Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Frank Dalton -- The Best Of The Daltons

The Dalton Gang, otherwise known as the Dalton Brothers, was a famous outlaw gang in the Old West. They were mainly train and bank robbers.

There were three Dalton brothers in the gang. Gratton "Grat" Dalton was born 1861, Robert "Bob" Renick Dalton was born 1869, and Emmett "Em" Dalton was born in 1871. A fourth brother William M. "Bill" Dalton was born in 1866 but mainly rode as an outlaw with Bill Doolin's Wild Bunch.

The large family was headed by parents Adaline Younger Dalton and James Lewis Dalton. Large is sort of an under-statement because Adeline and Lewis had fifteen children with two of them passing during infancy. Yes indeed, that's a large family.

James Lewis Dalton came west from Kentucky to Missouri during the late 1840's. In the 1850's, he was known as a horse trader as well as saloon keeper in Westport, Missouri, which is now Kansas City. Lewis married Adeline Lee Younger. The family eventually settled in Coffeyville, Kansas.

His marriage to Adeline is how the Dalton's and the Younger family are tied together. Adeline’s brother was the father of the famous outlaws Bob, Cole, and James Younger. The Younger brothers were known to have ridden with the James Gang headed by Frank and Jesse James.

While an article about the Dalton Gang is coming at a later date, this is about the eldest of the Dalton brothers who wasn't an outlaw but was the first brother to lose his life to violence. It's true, Frank Dalton was never a part of the Dalton Gang.

Frank Dalton was born on June 8th, 1859, in Westport, Missouri, the oldest brother to Gratton "Grat", Bob, and Emmett Dalton of the Dalton Gang fame. He was also the brother to William M. Dalton, once a member of California legislature, and later an outlaw and leader of the Doolin Dalton gang alongside Bill Doolin.

Frank Dalton is not to be confused with J. Frank Dalton who made many claims to be famous people, including his claim of being Frank Dalton, and later Jesse James.

He was the best part of the Dalton family. And here's the twist, Frank Dalton was in fact a Deputy US Marshal of the Old West under "Hanging Judge" Isaac Parker in the Oklahoma Territory. In fact, he was commissioned as a Deputy US Marshal under Judge Parker out of Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Frank Dalton had a deserving reputation as being a brave lawman, fine shot, good horseman, and man of strong moral fiber. He was involved in a number of shootouts and also a number of high risk arrests over his short three-year career. 

Sadly on November 27th, 1887, he and Deputy J.R. Cole were on the trail of the Smith-Dixon Gang. Their intent was to serve warrants on Dave Smith for horse stealing and selling whiskey to Indians, but on that day Marshal Dalton would not make it home alive.

To demonstrate just how an Old West lawmen was not much different than today's lawmen in that duty should not be taken lightly, the Smith-Dixon Gang was manly horse thieves and whiskey peddlers operating in the Oklahoma Indian Territory. Its members included Dave Smith who was a former member of the Belle Starr Gang, his brother-in-law Leander "Lee" Dixon, and William "Billy" Towerly. They were not considered murderers.

On November 27th, 1887, Deputy U.S. Marshals Frank Dalton and Deputy James R. Cole tracked them to a camp in the Arkansas River bottoms in present-day Sequoyay County, Oklahoma. With the three outlaws was also Dixon's wife.

As the lawmen approached their tent, they warned all that they were there to talk with Dave Smith only and that others should not interfere. Not anticipating any trouble Marshal Dalton stepped up to the tent and was immediately shot in the chest by Smith.

Yes, Dave Smith met Deputy U.S. Marshal Frank Dalton at the tent opening and shot him at point blank range in the chest knocking the marshal to the ground.

As the marshal lay helpless on the ground, Deputy Cole reacted quickly and shot Smith. While Cole returned fire and immediately killed Dave Smith, another man in the tent rushed out and shoots Cole who now was retreating backward.

And though he was trying to move away from what now looks like multiple assailants, Cole could not escape a bullet in the chest. At this point while using his Winchester as best he could, Deputy Cole took refuge behind a tree. Of course by then Lee Dixon and William Towerly had began focusing their fire on Cole who was returning fire while moving backwards to take cover behind a tree.

Though some say he was already out of rifle range and hit twice, Deputy Cole returned fire. He wounded Lee Dixon and killing his wife. And though he was under the impression that Marshal Dalton was already dead, Cole watches as 17 year old Billy Towerly runs over to the fallen Frank Dalton.

It was at that moment when Cole wondered if Frank Dalton was still alive. fore it was at that moment that he saw William Towerly point his rifle straight at the wounded Marshal's face and shoot him twice to the head before turning around and fleeing.

Deputy Marshal Cole made his way back to Fort Smith, Arkansas to report the battle. A posse responded and found Marshal Dalton, and other Smith and Mrs. Dixon dead. Lee Dixon, who had been hit by a bullet near the left collar bone, was taken to the prison hospital in Fort Smith, where he later died from his wounds. But before Dixon dies, the dying outlaw named William Towerly as the killer of Marshal Frank Dalton.

It is said that Judge Isaac Parker was furious and immediately offered a $1,000 reward for William "Billy" Towerly for the wanton murder of Deputy U.S. Marshal Frank Dalton. Yes, the reward would be paid whether brought in dead or alive. Judge Parker wanted Towerly hanged, but dead would be fine and he made it a priority to find him.

As today's world, the merit of the crime is what was taken into consideration. It was not normal for someone to summarily execute a Deputy U.S. Marshal. And since William Towerly demonstrated such a blatant disregard for human life in the deliberate execution of Deputy U.S. Marshal Frank Dalton, Judge Parker felt Towerly needed to be stopped immediately and hanged. In fact, Towerly's act was looked at as so heinous that finding Towerly was a priority.

On December 3rd, 1887, Deputy U.S. Marshals Z.W. "Bill" Moody and Ed Stokley caught up with Towerly near Atoka, Oklahoma, where he was hiding out at his parents' home.  It is said that when the marshals approached Towerly demanding his surrender, Towerly went for his gun. At that moment both officers shot him, hitting him in the leg and the shoulder.

But as fate would have it, as Marshal Stokley approached the outlaw to disarm him, Towerly switched the gun to his unwounded arm and shot Stokley in the chest. Moody then shot Towerly again. Yes, some say two more times just to make sure the 17 year old devil was dead.

As for the myth of Frank Dalton begging his killer not to kill him, while I've looked and can't find it, it's said that a local newspaper of the time spread the rumor that Frank Dalton had begged Towerly not to kill him. The story tried to say that the young Marshal told Towerly that he was "already dying."

Frankly, since Deputy Cole was under the impression that Marshal Dalton was already dead when Towerly shot him twice in the head, as far as I'm concerned since no one could hear Marshal Dalton beg for mercy, I really believe that that sort of rumor is the invention of a sick mind. 

As for Deputy US Marshal Frank Dalton, yes he was killed by a murderous outlaw on November 27th, 1887. Marshal Dalton was 28 years of age. And yes, he sent home and buried in Elmwood Cemetery in Coffeyville, Kansas. 

Frank Dalton Gravestone
Believe it or not, Frank Dalton is buried about 30 yards away from the graves of his two outlaw brothers, Grat and Bob, who would be buried in that same cemetery in 1892.

And no, their burials were not out of courtesy of laying them to rest in their hometown of Coffeyville, Kansas. No, Bob and Grat died right there in town in a hail of bullets as the outlaws that they were.

Coffeyville, Kansas, has the distinction of being one tough town back in the day. And as for it's people, they didn't let outlaw thugs and bank robbers like the Dalton Gang push them around or intimidate them. This was proven as fact on October 5th, 1892.

On that day, the famous Dalton Gang attempted what was called a "daring daylight robbery" of two Coffeyville, Kansas, banks at the same time. But if they thought the residents of Coffeyville were simply going to sit back and watch it take place without protecting their interest, they were sadly mistaken.

It is said the Dalton Gang terrorized folks by carrying out train holdups and bank robberies. And while it is said that the gang had more murders than loot to their credit, they had managed to successfully evade the best efforts of Oklahoma lawmen at the time. 

Maybe it was their success in evading the law that made them think they could get away with such a robbery as they had in mind for Coffeyville, maybe their were other reasons that no one will ever know. What we do know is that the Dalton Gang decided to try their hand at robbing two banks at one time. 

Their targets were the First National Bank and the Condon Bank in their hometown of Coffeyville. And yes, it is believed that they thought it would be easy pickings to do at the same time.

Around 9:30 on the morning of October 5th, 1892,  the five members of the Dalton Gang, which were Grat Dalton, Emmett Dalton, Bob Dalton, Bill Power and Dick Broadwell, rode into the small town of Coffeyville, Kansas. 

