Let's Talk About Poverty And White Privilege

Peggy McIntosh

In my opinion, the term "White Privilege" was created by a White racist man hater. Yes, a Hate Monger who was angry at White men.

I believe Peggy McIntosh has made a career of spreading this hateful lie, no different than Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have made careers with their hate mongering. Yes, that's my opinion of Peggy McIntosh.

And after reading parts of her 1988 "opinion article" which the term "White Privilege" came from, I believe that even more so.

What makes me believe that is the fact that the she apparently believes Whites in "Western societies" enjoy advantages that non-Whites do not experience. She believes Whites have some sort of "an invisible package of unearned assets". 

According to Wikipedia, Peggy McIntosh is a feminist and "anti-racism" activist, the associate director of the Wellesley Centers for Women, a speaker on "White Privilege" and the founder of a Liberal project called SEED (Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity). Yes, it's a safe bet that she gets American taxpayer funding and has made a lot of money off of her White-hate.

McIntosh is most famous for authoring the 1988 opinion article "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies".

Her "opinion" is that all Whites benefit socially, legally, and economically, on a daily basis compared other races. And according to her, this is more true when is come to "White Men". 

She believes that Americans need to overcome what she calls "systems of racial oppression." And yes, while she makes all sorts of assumptions in her opinion article, McIntosh assumes the notion that attacking White Americans is a direct way to lessen supposed oppression of "people of color" in America.

First, her assumptions are incorrect and only serve to divide America and demonize White Americans. And second, after reading part of her opinion piece, I believe she hates White men in general.

While I'm all for women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality, something that Democrats do no practice, her hate of White men didn't surprise me coming from a feminist who believes that an entire race of people are oppressing others in this day and age when facts don't prove her assumptions true. Yes, her idea of White Privilege is wrong. The idea is asinine.

This really doesn't surprise me since many on the Left specialize in spreading hate for America, and specifically hate for White Americans. I really believe their goal is to stoke the fires of discontent and create an envy even when there is no reason for it.

I believe people like Peggy McIntosh want to find scapegoats and excuses for one thing or another. Yes, mostly to make excuses for a lack of drive or the lack of gumption it takes to overcome obstacles which we all face.

In Nazi Germany, the same mindset demonized Jews. The Nazi Party pit German against German using race and class warfare to take their focus off the real agenda of the Nazi Party -- that of complete control of the German people. As what took place in Nazi Germany of the 1930s, there are those who use race and class warfare to divide and conquer. All to farther their own agenda of hate.

Today, America has Liberals on the Left who work tirelessly to divide America. Sadly, it seems that President Obama and others on the Left, yes the Democrat Party, has worked to make White Americans the enemy of minorities. And yes, my opinion is that the Left started this by declaring that White Americans have societal privileges, so-called "White Privilege", that other Americans don't have.

So now, let's talk about hard times and something called "White Privilege"

The above picture is of a child drawing water from a hand pump in an agricultural workers' shack in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. July, 1939. The picture was one of the many pictures taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the Great Depression.

I know that a great number of young people have no idea about the true hardship of the Great Depression. Even though my parents and grandparents endured those tough days, many people today really have no idea about how really bad it was. And yes, sadly, there are some out there who are trying to rewrite history to say "White Americans" did not suffer during the Great Depression.

Do you think I'm exaggerating what is being taught? No. I'm not.

In a recent email, I was informed by a reader that she was being taught in her university's history course of study, that "Whites aren't effected by poverty like other races are in the United States, and never have been, even during the Great Depression. It's called 'White Privilege.'"

First. let me make something clear. There are two periods of American History, that I have studied more than any other. The first being the Old West from 1867 to 1917 when Americans entered into World War I, and the Great Depression from 1920 to 1941.

And while some are going to read this and say the Great Depression did not start until the Stock Market crash in 1929, I want to ask you to remember that unemployment was almost 12 percent in 1920 and dipped just 7 percent before the Stock Market which shot unemployment to over 25 by 1932. Unemployment did not come down below 10 percent until 1940.

Also, let's keep in mind that that's the "official" numbers that we know of. As with today, there are a great number of people out of work who are unaccounted for and subsequently not part of the statistics. While people drop of the rolls, the unemployment numbers look better. Of course, the problem is that the government has no way to know whether an unemployed person dropped off the rolls because they found a job or because they simply ran out of benefits and were dropped even though they didn't find a job.   

So let's talk about people living in miserable poverty during the Great Depression, and this imaginary thing called "White Privilege" that so many racists are talking about today. And later, let's talk about the person who created the term "White Privilege" and how she got it wrong.

It is said the children of the Great Depression had to grow up faster than any other generation in recent history.

