed the most corrupt administration in American history. And yes, that is probably why Obama has become the most untrustworthy president in United States History.

When the president told the Senate and the House, "I will veto any effort on your part to look at this deal and have a vote as to whether or not we waive the sanctions we created" -- what he said is that he has became imperial presidency.

And that is the point here, Obama is supposedly a "Constitutional Scholar" yet he violates the Constitution every chance he wants. And yes, he demonstrates time and time again that he feels he is somehow above the law.

The Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with keeping American citizens in line, it was designed specifically to regulate our government -- including the Executive Branch which is the President -- to keep the government in line.

If the United Nations wants to interfere in the running of our government, the United States of America, allow me to remind them that they are an "advisory" organization with no authority over any nation. And yes, the can leave the same  way they got here!

Besides, if they really think that getting cozy with Obama and disregarding the Republican Congress is a smart play when Congress has to approve the funding for the UN -- then those folks at the United Nations is backing the wrong horse.

For a long time now, the need for the United Nations has become questionable at best.

The UN's track record of stopping conflicts is zero, they organization is steeped in corruption and criminal behavior, their policies have an anti-American slant, their research like that on Global Warming has been shown to be a fraud, and yes, in many parts of the world where the United Nations has sent "peace keepers" they are seen as violators of human rights.

Whether it is the UN's desire to impose the wishes of a handful of representatives on the rest of the world as in the case of UN enforced Gun Control or their desire to implement Agenda 21 land management and population control against the wishes of our citizens, our funding for the United Nations should be cut off.

We should not fund any organization which sets itself about our laws and representatives.

As far as I'm concerned, we should pull out of the United Nations and have them relocate their headquarters to the Middle-East since most of the pay offs going into the UN are coming from Muslim countries who want to see Israel destroyed.

The UN has become a tool for the Left and the anti-Semite, the corrupt and the powerful to push their agenda.

As far as I'm concerned, the United Nations as outlived its usefulness and should be disbanded -- simply because it has overstepped itself by assumed authority that it does not have while not adhering to its own charter.

Yes, the United Nations subverts American sovereignty and I would support any effort to get rid of the UN permanently.

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

Tom Correa


Thursday, June 11, 2015

Obama's New Power Grab: An Assault On Property Rights


Ever feel like the only thing our government does these days is lay awake thinking of ways to screw us?

Well, now the Obama administration has launched a new power grab -- and it’s coming at the expense of our property rights.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed new rules to define "waters of the United States."

Yes, if the law says they cannot do something as defined -- they redefine what ever they please to fit their needs. This new definition is supposed to clarify what "waters" are covered under the Clean Water Act and therefore what these two agencies can regulate.

Ever notice how eager agencies are to grab more and more just so that they can have more and more to regulate? It's as if they don't have enough to regulate already -- and they are over-regulating us to death!

Most people would consider a water body to be a river, a lake, maybe even a pond. But if they get their way, the Obama administration's new proposal could cover almost any type of water.

In the picture of the pasture above, at the base of that windmill is water for cattle. That water could be regulated by the Federal Government if the EPA has their way.

As incredible as that sounds, that's not all. Any hole in the ground, ditch, culvert, the slightest depressions in land that only sometimes may have water in it -- all could be deemed a "tributary" and covered under the rule.

Yes, even if that ditch is completely bone-dry almost every day of the year. And yes, it sounds so ludicrous -- but it is for real. And friends, the hard truth of the matter is that the Obama administration's overreach and the proposed rule changes are without limit.

Talk about State Control of everything down to the nat's ass. Friends, Communist China has nothing on Obama when it comes to trying to establish a Socialist/Communist state in America.

Under the Clean Water Act, property owners are already required to obtain costly and time-consuming permits if engaging in activities that affect "jurisdictional" waters. The new statutes would increase the number of permits and prohibit actions that cause absolutely no environmental harm at all. Such as, for example, a citizen might need a permit to water his our crops.

Yes, it is as bad as a Communist State where the Central Government controls every aspect of our lives. Frankly, this has to stop!

Common activities, from farming to home building, could require a permit. 

Individuals who want to use their property for ordinary, everyday uses could be forced to get a permit.

Sackett v. EPA offers one egregious example of overzealous regulatory enforcement. In this 2012 Supreme Court case, the EPA sought the power to impose fines of $75,000 per day on a couple for placing gravel on virtually dry land to build a home in a built-out subdivision.

These new EPA rules that the Obama administration is proposing will likely lead to even more Supreme Court cases of abuse of regulatory power by this administration.

Make no mistake about it, this is an attack on property rights. 

If the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers claim jurisdiction over more and more waters, then property owners will have to secure more and more permits.

Or, Americans will have to forget about additional projects because of the cost and time required to secure a permit from the government.

In a era when it is already tough enough for property owners to know if their property has jurisdictional water or not, because the proposed rule is so broad and vague, this only going to get far worse.

The definition of jurisdictional water may be far from clear, but the EPA sees all water as theirs. And yes, through regulating water, the EPA will have the power to severely limit how people can use their property.

Now, how about State's rights? Well, the EPA doesn't give a damn about State's rights as their proposed rule ignores the role that States have in protecting water resources.

Yes, though it is a role clearly defined in the Clean Water Act itself, the Obama administration's new rules will supersede that Act.

One interesting thing about this power grab, actually a land grab, is that the Clean Water Act is written in a way that it rejects this Federal power grab. Too bad no one in the Obama administration cares about what laws state when it come to regulating their behavior.

In April, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers sent a final version of the rule changes to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval.

It is up to us to contact Congress -- and force them to act quickly to stop this rule from going forward.

We need to force this Republican Congress to develop legislation that clearly defines what waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act and what must be left alone by the Federal and State governments.

we must contact our Representative to force Congress to pass legislation to demand that both of these agencies withdraw their proposed rules immediately.

It is bad enough that Americans are required to get a permit for just about everything under the sun these days when it come to building anything on our property, property owners shouldn’t have to be afraid of government and adversarial government agencies.

Americans should not have to have a permit for simply using their land for ordinary activities and making an honest living.

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

Tom Correa