From the beginning, their plan was met with problems. First, the hitching post where they intended to tie their horses had been torn down due to road repairs. This forced the gang to hitch their horses in a near-by alley, and that turned out to be a fateful decision.

Second, to disguise their identity, knowing they would be clearing recognized in the their hometown, two of the Daltons wore false beards and wigs. This didn't work as the outlaw gang was immediately recognized as they crossed the town's wide plaza and then split up to entered the two banks. 

Townspeople who knew something wasn't right watched as two of the Dalton brothers, Bob and Emmett, headed for the First National while Grat Dalton led Dick Broadwell and Bill Powers in to the Condon Bank. 

Soon all hell broke loose for the gang when someone on the street shouted, "The bank is being robbed!" At the same time several men give the alarm on the east side of the plaza. 

"To arms! To arms!" came the call simultaneously with the alarm that the bank was being robbed. And in less time than it takes to relate the fact of what is taking place, a dozen men with Winchesters and revolvers in their hands appear at the ready to stop the outlaws from escaping.

Instead of Coffeyville being easy pickings for the gang, citizens quickly armed themselves and took up firing positions around the banks and the plaza. What happened next was a firefight that lasted less than fifteen minutes. 

Yes indeed, as was the case in the Old West, townspeople fought for their town and when Bob and Emmett walked out of the First National Bank -- they were met with a hail of bullets which forced them back into the building. Regrouping, they tried to flee out the back door of the bank, but the townspeople were waiting for them there as well. 

In the C.M. Condon Bank, a brave cashier had managed to delay Grat Dalton, Powers, and Broadwell by claiming that the vault was on a time lock and couldn't be opened. The ploy gave the townspeople enough time to gather force, and suddenly a bullet smashed through the bank window and hit Broadwell in the arm. 

Grat Dalton, Powers, and Broadwell then quickly scooping up $1,500 in loose cash, and the three men bolted out the door and fled down a back alley. 

Bob and Emmett Dalton made a run for it and successfully escaping the First National Bank, ran down a side alley and into what later became known as the "Death Alley" from the north. When Bob and Emmett reached the junction of the alleys, after shooting at a local man taking up a position with a gun in his hand, Bob fired at him point blank at a distance of not over thirty feet and misses.

Bob then stepped into the alley and glanced up towards the tops of the buildings as if he suspected that the shots that were being fired at the time were coming from that direction. As he did so, townsmen positioned at Isham's hardware store took deliberate aim at him from their position in the store and fired. 

Bob Dalton, the notorious leader of the Dalton gang, was hit and staggers across the alley and sat down on a pile of dressed curbstones near the city jail. With his rifle, he fires several shots from where he was seated. He rises to his feet to seek refuge alongside of an old barn west of the city jail, and while leaning against the southwest corner, he fires two shots in the direction of his pursuers. It was then that a ball round from a rifle struck Bob Dalton in the chest. The shot sends him slamming back onto the ground where he was standing.

At this point, City Marshal Connelly ran across a vacant lot into "Death Alley" from the south to the spot where the bandits had tied their horses. The marshal sprang into the alley with his face towards the point where the horses were hitched. This positioned him with his back to the murderous Grat Dalton who shot the officer in the back. Witness say that City Marshal Connelly fell forward on his face within twenty feet of where his murderer stood.

Gang members Powers and Broadwell were shot. Powers died where he stood, but believe it or not, Broadwell made it atop a horse screaming that he couldn't shoot because of his arm. That didn't stop the townspeople from filling him with lead. His horse ran off with him atop and he was found dead on the side of a road leading out of town.

After shooting Marshal Connelly, Grat Dalton made another attempt to reach his horse. He passed by his fallen victim and had advanced probably twenty feet when he turned to see his pursuers and again use his Winchester. Just then a rifle shot hit Grat to drop the outlaw. The bullet slammed into his throat and had actually broke his neck.

Emmett Dalton had managed to escape unhurt up to this time. He kept under shelter after he reached the alley until he attempted to mount his horse. As rifles fired upon him, Emmett succeeded in getting into the saddle. But then he was hit almost simultaneously through the right arm, the left hip, and one into his groin. As Emmett reached down to Bob, both barrels of a double barrel shot-gun slammed into Emmett's back to drop him from his horse.

When the gun battle was over, though the town had lost four brave of their own, the people of Coffeyville had destroyed the Dalton Gang and killed every member except for Emmett Dalton. Yes, the small Kansas town of Coffeyville became part of history because of the quick-acting townspeople.

Left to right: Bill Power; Bob Dalton; Grat Dalton, Dick Broadwell

As for Emmett Dalton, after recovering from serious wounds he was tried and sentenced to life in prison. After 14 years, he won parole. As for his dead brothers, they ended up being buried in the same cemetery with their oldest brother Frank Dalton. Believe it or not, he would go on to be a writer in Hollywood. Imagine that.

A little known fact about the Daltons is that Frank's younger brothers Grat, Bob, and Emmett had tried following in their oldest brother's footsteps and actually became lawmen. That was before crossing the line and becoming outlaws.

Their careers as lawmen was extremely short lived. It's said that in 1890, after not being paid money owed to them, as Bob Dalton killed a man over a woman and that Grat had stole horses. Those acts discredited them as lawmen. And yes, that was before the brothers became became horse thieves, bank robbers, train robbers, and murderous legends of the Old West.

To me, it shows that it doesn't take much for some folks to cross the line that separates right from wrong, and good from evil. Frank Dalton proved there are those who do whatever they have to do not to cross that line even in the hardest of times. 

Tom Correa 



Monday, June 27, 2016

Radical Christians vs Radical Muslims: The Simple Answer

Dear Friends,

After getting emails asking me about this subject, I decided to simply go with what I've seen during my life when it comes to what both religions do. Not their beliefs but what they actually do. And yes, based on what they actually do as Christians and Muslims, there are stark differences when we boil it down as to how each "religion" treats other people.

Yes, there you have it. After boiling down the actions of "Radical" Christians versus that of "Radical" Muslims, what I put in the above picture is what I came up with.

And while I know there are some who are going to say that this is too simple an answer when looking at the differences, it is what I found to be the key differences between Christians and Muslims. The key differences in each is how each religion treats their people, their fellow man and woman, as demonstrated to the world.

While a "Radical" Christian is one who, at the worse according to Liberals, actively protests Abortion Clinics and killing of innocent children, or protest Planned Parenthood for the selling of the parts of dead babies, Muslims routinely slaughter the innocent worldwide.  Yes, while Christians demonstrate passion for their fellow man and woman, Muslims demonstrate hate and an overwhelming desire to kill us all.

And frankly, while I know someone will write saying that I'm anti-Muslim, I don't believe my recognition of what they do should be described as some sort of hate on my part. Especially, when I haven't said anything that Muslims have not shown me to be true.

If I am "anti" anything, I'm "anti" behavior that vicious Muslims have show to do daily around the world. Yes, this is what I and the world have learned daily since 9/11 after each senseless Muslim terrorist attack where massacre after massacre takes place. Yes, this is what we have learned by watching Muslims behead and crucify Christians, burn their own alive, and rape children because their so-called religion says its OK to do so.

And yes, I am against  other Muslims who condone through their support and/or their silence. Fore this is what they show us after every Muslim terrorist attack such as what took place in Orlando, Florida, where Muslims organizations came out in support of the terrorist's wife who is also wanted as a co-conspirator in that attack.
 
And while this is the shortest blog post that you will see from me, I hope this helps you understand why I refuse to coddle those who want us either converted to Islam or dead. I refuse to bow down to Political Correctness or the Obama White House which condones and defends and makes excuses for murderous Muslims and their attacks on the innocent.

And yes, that's just the way I see things.
Tom Correa

Sunday, June 26, 2016

The United Kingdom Is Free Once Again

God Bless The United Kingdom!
They Have Their Freedom Back!

For years many of my readers in Europe have complained that the European Union has become completely void of any sort of scrutiny or democratic rule. Yes, many have wanted accountability from the completely undemocratic EU which has too many powers and a seemingly endless amount of Socialist desires.

Well now British subjects (citizens) have had enough with foreign oppression from Brussels! The British have overwhelmingly voted to leave the European Union federation of member nations.

From what I remember, back in the 1970s when the European Union was talked about, it was supposed to be an "economic alliance" to rival the United States economic might. It was supposed to be an "economic alliance" that would rival America by using Free Market Capitalism and less government restrictions. 

That is not what the European Union did! It actually strayed far afield from the initial concept. And yes, the problem was it's Socialist societal demands that it made on its members. Yes, mainly Socialist, Political Correct, self-serving demands.