It's wrong to accept the Liberal Left's lies about how all White Americans have had some sort of free ride, more chances, more benefits, more of everything than others in our nation. As ignorant as that sounds, especially coming from university teachers, there are some people today who actually believe the propaganda, the lies, that is coming out of American colleges and universities.

If we are to believe their lies, than we are to believe that somehow the color of one's skin enables some people to stave off hunger, to ward off economic downfall, to protect them from despair and depression. If we believe the lies coming from Liberals these days, we are led to believe the lie that the folks in these picture taken during the hard days of the Great Depression simply didn't know that they supposedly had more privileges over other Americans because of the color of their skin.

For me, I refuse to believe the lies coming from Liberals. I know our history and have never seen such things as they are fabricating. 

Mother and children in rags during the Great Depression, 1936. Does anybody looking at this picture think they have more or special societal benefits because they were White Americans instead of any other race of Americans? For those today who accept the lies, the hate, the use of the term "White Privilege" to divide us as Americans, I know very well that they believe she did!

Mother with hungry children living in a tent camp in Nipomo, California. The mother in this photo was the famous subject of a Depression-era portrait known as "Migrant Mother." March, 1936. Photograph by Dorothea Lange.

This last picture of Americans during the Great Depression is of White children having a dinner of potatoes and cabbage. That was their Christmas Dinner in 1936.

Why am I addressing this topic? Well, in a recent email, I was informed that "Whites aren't effected by poverty like other races are in the United States, and never have been. It's called 'White Privilege.'"

So let's talk about poverty and the myth that somehow White Americans are not effected by hard times because of some make-believe thing called "White Privilege."

But first, let's ask the question if there is a "poverty cycle" today as with what took place during the Great Depression? During the Great Depression, the "poverty cycle" was real and very present as Americans were laid off work and there were no opportunities for new employment.

There were simply no jobs. And friends, the idea of government financed "safety net" programs, to help Americans in dire straights were not around yet. We forget that there were very few government programs, either welfare or other relief programs, to help the American people before 1935. No matter what color you were.

During the Great Depression, the "poverty cycle" seemed endless as it became very apparent to all that the continuation of poverty was triggered by a chain of events, thus it became known as the "poverty cycle".

The poverty cycle: Unemployment meant homelessness, which meant inadequate housing, which meant hunger, family break-up, bad health, and a belief in a bleak future. 

Yes, families broke up. The lack of full-time employment resulted in the need to search outside of one's community and across the country for jobs. Not finding jobs resulted in high levels of stress which all contributed to family breakdowns. This is said to have resulted higher than normal levels of depression and despair.

People were evicted from their homes, separated from friends and neighbors. Families were uprooted or squeezed into the homes of relatives. Living conditions were horrid and overcrowded conditions were common. All of which helped to fuel the poverty cycle.

My grandmother used to say, "A man feels good about himself when he's working."

She was absolutely right. The effects of poverty in the 1930s led to feelings of shame, low self-esteem, and despair. That's why during the Great Depression, Americans were driven to take desperate measures and the crime rate increased. People became wary of strangers and were less likely to offer help to strangers.

The condition of "absolute poverty" has been described as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information". That was the Great Depression.

By the way, during the Great Depression, being White did not stop you from being out of work, hungry, displaced, or despondent. Being White did not mean you were rolling in money while other Americans suffered. Being White did not mean that you received some sort of preferential treatment, some sort of benefit because of  your skin color. Hunger, homelessness, joblessness, helplessness are color blind, just as it is today.

Is there some sort of "White Privilege" when it comes to today's economy?

This picture is White Poverty in America in 2014.

Friends, though the poverty numbers are high today, the type of poverty of the Great Depression is different than the poverty in America today. For one thing, the poverty cycle is not as widespread today because of "safety net" programs.

But besides the "safety net" programs that are around today that weren't around years ago, how poverty is defined today has changed. Today, the Federal government considers many citizens "statistically" impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs. And yes, that includes having adequate shelter, food, clothing, and medical care.

Today, people who are considered "statistically" under the poverty line but actually have the ability to own cell phones, a car, have cable or satellite television, and other items that may not seem possible in their economic state. Also, when measuring if one is below the poverty line or not today, the official Federal poverty line excludes taking into consideration some forms of income, whether or not one is receiving Welfare benefits, Food Stamps, or if one is in public housing.

This means that in some cases, people currently living under the official Federal poverty line are actually better off than many middle-class America. This is because middle-class Americans are paying more taxes than ever before while bringing home less of what they earn.

There are 47 million people living in statistical poverty in the United States as of 2014. That means the poverty rate for 2014 was 15%. And yes, the 2014 poverty rate was 2.3 percentage points higher than in 2008 when the present recession started.

So yes, there is definitely an increase. Of course we should note that, whether people want to accept it or not, government over-regulation and high taxation are responsible for closing more businesses and creating poverty in America than any other reason. And this nonsense that somehow White Americans are the less affected by the closings and relocation is pure bull!

Privilege is defined as "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."

While this article is about poverty and the fraud the Left is calling "White Privilege," I would like to mention that the number of White Americans make up 84 percent of total taxpayers in America, and pay higher taxes than other races. So is that an economic benefit of "White Privilege"? I don't think so if there were such a thing.

White Americans make up a greater number of what is being called the "working poor." They have less employment opportunities because Federal and State programs encourage the hiring of other races in lieu of hiring White Americans. Minorities have special educational funding programs, housing allowances, and less hoops to jump through when it comes to getting into colleges and universities.

Are these the social and economical benefits of White Privilege that Liberal talk so much about? And how about poverty in America when it comes to White Americans having some sort of benefit over others? And really, why is it OK that White Americans are denied jobs or have to overcome obstacles getting into schools and universities, or getting grants, because of their color?

Don't think this happens? While I don't hate anyone of color because I was raised to be color bind, and was taught to judge people on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, I was flat out told that I would not be hired as a police officer in a number of cities back in the early 1980s because I wasn't Black.

Did that make me hate Blacks? No. Did that make me disillusioned in the system? Yes. Did I find that right and just? No, but I accepted it as just the way thing were.

And though that was the only time I was effected by racial quotas, I never expected that things would get worse. Today, it's not only city and state governments that are forced by law to meet minority hiring quotas, "big brother" demands that businesses do so as well or face problems.

So today it really doesn't matter who is best qualified for a job, but what color your skin is. And friends, I don't think it's "fair" that one can work his or her butt off to attain the skills and qualifications needed for a certain career, then be denied the chance to pursue that career because one has the wrong skin color or sex. And that applies for any color, or either sex.

Rising to management positions in most of my career choices, I fought for people, not based on color but on character and abilities, all who demonstrated that they had to skill and qualifications to do the job. I hated being told that I had to promote someone simply to fill a quota.

If "White Privilege" is real, than way was it that I didn't get hired even when I was less qualified for a job? If "White Privilege" is real, than way was it that I had to stand in line with everyone else for work? Was it my Spanish/Portuguese surname, my latin surname? If "White Privilege" is real, than way didn't my skin color give me benefits of some sort? It's because the whole idea of White Privilege is a lie? And franky, that is especially true when measured by the poverty rate in America.

While conditions today are not as bad as the Great Depression for everyone in America, today White Americans statistically account for the vast majority of the poor in America.

Yes, of the 47 million people living in "statistical poverty" in the United States, according to the U.S. Census 2014 report, more than half of those living below the poverty line are White Americans.

And as for the children affected by poverty, reports state that White children comprise almost 60 percent of all poor children in America. Child poverty reached record high levels in the United States recently with over 17 million children living in food insecure households. And also, it was reported that many of the neighborhoods these children live in lack basic nutritious food.

Yes, the majority were White children. So where exactly is this White Privilege?

Remember, as of 2015, we know that 47 million people were in poverty and on food stamps. Of that, 26 million are ages 18-64; 17 million are children under the age of 18; and over 4 million are seniors 65 and older. And we know that the vast majority are White Americans. Does any think that White Americans have it better than others, especially with those statistics? 

As for homelessness? A report by the National Center on Family Homelessness states the number of homeless children in the United States has reached record levels. That report stated 2.5 million children, or one child in every 30, experienced homelessness in 2013. And yes, the majority of those children are White.

So now for my reader who wrote to say, "Whites aren't affected by poverty like other races are in the United States. It's called White Privilege."

Ask yourself if White Americans should consider it a privilege to pay more taxes, be the majority of our nation's tax payers, be the majority of the "working poor," be shot more by police, or if White Americans should consider it a privilege to be the majority of the poor in America? Unless I'm missing something, the hate for White Americans based on this simply doesn't hold water.

Do you really believe and accept what the Liberal Left is feeding you when they are in fact just lying in an effort to divide Americans? I hope not. But frankly, I know people do.

I hope this helps folks see what's really going on in America. I hope people see that the term "White Privilege" is just propaganda created by the Left to incite hate and division in America today.

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

Tom Correa

Thank You R.C. & Connie

I get a lot of email from you. And yes, I love it. I love knowing that you think I'm either on the right track or that I'm full of it. Either way, I love the fact that many of you take the time out to write me.