And friends, a number of people on television are talking about the economic impact of the Great Britain's vote to leave the European Union, but no one is talking about how Great Britain, also known as the United Kingdom, was being oppressed by the European Union (EU).

EU legislation and anti-British policies?

Yes, laws were being made in the EU Capital of Brussels, Belgium, and were being pushed on British subjects. Many of those law were in complete defiance of the laws of Great Britain. And no, that did not stop the EU "leadership," an un-elected body, to legislate and make as many laws as they wanted.

It was so bad that 60% of all laws with the British people were living under did not come from their government -- but from the European Union's Socialist leadership in Brussels. Belgium.

Yes, I have stated Brussels, Belgium, a few times for a reason. The EU established their headquarters there, and the leadership which has been passing laws is not representatives of the British people. The EU leadership is an un-elected body making laws that supersede the laws of their member nations.

Friends, this would be the exact same thing if we were to allow the United Nations members nations legislate the laws of the United States.

This is about British Sovereignty!

Yes, the United Kingdom lost it's sovereignty as an independent nation because it joined into an "economic alliance" with an organization which was never supposed to be writing laws for peoples of different nations. And yes, demand that they do or be threatened with sanctions and other penalties.
 
Among the oppressive EU demands is the limiting of the British working class to prosper. What the EU did to the working class in the United Kingdom is make the minimum wage the maximum wage in many sectors. 

And from what I've read, it is a fact that even the British Government's own statistics, as well as that from labor unions, show that the EU has intentional kept down wages for the working classes in the United Kingdom. And frankly, that doesn't surprise me since one of the tactics of Socialists is to milk all of the money they can get off of a great economic powers and bring them to their knees. 

The EU tried to bring down the United Kingdom which is still a great economic power. I believe the economy of the United Kingdom is ranked 5th in the world. And with that, despite the shitty attitudes of the EU spokesmen in Brussels, the EU knows that it is definitely the loser with Great Britain pulling out of the federation. 

Of the main concerns, as a result of the EU superseding the United Kingdom's sovereignty, the EU has been forcing uncontrolled Muslim immigration into the United Kingdom and other member nations even if that nation did not want them. The EU sponsored the Muslim influx by demanding that member nations keep their sovereign borders open to the Muslim hordes.

While Socialism is the European Union's stock and trade, the EU refuses to come to grips with what many of their member countries are finally recognizing -- that the Muslim migration is nothing less than a Muslim Invasion. 

For the EU, it appears they could care less about the concerns of members who are worried their security. The EU has issued threats to member nation Poland who have refused to open their borders. And yes, the EU has even pressured France to reopen their national borders which were closed after the Muslim terrorist attacks last year. 

Can you imagine how we would react if one day we find out that the United Nations is demanding that we Americans throw our borders wide open even if it means that our security is at stack? Can you imagine if the United Nations passed laws in direct conflict of our Constitution and stated that we no longer have rights under our Constitution? 

That's exactly what's taken place in the United Kingdom, and I'm darn proud of the British for making the United Kingdom great again. For years many have complained that the European Union has become an completely void of any sort of scrutiny, having no accountable, and completely undemocratic, with too much powers and Socialist ideals.

What Does The United Kingdom Get From Exiting the European Union? Freedom! 

So now, was it wrong that the vast majority of the British people finally got fed up with EU laws superseding British law? Is it wrong to regain one's freedoms and sovereignty? No! In fact, it should be applauded.

I truly believe that the EU over-stepped its boundaries in it's actions and the British people said enough is enough! Now that the June 23rd vote has gone through, the people of the United Kingdom regain a great deal including:
  • Above all else, the British will now reintroduce full legislative powers back to their elected government in Westminster, England.
  • The British now regain their freedom. 
  • The representatives that the British elect will now be accountable and not impervious to the demands of the British people.
  • The British people can regain a sense of who they are. Not European, but British. And yes, that is a title that men and women have fought and died for.
  • They can now take their new found sense of National pride and show the EU that they are the losers and not the United Kingdom . The loss of the United Kingdom  to the EU is bad for the EU and good thing for the United Kingdom. 
  • The United Kingdom can now stop the Muslim horde which has been forced on them and return to being a Christian nation with Christian values. 
  • The United Kingdom can now ignore the demands of the EU and co-operate with other nations who do not support Muslim terrorism. 
  • The United Kingdom is now free to work against global crime and terrorism.
  • The United Kingdom is now able to assert its own Immigration policies and controls.
  • And yes, now there is absolutely no chance of changing from the Pound to the Euro.
  • As for Free Market Capitalism and Free Trade, since the United Kingdom is a world power, the British will have their own treaties just as before it ever became entangled with the EU.
  • While British taxpayers have been forced to bail out other European Union member nations, now they can determine what if any actions they take as an independent nation. 
  • Another point on the economy is that now British jobs can go to the British people and not be taken out of their country.
  • Yes, in many respects the EU will no longer be a drain on the British economy.
  • And the great part of this exit is that the EU, which is undemocratic and unaccountable, can now be the concern of others who are not happy with the EU's policies and Socialist ideals -- or its desire be part of the One World Government in some sort of New World Order.
That brings me to my last bit of encouragement for our British cousins. Fact is, whether they EU leadership wants to admit it or not, the European Union and it Socialist policies is unraveling right now! 

Germany has been threatening Poland because of it's desire to keep Pole borders closed to Muslim "refugees." Greece and Italy are under siege and sinking. France is now awake and fighting the Muslim threat. And right now, Portugal, Spain, and the Scandinavian nations in the EU are taking a long look at the decision that the British have made. Many citizens of those nations want the same in their future. 

The people of the nations which belong to the EU do not see themselves as citizens of the EU, but as Poles, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and so on. They too see an EU which is undemocratic, unaccountable, and oppressive. 

Many in Europe see the EU as over-stepping their boundaries in the same way that many Americans see the United Nations over-stepping their's in an effort to form a One World Government. 

I really believe that we will see the demise of the European Union and it's idea of a One World Government sooner than later. And as for the United Nations, I see them as corrupt, as Socialist, as anti-democratic as the EU.

Yes, I see the attempts by the UN to "legislate" and supersede our laws the same as what the EU has been doing to the United Kingdom. And frankly, because the UN has violated its own charter in that it not supposed to be a governing body, I would certainly love for our nation to exit the UN and send them packing.

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

Friday, June 24, 2016

Products & Technology Of The 1800's


Dear Friends,

Ever wonder about some of the products and technology that we pretty much take for granted today? Ever wonder how many products and such started out in the 1800s? Well, here's a small list that I hope you find it as interesting as I did when I put the list together.

I put this together because I just received a very nice email regarding my article Life In 1881 Tombstone Was Very Civilized. My reader wanted me to talk more about my claim that many products which we use today were in fact already around in one form or another back in the 1800s.

As I stated in that article, "For those who wonder what products were around back then that are still around today, you should be comforted to know that one could find Heinz ketchup and vinegar (1876), Philadelphia Cream Cheese (1880), Tabasco Sauce (1868), Fleischmann's Yeast (1868), Campbell’s Soups (1868), A-1 Steak Sauce (1873), Lea & Perrins Worcestershire Sauce (1838), Underwood Deviled Ham (1822), Saltine Crackers (1876), Pillsbury Flour (1872), Graham Crackers (1829), Schweppes Tonic Water (1783), Angostura Bitters (1824), among other things that are still around today. I put the dates of when those products first went into production just so we can see how many things we have today that was already available back then."

Besides these products, there was in fact a technology boom which was taking place in the 1800s. It was an important time in our history because a lot of the products and technology that we use today was first invented and/or patented back in the 1800s.

Most folks think that many of the things which we have today only came about in the last few years. But like the Ferris Wheel that is found at just about any carnival around the country, not only were inventions in 1800s important as a place to start in the development of many things which we take for granted today, I believe we actually still use many of the names of those inventions today -- and are returning to some of them because of one reason or another.

Take a look at the list of inventions below and look at the year they were invented or patented. Then if you would, ask yourself if these products don't look or sound familiar to you. And think about this, many of these items were around long before Jesse James was robbing trains or the gunfight at the OK Corral.
Below is a list of inventions from the 1800s. The list is by name of the invention, the year it was invented and/or patented, the country the invention originated, and the inventor or inventors:
  • Ultraviolet Radiation Discovered, 1801 Germany, Johann Ritter
  • Self-contained Firearm Cartridge, 1808, Swiss, Jean Samuel Pauly 
  • First Electric Light, 1809, England, Humphry Davy
  • Tin Cans, 1810, England, Peter Durand
  • First Steam Locomotive, 1814, England, George Stephenson 
  • Photograph, 1814, France, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce
  • Suspenders (Braces), 1820, England, Albert Thurston
  • Waterproof Raincoat (Mackintosh), 1823, Scotland, Charles Mackintosh
  • Portland Cement, 1824, England, Joseph Aspdin
  • Internal Combustion Engine, 1826, United States, Samuel Morey
  • Matches, 1827, England, John Walker
  • Typewriter, 1829, United States, W.A. Burt
  • Graham Crackers, 1829, United States, Sylvester Graham
  • Braille printing, 1829, France, Louis Braille 
  • Sewing Machine, 1830, France, Barthelemy Thimonnier
  • Refrigerator, 1834, United States, Jacob Perkins
  • Mechanical Calculator, 1835, England, Charles Babbage
  • Wrench (Spanner), 1835, United States, Solymon Merrick
  • Postage Stamps, 1837, England, Rowland Hill
  • Morse Code, 1838, United States, Samual Morse 
  • Vulcanized Rubber, 1839, United States, Charles Goodyear
  • Platform Scale, 1839, United States, Thaddeus Fairbanks
  • Bicycle, 1839, England, Kirkpatrick Macmillan
  • Blueprints, 1840, England, John Herschel
  • Stapler, 1841, United States, Samuel Slocum
  • Grain Elevator, 1842, United States, Joseph Dart
  • Fax Machine, 1843, Scotland, Alexander Bain
  • Mercerized Cotton, 1844, England, John Mercer
  • Anesthesia, 1846, United States, William Morton
  • Antiseptics, 1847, Hungary, Ignaz Semmelweis 
  • Safety Pin, 1849, United States, Walter Hunt 
  • Pasteurization, 1856, France, Louis Pasteur
  • Machine Gun (crank operated), 1861, United States, Richard Gatling
  • Man-Made Plastic, 1862, England,  Alexander Parkes
  • Dynamite, 1866, Sweden, Alfred Nobel 
  • Air Brakes, 1868, United States, George Westinghouse
  • Tungsten Steel, 1868, England, Robert Mushet
  • Metal Windmill, 1872, United States, J.S. Risdon
  • Mail-Order Catalog, 1872, United States, A.M. Ward
  • Barbed Wire, 1873, United States, Joseph Glidden
  • Telephone, 1876, Scotland, Alexander Graham Bell
  • Motion Pictures, 1877, United States, Eadweard Muybridge
  • Incandescent Light Bulb, 1878, England, Joseph Wilson Swan
  • Toilet Paper, 1880, England, The British Perforated Paper Company
  • Automatic Player Piano, 1881, England, Edward Leveaux
  • Photographic Film, 1884, United States, George Eastman
  • Rayon, 1884, France, H. de Chardonnet
  • Fountain Pen, 1884, United States, Lewis Edson Waterman
  • Smokeless Gun Powder, 1884, France, Paul Vieille
  • Automobile (with Internal-Combustion Engine), 1885, Germany, Karl Benz
  • Gas-Engine Motorcycle, 1885, Germany, Gottlieb Daimler
  • Machine Gun (gas operated), 1885, Germany, Harim Maxim
  • Coca Cola, 1886, United States, John Pemberton
  • Dishwasher, 1886, United States, Josephine Cochran
  • Contact Lenses, 1887, Germany, F.E. Muller and Adolph Fick
  • Radar, 1887, Germany, Heinrich Hertz 
  • Pneumatic tire, 1888, United States, John Boyd Dunlop
  • AC motor and Transformer, 1888, United States, Nikola Tesla
  • Match-Book, 1889, United States, Joshua Pusey
  • Cordite, 1889, England, James Dewar and Frederick Abel
  • Escalator, 1891, United States, Jesse W. Reno
  • Radio, 1891, United States, Thomas Edison
  • Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion Engine, 1892, Germany, Rudolf Diesel
  • Vacuum Flask (thermos), 1892, Scotland, James Dewar 
  • Zipper, 1893, United States, W.L. Judson
  • Rubber Heel, 1896, United States, H. O'Sullivan
  • Motor-Driven Vacuum Cleaner, 1899, United States, J.S. Thurman
Yes, on February 11th, 1809, Robert Fulton patents his steamboat and soon after begins offering services on major rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.

On October 11, 1811, steam-powered ferry service begins between New York City and Hoboken, New Jersey.

In 1818, the American steamship "Savannah" crossed the Atlantic Ocean in 29 days.

In 1835, Samuel Colt received a British patent on his improved design for a revolver. He receives two U.S. patents in 1836.

As for an 1843 Fax Machine being attributed to Alexander Bain? 

Here you go! Bain worked on an experimental facsimile machine in 1843 to 1846. He used a clock to synchronise the movement of two pendulums for line-by-line scanning of a message. For transmission, Bain applied metal pins arranged on a cylinder made of insulating material. An electric probe that transmitted on-off pulses then scanned the pins. 

The message was reproduced at the receiving station on electrochemically sensitive paper impregnated with a chemical solution similar to that developed for his chemical telegraph. 

His May 27th, 1843, patent is described: "improvements in producing and regulating electric currents and improvements in timepieces, and in electric printing, and signal telegraphs," he claimed that "a copy of any other surface composed of conducting and non-conducting materials can be taken by these means". 

The transmitter and receiver were connected by five wires. In 1850, Bain applied for an improved version but was too late. Inventor Frederick Bakewell had obtained a patent for his superior "image telegraph" two years earlier in 1848.

Bain's and Bakewell's laboratory mechanisms reproduced poor quality images and were not viable systems because the transmitter and receiver were never truly synchronized. As a result, it wasn't until later, in 1861, that the first practical operating electro-mechanical commercially exploited telefax machine, the Pantelegraph, was invented by the Italian physicist Giovanni Caselli. 

Giovanni Caselli actually introduced the first commercial "telefax service" between Paris and Lyon at least 11 years before the invention of workable telephones. Imagine that! 

On May 24th, 1844, Samuel B. Morse sends the message, "What hath God wrought" over the first telegraph line from Washington, DC, to Baltimore, Maryland.

On March 23rd, 1857, Elisha Otis installs the first elevator.

On August 27, 1859, drilling is completed on the first productive commercial oil well in Titusville, PA.

On May 10th, 1869, ceremonies at Promontory, Utah, take place to celebrate the completion of the transcontinental railroad.

On August 2nd, 1873, Andrew Hallidie tests the first cable car system in San Francisco, California.

On December 7th, 1877, Thomas Edison demonstrates the phonograph at the offices of the "Scientific American .

On September 4, 1882, Thomas Edison's Pearl Street Station in New York City begins generating electricity to supply 400 street lamps and 85 customers with electrical power.

At noon on April 22nd, 1889, a starting gun announced the start of the "Oklahoma Land Rush." Approximately 50,000 would-be settlers rush to stake their claim to the 1.92 million acres of land previously given to American Indian tribes.

On May 17th, 1890, Comic Cuts became the first weekly comic strip. It was published in London

On April 1st, 1891, the Wrigley Company is founded in Chicago, Illinois, originally selling soap, baking powder. By 1892, they will start selling chewing gum.

On May 20th, 1891, the first showing to a public audience, the convention of the National Federation of Women's Clubs, of Thomas A. Edison's new strip motion picture film took place at Edison's West Orange, New Jersey laboratory.

On June 21st, 1891, alternating current (AC) is transmitted for the first time by the Ames power plant near Telluride, Colorado, by Lucien and Paul Nunn.

On April 15th, 1892, the Edison General Electric Company merges with the Thomson-Houston Company. Yes, this is the start of the General Electric Company. 

In 1893, the world's first Ferris Wheel was erected by George Washington Gale Ferris Jr.. at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago.

In February of 1893, Thomas Edison finished building his first motion picture studio.

On September 20th, 1893, the Duryea Brothers road-test the first-ever, American-made, gasoline-powered automobile in Springfield, Massachusetts.

With Coca-Cola having been trademarked in 1893, the Coca-Cola Company was able to sell its produce in bottles for the first time on March 12th, 1894 in Vicksburg, Mississippi.

On September 7th, 1894, the fight between heavyweight boxing champion  Gentleman Jim Corbett and Peter Courtney is caught on motion picture film by Thomas Edison at the Black Maria studio of his New Jersey laboratory.

Thanksgiving Day 1895, that was the day of the first race of gas powered cars. Six motor cars left Chicago's Jackson Park for a 54 mile race to Evanston, Illinois and back racing for a 1st prize of $2,000 provided by the Chicago Times-Herald Newspaper. Car Number 5 driven by inventor Frank Duryea, won the race in just over 10 hours at an average speed of 7.3 mph.

On November 5th, 1895, the first United States patent for the automobile, #549160, is granted to George B. Selden for his two stroke automobile engine.

On September 1st, 1897, the era of the subway begins when the first underground public transportation in North America opens in Boston, Massachusetts.

On February 14th, 1899, the United States Congress approves the use of voting machines in Federal elections.

By 1900, the first electric bus became operational in New York City and Kodak introduced the "Brownie" camera for personal use.

So yes, I'd say there was a lot more technology being created between 1800 and 1900 than we think. In fact, I'd say we still use much of the technology that was invented and patented back then and don't even know it.

Many today probably don't realize that many of the early versions of what we take for granted was created long before their great-grandparents were even thought of. And while I couldn't cover everything invented or patented during the 1800s, I hope you found what I did find as interesting as I did.

Tom Correa 


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Do Republicans Hate Trump And Want Clinton?


Dear Friends,

There is no doubt in my mind that some Republicans want Hillary Clinton as our next president. Yes, that's exactly how I see it. Yes, I really believe that some Republican low-lives will stoop as low as they can to get her elected.

I try to keep up with the news concerning politics. I watch news reports. I listen to debates between political pundits. I read a number of different views on what's taking place. I try to keep track of how Democrats are attacking Donald Trump. I was even keeping track of how Republicans are attacking him.

I understand how Democrats lie and cheat and steal to win elections, how they create phony issues of "concern," drum up non-issues, and even how they fake indignation while they smear Republicans and their families. I understand how Democrats have no core values and will screw over anyone if it means winning.

Frankly, I've never seen Republicans do the same until lately. And yes, sorry to say, but I've seen this in attack after attack on their own Party's presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

So now, now I've come to the conclusion that there are Republicans working within the Republican Party who are working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House. What other reason can there be to refuse to support or help fund Donald Trump? What other reason is there to attack our party's nominee? What other reason do they have for their hate for Trump? The only answer to these questions is that they are actively working get Hillary Clinton elected.

Yes, that's the conclusion that I've come up with when taking a look at the actions of Republicans this year. And friends, I'm so angry at them that I'm thinking about leaving the Republican Party over this.

Granted that I have sworn my vote to anyone, anyone, who runs against Hillary Clinton. I see Hillary Clinton as worse than Obama because she's more conniving than Obama is.

Hillary Clinton as president will be over-regulation, more government intrusion in our lives, more of the same of the Obama administration and worse. There will be even more graft and corruption, more favoritism and cronyism, and more Socialism and out of control spending.

If Hillary Clinton is elected than I see someone in the White House who will sell out America without giving it a second thought. And why do I feel that way you ask? It's because Hillary Clinton is an open book. She is a contemptuous liar whose track record shows these things that I'm talking about. She has repeated shown that she cannot be trusted with our nation's highest office.

But friends, that doesn't seem to matter to Republicans who are supporting Hillary Clinton. Not even Hillary Clinton's past criminal behavior matters to Republicans who hate Donald Trump.

I hear so-called Republicans on television attacking Donald Trump mercilessly, all the while spreading lies about Trump and his family. While I shake my head, I always come away from watching those interviews with those so-called Republicans "Insiders" with the thought, "Why can't you find such venom when it comes to taking about Hillary Clinton, her past, or her family?"

Hillary Clinton is tapping into the Republican hate for Donald Trump. She has even launched a website called, "Republicans Against Trump".

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is targeting those RINOs who are said to be frustrated and don’t support Donald Trump. The Clinton campaign is buying ads to promote the website, and promises all of her Republican supporters a free "Republicans Against Trump" bumper-sticker.

For that bumper-sticker, Hillary Clinton is asking her Republican supporters to take the following pledge: "Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. He does not represent my beliefs as a Republican and, more importantly, my values as an American. He does not speak for me and I will not vote for him."

And please, make no mistake about it, there is no way for Republicans to make a "mistake" when they take the RINO pledge. Text on the website makes it clear that the website is "Paid for by Hillary for America."”

So Why Do Some Republicans Hate Donald Trump? 

Besides the Republican "insiders" who are mostly sore losers in that their RINO candidate didn't make it, why are Republicans supporting Clinton over Trump? And really, why not use the same venom by asking about her breach of National Security, the FBI criminal investigations of her actions, or how she has gotten over $20 Million for her campaign from Saudi Arabia for starters?

They won't, and instead Republicans attack Donald Trump for his "insensitivity" and supposed lack of knowledge of how politics works.

Friends, many of us are sick and tired of how politics works. For me, "sensitive" is code for "Political Correctness." And frankly, the last time I heard a Republican speak his mind instead of being "sensitive" was Ronald Reagan.

While some of the young punks in the Republican Party are too young and dumb to remember, Ronald Reagan called a spade a spade and said it like it is just like Donald Trump has been doing. His reputation for taking action prompted a lot of our enemies around the world to straighten up. If that is achieved with electing Donald Trump, I'm all for it. 

And as for some saying Donald Trump gets angry, I say "Great, because a lot of us are angry as well!"

Like many of us who are voting for him, we like that he doesn't take crap off of anyone. Many of us are sick and tired of having a bunch of sensitive pantywaists in the Republican Party. Many of us are tired of the wimps who consistently bent over and take it again and again from Democrats.

Republicans like Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Marko Rubio, and Mitt Romney are Liberals. They are not Conservatives. They are the gutless wonders who sold out all of their Conservative principles for power.

These people are not for smaller government, or fiscal responsibility, or reining in corruption, or stopping the Federal government's overreach or its over-regulation. These Republicans are Liberals. They are the same as the Democrats who see nothing wrong with an all powerful Federal government controlling every aspect of our lives.

These Republicans are the one's too afraid, too timid, to transgender, to stop Obama and his cuts to our military while increasing funds to Muslim refugees. These are the same weak kneed Republicans who won’t stand up and fight against racial problems coming from minority communities all because they don't want to be called "racist".

Yes, these are the Republicans who are too damn afraid to be Conservatives and instead now attack Donald Trump and support Hillary Clinton.

So Why Do Some Republicans Want To See Clinton Elected? 

The answer to why is that these so-called Republicans see more money and power under Hillary Clinton than they do under Donald Trump. And yes, that is really what the Republican Party "establishment" is all about.

Yes, from what I can see, there are a lot of Republicans who are working to get Hillary Clinton elected. They will do anything to attack Donald Trump. They will try to stop his message from getting out, stop him from raising needed contributions, and will ultimately put Hillary Clinton in the White House. I believe those Republicans will be the downfall of the Republican Party.

Are they all bad? No, but some Republicans are no different than Democrats.

To them, money and power makes it OK to do what they do. It makes it OK to make excuses for their being wimps and never getting anything done. It makes it OK to lie to us, to make promises which they have no intentions of keeping, to supporting Clinton over Trump. Yes, to them, money and power make it OK to screw us over. And yes, I really believe that these traitors will be the downfall of the Republican Party

And yes, that's just the way I see things.
Tom Correa





Monday, June 20, 2016

Why The Movie "High Noon" Got It Wrong


Dear Friends,

I truly appreciate your email and comments. And yes, I've gotten a lot of email lately regarding something in my article The Buntline Special vs Colt's Sheriff's Model.

No, it's not about the mythical Buntline. Instead it's about how I describe how truth and historical fact takes a backseat to sensationalism and fiction in Hollywood -- even when Hollywood advertises a film as being a "true story."

I believe part of the problem has to do with these screenwriters and some of the Old West historians out there. Screenwriters write fictional stories, and of course "dramatizations" of history. Many take what some so-called Old West historian puts out there as the truth when in reality it's all simply conjecture, speculation, fiction, romanticizing, and embellishing of what others have already put out as fact.

For example, I remember hearing one very well-known Old West historian claim that Wyatt Earp would have made a great bouncer in a biker bar in today's world because he was just that tough. From the facts that I've found, with all that I have read on Wyatt Earp and newspapers and records, I really believe that that's just wishful thinking at best. Like it or not, Wyatt Earp was simply not what we have been lead to believe.

Yes, some so-called historians are fans and have lost the objectivity, the ability to be neutral, the ability to look at history as an impartial observer. And frankly, that might be the problem with Hollywood screenwriters as well.

Of course, they may be simply being dishonest and are avoiding the truth and going with the myth. In the case of Wyatt Earp, a lot of so-called historians have based their reputations on championing Earp that they can't tell the truth simply because it goes against their best interest.

So, does Hollywood purposely get it wrong or is that they simply don't care? Or, here's another thought, is it that they intentionally get it wrong because they don't know their ass from applesauce?

As stated in The Buntline Special vs Colt's Sheriff's Model, Hollywood's idea of a "true story" versus a story being "historically accurate" are really two different things.

And yes. the historical accuracy pertaining to the movie "High Noon" is only present in the costuming and the scenery. Other than that, the movie is not an accurate portrayal of life in the Old West. Yes, its premise goes against what really took place in the American frontier.

As stated in my other article, the movie "High Noon" portrays the town's people as cowards unwilling to fight for their own town. This is really how people today rewrite history and pass it on as "being accurate" when in fact it is not an honest portrayal of the history. And while I love the movie for its stars and scenery, and of course it's theme song, it is not historically accurate at all.

Why isn't "High Noon" historically accurate? 

Americans in the Old West, those who came west to the American frontier, were hardly, adventurous, enterprising, tougher than nails folks. They were willful, strong, courageous, resilient, resourceful, and fearless. None of these personal characteristics are portrayed in the movie "High Noon".

Friends, people who did not have that "pioneer spirit," that determination, that steadfast desire to make better lives for themselves remained back East and simply did not have what it took to fight the odds and migrate to the frontier.

Pioneers coming West had the courage to travel down unknown trails into perilous territory, all to be the masters of their own destiny. They braved coming around the horn by sailing ship, grueling heat and horrendous cold. They forged ahead when disease struck and water and food were scarce. They died along the way and endured hardship and pain to achieve better than they had back East. 

Miners came looking to better themselves and their families fought the elements, hostile natives, bandits, bushwhackers, and con men among others. Ranchers and cowboys fought all of the same to get their herds to a railhead.

Town's folks such as shopkeepers and restaurateurs braved all of the same and rolled the dice time and time again in their pursuit of making money and living better lives. Farmers plowed earth that never saw a plow and fought dust storms and clouds of locust, dry wells, drought, and famine, yet still persevered.

Does this sound like people who would quake in their boots over 3 outlaws coming to their town?

They faced life head on. They armed themselves and took on the threats just as they had getting to where they were. They grew up  farming, hunting, using firearms, digging wells, storing food, preparing for tomorrow, and fighting to survive. They formed militias, vigilante committees, citizens groups and banished anyone who didn't want to pull their weight.

In the 1860s through the 1890s, many of those in the West were veterans of the Mexican War and the Civil War. Many saw killing first hand and had fought in tougher fights than we can imagine.

Friends, if ever there were a people in our history who were meant to exist at a certain time in history because of their toughness -- they are them! They were not to be messed with!

So again, I have to drive this point home, does this sound like the sort of people who would cower and hide when faced with the aspect of only 3 outlaws coming to their town?

No, and more importantly we can thank God that the cowardly citizens of the fictitious town of Hadleyville in the movie "High Noon" did not exist in the real Old West.

Why didn't it exist? The answer is simple: It is a proven fact that people in the Old West fought back time and time again against desperadoes, bandits, killers, crooked lawmen, swindlers, con artists, and other scoundrels who should be dangling at the end of a rope.

Granted that the perfect example of a town fighting back against desperadoes, was how the people of Northfield, Minnesota, shot up the James - Younger Gang during that attempted raid. And yes, part of the reason people did in fact fight back during a bank robberies in those days was because the money in the bank really did belong to the people there -- and there was no such thing as being insured for loss during a theft as there is today.

Here is another fact that demonstrates just how responsive townsfolk were to bad men. I read where "before 1900, there were no successful bank robberies in any of the major towns in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, or New Mexico, and that only a few robberies took place in California and Arizona."

The reason was that people fought back and people carried concealed weapons. Since bad men like easy pickings and usually will not chance getting their butts shot off, they saw bank robberies in most towns as being potentially hazardous to their health. Let's be frank here, even today criminals aren't as likely to pick on people who are willing to fight back or are known to be armed.

The townsfolk in most towns in the West were more like that of the townsfolk in Northfield, Minnesota, up North. In tough situations they reacted like most pioneers did in the Old West. They did not cower, they did not hide or seek out a safe place, or close up shop, or search out their town Marshal and have him face a threat alone.

In more situations than not, townsfolk took the initiative themselves and acted. They used their skills and bravely faced threats both individually and as a group.

Yes, besides taking on the bad guys alone, they were known to band together to form posses, militias, or vigilance committees. When no law was there, they formed their own justice systems which included using age old alert systems such as the "hue and cry".

The "hue and cry" was what was used to sound the alarm and alert the citizenry that a crime has taken place. When a criminal acted, the public raised a great hue and cry. They would yell out and make a clamor to alert other citizens so that all would get in on the pursuit. With loud shouts to alert others, all who were in ear shot were legally obliged to join in the chase. 

As for a town's people allowing three outlaws to tree a town? Friends, there were all sorts of vigilance committees throughout the West. In San Francisco the vigilance committee there had over 2,000 members and actually took over the city to clean up the actions of a few bad apples -- criminals and corruption in government. And yes, that sort of thing went on all over the West. 

While I know that an involved citizenry may sound a lot more like today's Neighborhood Watch than a Police organization, please remember that vigilance committees were also very para-military as far as their organizational setup goes. In most instances, vigilante committees were supported by the townsfolk because they were the first responders of their time -- especially in the days when their was no organized law. 

Neighborhood Watches are set up as eyes and ears to give alarm if there is a problem. In many towns in the West, citizens committees were well regulated and put out the "hue and cry" when needed. They were the security of the time.

But frankly, the "hue and cry" is where the similarity between a Neighborhood Watch and a citizens committee ends. Fact is they not only spread the word, citizens committees took action. And yes, in most cases if their town did in fact have a City Marshal or Police Department of some sort, the citizens committees are known to have worked with them -- or told them the law to step aside.

Now I am not saying that the West did not have some of the greatest lawmen alive, they certainly did. But some vigilance committees were not organized because there were no established law enforcement, but rather because the law could not always be relied on or was itself corrupt -- as was the case of the San Francisco vigilance committee, and what took place with Montana's vigilance committees. 

Unlike the movie High Noon where people were allowing their petty grivances with the city marshal to override their sense of community, people in the West learned to rely on themselves and each other. In many cases they did so by putting such things aside during hard time or times of eminent danger.

If a member of their community, camp, town, big or small, didn't step forward, the word usually spread that he was a "shirker". And back then, if one was seen as a "shirker", as someone who will not step up to do one's civic duty -- then they may as well pull up stakes and leave. In most cases they were shun, and in other cases they were driven out.

Carrying one's weight in the Old West meant pulling your own weight. It was seen as all a part of one's "civic duty." And frankly, back then civic duty meant a lot more than just serving on a jury.

Civic duty meant being part of the bucket brigade during fires, posses when called on and even the local militia. It meant volunteering to make the town work by rolling up your selves and doing the dirty jobs of digging a community well, building a jail, building a town wind mill, helping others during barn raisings, and much more.

Towns back then didn't depend on others to do what was needed to make things better. They did it themselves because there was no one else to do it. They looked to the people who lived there. When talking about our pioneers, and saying they built their towns. That's not a figurative statement, that is a literal statement of what they did with their own two hands.

Citizenship was something that meant stepping forward to pitch in to fulfill one's duty as a citizen. And yes, that included serving on posses, being deputized, serving on the local militia when called, and providing law enforcement to their towns.

Whether it was a mining camp in California's gold country, a small town or big one, or even a city, citizens stepped forward and banded together to provide towns with a way of dealing with threats from criminal types when organized law simply didn't exist. Citizens also stepped forward and banded together to provide towns with a way of also dealing with situations when the law was out and out corrupt and useless. 

And yes, that's what we are talking about here. We are talking about their willingness to take responsibility and fight back if need be, and that's what the movie "High Noon" consciously fails to portray. 

Historian Roger D. McGrath stated, "Communities were recreated quickly and relatively easily again and again across thousands of miles of frontier. Part of the explanation lies in the natural affinity the people had for one another: with only a sprinkling of diversity, they were united not only by religion, language, traditions, and history, but by character. The weak and feckless, the slothful and dull witted, the timid and unadventurous, did not often put themselves on the frontier. The frontier and its conquest was left to the most ambitious, intelligent, hard-working, enterprising, and courageous -- and those characteristics coupled with the natural bonds of blood and culture are what made America's westward march across the continent not only irrepressible but also our Homeric era."

So again I ask, does this match those who people in the movie "High Noon"? Does Hollywood's portrayal of frontier Americans, portraying them as being scared of three outlaws sound close to being factual or historically accurate?

I don't think so because they left out the spirit and character of the townsfolk who build the West. The people who truly fought the odds, yet persevered and made the West flourish. And yes, that's what we are talking about here.

We are talking about how they stepped forward time and time again to be deputized and join posses, stepped up to chase criminals, stepped up to do their civic duty, and how they did not cower as Hollywood likes to portray them.

We are talking about the very character of those pioneers who crossed the plains in wagons, many on foot, weathered all sorts of hardship, fought illness, hunger, pestilence, hardship, fought for life, and watched loved ones die along the way.

Yes, we are talking about how Hollywood should be more concerned about being fair and honest and real. And really, we are talking about how Hollywood should learn to give credit when credit is due. Those who came West were a lot tougher than Hollywood portrays.

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

Friday, June 17, 2016

The Brunckow Cabin -- The Bloodiest Cabin In Arizona

By Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Old West Historian

About six and a half miles Southwest of Tombstone along the old Charleston Road between Tombstone and Sierra Vista is the site of the old Brunckow Cabin. It sets approximately 200 yards off of the Charleston Road to the East, (left side) and is known as the bloodiest cabin in all of Arizona. At least 21 or 22 men were killed on this site between 1860 and 1890 with 17 killed on the site before 1880, supposed by the Apaches. 

Many of those unknown men are buried near the cabin itself, which makes this site an unofficial graveyard in my opinion. This site had also been owned by, or used by, men such as Fredrick Brunckow, Ed Schieffelin, Frank Stilwell, and Milton B. Duffield.

Fredrick Brunckow was a German immigrant who was born in 1830 and who had migrated to the U.S. in 1850. By 1858, Brunckow had found silver near the San Pedro River and built the cabin as a place to live and assay his ore. He also began mining very near the cabin. 

Brunckow hired W. M. Williams as a mine superintendent, his cousin James Williams as a machinist, John Moss as an assayer, and a German cook by the name of David Brontrager, along with several Mexican laborers when he began mining a shaft near the cabin.

On July 23rd 1860, W. M. Williams went for supplies to Fort Buchanan which was about three miles Southwest of present day Sonoita. W. M. Williams returned on July 26th to find his cousin dead within the supply room with supplies scattered everywhere. He immediately ran out of the door and headed back to tell the soldiers what had happened. 

When the soldiers arrived at the scene the following morning they found two more bodies. They found John Moss dead in the dirt just outside of the camp and animals had ravaged him. Fredrick Brunckow was found at either the entrance or just inside of the mine-shaft with a rock drill run clean through him. All three men were buried at the site.

When the cook, David Brontrager arrived at a mining camp named camp Jecker; he told the miners that the Mexican laborers had taken him hostage after the robbery and murder of the others. He stated that the Mexicans didn't kill him and even released him when they reached the international border because they believed him to be a good Catholic. The murders were never solved.

When Ed Schieffelin, the founder of Tombstone, first came into the area in 1877, he used the Brunckow Cabin as a base of operations while he prospected the rocky outcroppings Northeast of the cabin. He aslo used the fireplace to smelt any ore he had found. 

A few months later Ed had worked his way over to Goose Flats where he found the mother load of silver and registered his claim under the name Tombstone because of the soldiers who had told him, "The only stone you will find out there is your tombstone."

Frank Stilwell, who was known as taking part in the murder of Morgan Earp on March 18th 1882 for retribution of the killings of Billy Clanton and the McClaury brothers at the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, also had involvement with the Brunckow site. Stilwell who had once been a deputy sheriff under Johnny Behan also owned several businesses.

He owned interests in several mines, a saloon, a wholesale liquor business, a stage line, and at the time of his death at the hands of Wyatt Earp in the Tucson train yards. Stilwell also was the recorded owner of the Brunckow mine site.

The last well-known man to be killed at the Brunckow cabin was Milton B. Duffield. Duffield is best known as being the first United States Marshal appointed to the Arizona territory, a post he held form March 6th 1863 to November 25th 1865. Duffield was not a well liked individual because of his nasty demeanor and champion of his own opinions, but he did have a reputation for being fearless. 

One man by the name of John Bourke described Duffield as a man who carried 11 firearms and one knife upon his person, mostly concealed. 

Milton B. Duffield acquired the Brunckow mining site in 1873, but another man by the name of James T. Holmes also claimed ownership. On June 5th 1874 Duffield arrived at the Brunckow cabin to evict Holmes. As he approached he began waving his arms and shouting like a madman in his usual manner. 

Holmes, assuming Duffield was armed to the teeth as he normally was, walked out the front door carrying a double barrel shotgun and without hesitation shot and killed the 64-year-old ex-marshal. It was at this point that Holmes realized that Duffield was unarmed, which seems strange.

John Holmes was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison, but he escaped before serving anytime what so ever. The authorities did not really go after Holmes and he was never again seen in the Arizona territory. 

Milton B. Duffield was also buried at the Brunckow Cabin site and his remains are still interred there to this day. He is just another one of many in an unmarked grave and in an unknown location surrounding the cabin.

On May 20th, 1897, The Tombstone Prospector, reported that Brunckow's Cabin was where a gang of bandits fought each other over what they just stole from a Wells Fargo gold shipment. Since they could not decide on how to divide their spoils, they turned against one another and shot it out. They reportedly shot each other to death as all five of the bandits were later found dead. The stolen gold was recovered at the scene and returned.

Back in the early 1990s, the Brunckow Cabin was a good place to set up camp because it was secluded, quiet, and dark as three feet down a cow's throat. This made a great location to get away from people, enjoy the solitude, think, and look at the stars. 

I had camped at the cabin on three different occasions, twice with a friend of mine whom I had worked cows with, and once by myself. Back then there was no fence blocking the dirt road or any signs declaring the spot as a historic landmark, and you could drive right up next to the cabin itself.

Ever since the ghost hunting fad began taking place, the Brunckow Cabin has been one that the paranormal societies seem to want to investigate. Even the show, "The Ghost Hunters," has been to this site doing their investigation. 

I am not debating weather ghost or spirits exist, but it seems strange to me that these folks usually find some proof of paranormal activity in most cases. 

Having camped there myself three different times I will tell you, the only sounds I heard while there were coyotes, Javalina running through the brush, pack rats, and one rattle snake. Most city folks do not understand how well sound travels through the open desert. 

The rustling sound of the Javalina busting through the brush at a distance can sound as though it is nearby and the sound is not distinguishable to folks who haven't heard it before. This sound can easily be mistaken for something or someone close by, which is why when they investigate the area they believe the noise had come from the cabin, yet nothing is found.

I believe that the people searching for ghosts already have the paranormal on their mind when they reach their location so their minds can play tricks on them, only my opinion. 

When I spent my time at the cabin, I had no such thoughts of the paranormal, therefore, I had no ghostly experiences at all. It was only a nice quiet evening enjoying what the solitude of the desert has to offer.


Terry McGahey is a writer and Old West historian.

This once working cowboy is best known for his fight against the City of Tombstone and their historic City Ordinance Number 9, America's most famous gun-control law.

He was instrumental in finally getting Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 repealed and having Tombstone fall in line with the state of Arizona. If you care to read how he fought Tombstone's City Hall and won, please click: The Last Gun Fight -- The Death of Ordinance Number 9 (Chapter One)



Thursday, June 16, 2016

This Is About Our War With Islam

Dear Friends,

Guns are not the problem in America. Gun availability is the scapegoat of the Democrat Party for every shooting.

The availability of guns to people wanting to commit a crime will not stop if criminals want to find them.

Criminals will steal them. Criminals will buy them from other criminals illegally -- all while laughing about Background Checks and Gun Shows.

And let's be frank here, criminals will lie to good people and befriend them just to buy their guns. Criminals know more scams, con games, ways of getting over on people, way more, than most of us will ever know. It is the life they live. It's the reason they're called criminals.

As for stricter gun laws, Chicago is a great example of how nothing stops criminals from getting guns illegally. Friends, it is not just ironic that 50+ Black people are shot in Chicago on any given weekend -- and they have the strictest gun laws of any city in the United States.

What goes on in Chicago lends creed to what happened in Orlando, stricter gun laws wouldn't have stop what took place in Orlando because Chicago proves criminals find guns illegally all the time.

But the Muslim Jihadist who massacred those Americans bought his gun legally?
Well, as for buying semi-automatic rifles of any sort legally, a Radical Islamist hear in America can do that. He or she can do that the very same way a Black Panther Party and Black Live Matter terrorists can do that legally. But my point is that buying it legally doesn't stop a criminal. They can get guns illegally if they have the money, just as anyone can.

While Chicago has the strictest gun control for a city, the state of California has the strictest gun control laws nationwide. So as for some Muslim Terrorist getting a gun legally, do people thing that a 10 Day Waiting Period like we have here in California will stop some Muslim from killing a bunch of non-Muslims?

The Muslim who bought the guns legally to wage Jihad in San Bernardino, California, went through both the Background Check and the mandatory 10 Day Waiting Period. Now it has become very apparent that the Muslim Terrorist in San Bernardino used California's mandatory 10 Day Waiting Period as time to plan out how they were going to conduct a massacre of innocent people.

And frankly, that just goes to show that even after a Background Check with the state and a 10 Day Waiting Period -- that still didn't stop Radical Muslims in San Bernardino from slaughtering the unarmed and helpless in the name of their pathetic prophet who preaches baby raping and murder.

Now here's another aspect of Muslims getting guns. Do Muslims have another options if they decide to conduct an attack but not buy them legally or illegally? What if the guns that a Muslim Jihadist wants isn't available to the public?

Before scratching your head, this is why what happened in Orlando has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with Muslims. Muslims can get guns that we can't.

You see, in Europe right now, Muslims who are Jihadists are getting "military grade" weapons from Mosques being built and sponsored by Saudi Arabia. Yes, the same Saudi Arabia government who gave millions to the Clinton Foundation is sponsoring Islamic Terrorism.

And friends, this is why the Muslim attack in Orlando is a Muslim problem and not simply a gun problem. This is about our being at war with Islam.

The French who have the strictest gun control laws in the world have found that Muslims are getting "military grade" weapons from their Mosques. A recent newstory stated that French officials are finding all sorts of "military grade" weapons in the Mosques that they have now closed since the attacks there last November.

Reports from the police investigating the Muslim Terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13th of last year have now shut down a number of Mosques in a series of raids meant to round up Islamic extremists. While closing those Mosques, officials there have found Jihadist documents and over 400 "military grade" weapons and explosives -- all destined for terrorists.

Friends, the guns which the Muslims used in the terrorist attacks in Paris are not sold to the French public at all. Those weapons came from outside of France. 

I've read reports that say the very same thing is taking place here in the United States. And no, I'm not talking about the Democrat Party's bullshit version of "guns of war" which they call ALL semi-auto rifles -- but instead guns of the same "military grade" used by nations around the world in their militarys.

This problem is being spread throughout Europe as Muslims are obtaining fully automatic weapons from their Mosques all over the European continent. This problem is not confined to France.

This in itself proves that Muslim Terrorists laugh at gun bans because they do not need to buy guns through regular channels if the guns they want are unavailable.

Since Obama created ISIS and Syrian Refugees have invaded Europe, many shipments of arms have been stopped in route to Mosques. One such shipment meant for Muslim Refugees in Greece was labeled furniture.

Because Muslims can get weapons from their Mosques, what's going on in France and the rest of Europe proves that Mosques are not being used as places of worship but instead are being used as military command posts. Mosques are in reality places where Jihadists plan out their attacks. They are also places where they receive funding and supplies, and armed to kill non-Muslims. This is not my opinion. This is fact of what's going on right now.

Every aspect of the Muslim attack in Orlando screams a failure on the part of our Federal government with Obama in charge. Instead of bowing to Political Correctness and deciding not to keep records on Jihadists and treating them as our enemies, the FBI and Homeland Security were ordered by the Obama administration to scrub the records and allow known Jihadists to walk free to kill Americans.

The blood of those 50 Americans who died in Orlando is on the hands of the Obama administration which has done everything they can to support and defend Islam -- when they should have been do so for the American people.

Please do not let the Democrat Party, Obama, Clinton, or any of their bought dogs, make this a gun issue when in fact it is about how they are not waging war on our enemy which is Islam. The issue here is about their failure to wage war on our behalf and the Democrat Party appears to be OK with that!

Yes, it is not about guns as Obama and the Left wants people to think. It is about how we wage war with fanatical killers, a murderous cult, all bent on our destruction. It is about the laziness of an inept Obama administration that spends most of its time defending Muslims who want us either converted to Islam or dead!

We should round up those on the Terrorist Watch List and question them starting yesterday. If the Obama administration refuses to instruct Homeland Security and the Justice Department to round up all Muslim threats on that list, then Congress should order one or all of the 70 Federal law enforcement agencies to do so.

If we determine an individual is real threat, then charge him with treason and try him or her as a threat to the security and safety of our nation. If we determine that it is just a matter of where, when, and how, then we need to arrest him or her and detain them until we can deport them.

We also need to identify where the Jihadist are getting their orders from and who is funding, supplying, and arming them, then take actions against them as an enemy state -- whether it's Saudi Arabia or the Obama White House.

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

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Why I Don't Befriend Hillary Clinton Supporters

Dear Friends,

As a matter of full disclosure, I made and posted the above meme to my Facebook page a few days ago. 

Since then, I have received email and messages telling me that I'm going to lose readers to my blog because of my position on Hillary Clinton. I've also been told that I'll lose readers because of my support for Donald Trump. 

While I'd hate to lose readers of any sort, but besides my blog being about Old West history, American history, horses, guns, Native American history, and such, my blog is here to support and defend America, our Constitution, and Conservative values. 

While I've tried to move my blog away from 2016 Presidential Race simply because there are a lot of much better Conservative websites to get information on current events, I've not given up on seeing Hillary Clinton defeated in November. 

I see Clinton as someone interested in lining her own pockets while working to destroy our nation. I see her as an opportunist who will take money from anyone -- even our enemies. I see her as a liar just like Barack Obama, always spinning away from the truth and saying one thing while doing another. And yes, she certainly sees herself above the law.

I see Hillary Clinton's recent criminal conduct and her propensity to completely disregard established ethics and standards, her willingness to break the law, as being dangerous for our nation. I see her as a political psychopath who is toxic for America.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have proven themselves to have many things in common. But more than anything, they are both political psychopaths.

Psychopaths seem superficially normal but tend to be cold-hearted, lack empathy, egocentric, manipulative, and extremely irresponsible -- per Scientific American 2007. And yes, that describes both Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Scientific American stated, "Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead."

Yes, that very accurately describes both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

So now as for my simply request on Facebook? Since anyone supporting Hillary Clinton makes no sense to me and makes me question their own personal rules, ethics, and morals, I do not want friends who are Hillary Clinton supporters. 

I will never understand how anyone can support a low life like Hillary Clinton (1) who got 4 Americans killed in Libya when in fact there were U.S. Marines a little over an hour away and could have saved them; (2) who as our nation's top diplomat took what many are calling "bribes" in the way of millions of dollars from Muslim countries for the Clinton Foundation; (3) who wants to bring millions of Muslim radicals here; (4) who refuses to use the term "Radical Islam", (5) who has not admitted that she willfully and intentionally broke National Security laws and knowingly breached National Security with her private email server; (6) who came out in defense of Planned Parenthood, a Billion dollar Corporation that receives government subsidies, after that Corporation was found to be selling the parts of dead babies; (7) who has been caught in lie after lie after lie. And yes, these are only a few of the reason why I don't want Hillary Clinton supporters as friends.

Of course there are other reasons that I don't want Clinton supporters as my friends. If someone supports Clinton, I can't help but wonder if they're like her. I can't help but wonder if they relate to her. I can't help but wonder if they have the same disregard for ethics as she does. I can't help but wonder if they too only use people and lacks values.  

Yes, I can't help but wonder about the character of anyone who supports Hillary Clinton, or if they approach the world in the same way!

Lie, cheat, and steal is the Clinton Legacy no matter how hard her and her loyal supporter try to rewrite it. 

According to the FBI Director, Hillary Clinton is under "criminal investigation" but she calls it a "review." And yes, she has millions of supporters who I can't help but wonder if they are just like her?

Frankly, the bottom line here is simple. If you are friends with a Hillary supporter, ever wonder if they can be trusted or if they're just like her? Every wonder why they think it's OK for her to be above the law or as crooked as she is? Ever wonder if they have the same lack of morals that she does?

Ask yourself if you would like to be friends with someone who condones what Hillary Clinton has done? Ask yourself if you want to be friends with people who see nothing wrong with supporting someone who is the most dishonest, untrustworthy, conniving person, man or woman, short of Barack Obama?

If I befriend a Hillary Clinton supporter, isn't that the same as associating with someone who condones criminal and unethical behavior? Isn't that the same as being friends with someone like Hillary Clinton?  

I don't want those people as my friends because they're probably as crooked and shady as she is. They're probably without morals or a stitch of honesty as she is. They're probably the very same people who put Obama in office. And yes, that means that they are the same people who haven't cared about how he's screwed over America.

Ask yourself why they support her efforts to be president when she has shown by her actions, not by just talk but by her actions, that she is no different than Obama?

And yes, I believe the very best reason for not befriending Hillary Clinton supporters is that they're probably anti-American Obama supporters. And since I see Obama supporters as people who hate America, Liberals who see America as being what's wrong with the world instead of what's right, I don't associate with such people.

It's not the Cowboy way to associate with people who hate America. It's not the Cowboy way to befriend those with questionable character, and supporting Hillary Clinton should be enough to question someone's character.     

And yes, that's the way I see it! 
Tom Correa