And please, make no mistake about it, I get requests for articles on this person or that, some famous and some not, places, horses, different types of firearms, and so on. I also get requests to help people with their books, their research, and I'm always pleasantly surprised when someone says that they want to use one of my articles, or a piece of information, in their book or article.

Along with a few old newspaper clippings, I have gotten some great pictures. All I ask is that people do not send me the originals of either. If you want to send me a copy that's great, but really those clippings and photographs should be kept in your families. It's not that I don't appreciate them, it's just that they really belong to you and should be passed down in your family.

And while I get clippings, records, photographs, and pamphlets, R.C. and his wife Connie has sent me books for my research. And yes, for you who might be wondering, they are First Edition Civil War History books.

No, it's not every day that a reader sends me books -- especially First Editions from 1960. But there's more, RC and Connie have also sent me a wonderful donation.

In his letter to me, he asked that I buy some sugar cubes, a few bales of sweet grass, and to take my best girl out for a cold one. Well, with their great donation, I have done just that. I bought sugar cubes, apple treats, and some sweet feed for our horses. And yes, I also took my wife to dinner and told her that that was on the Wiese family.

So now, why am I publicly thanking RC and Connie for such gifts?

Well, first off, over the last six years, other than RC and Connie's very generous donation, I had received $40 in donations. And while that doesn't sound like much to some, those two $20 donations made me feel like a million bucks!

You see, I started this blog not really knowing where it would go. I figured that I'd simply talk about the things that interest me, such as America, guns, real Old West history, horses, and of course the things that make us, you and me, we Americans, a great people. 

My reward is simple enough. I like knowing that great people like you, and RC and Connie, enjoy what I write about. And yes, I'm hoping that I don't disappoint you in the future.

Back in the 1990s, I traveled around our great nation a lot. Yes, a lot. While doing inspections of power plants and other energy related businesses, I met some great people in all of the states. I was at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant in either 1990 or '91. You folks in Minnesota are truly great people. 

Thank you RC. And if you're reading this, please pass along my thanks to your wife Connie as well.

May God Bless you and yours.

Your friend,

Tom Correa

FBI reopens investigation into Hillary Clinton's email use

FoxNews.com

Published October 28, 2016

FBI reopens Clinton email investigation after new messages found

The FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of state after discovering new emails, in a stunning turn of events just days before the presidential election.

FBI Director James Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress Friday that the bureau has “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

Comey did not detail those emails, saying only that they surfaced “in connection with an unrelated case.”

He told lawmakers the investigative team briefed him on the information a day earlier, “and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

He said the FBI could not yet assess whether the new material is significant and he could not predict how long it will take to complete “this additional work.”

A senior law enforcement official separately told Fox News the FBI decision is not linked to WikiLeaks messages or any hack, and the newly discovered emails did not come from the Clinton server – but from another device from another government official.

The move comes after Comey and the Justice Department decided in July not to pursue charges over Clinton's email practices, saying at the time that the investigation was finished.

Comey has since come under criticism from Donald Trump, lawmakers and others who claim the investigation downplayed the mishandling of classified information during Clinton's tenure.

Trump, speaking to cheering supporters Friday afternoon in Manchester, N.H., praised the FBI for having the “courage” to “right the horrible mistake that they made” – saying he hopes that is “corrected.”

“Hillary Clinton’s corruption is on a scale we have never seen before,” Trump said. “We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office.”

In a nod to the significance of the FBI’s announcement, Trump quipped: “The rest of my speech is going to be so boring.”

Other GOP lawmakers also weighed in, urging the bureau to pursue a thorough new probe.

“The FBI’s decision to reopen its investigation into Secretary Clinton reinforces what the House Judiciary Committee has been saying for months: the more we learn about Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server, the clearer it becomes that she and her associates committed wrongdoing and jeopardized national security," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the discovery must be “serious” for the bureau to investigate this close to the election.

Clinton did not respond to questions from reporters about the development as she landed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and did not address the matter while speaking to supporters in the same city.

The development comes 11 days before the general election, and is the latest shockwave to hit the race. Clinton had been gaining in the polls over Trump in the wake of the release of footage showing Trump talking about groping women and subsequent allegations of sexual assault and harassment against him.

However, daily revelations from hacked Clinton campaign emails obtained by WikiLeaks have become a headache for the Democrat's campaign. The resumption of the FBI probe poses a potentially bigger problem.

Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI, told Fox News in a telephone interview that retired FBI officials were "livid" at Comey over the fact that charges were not brought against Clinton in round one of the investigation.

"He lit her on fire and then walked away," Hosko said of Comey holding a news conference laying out Clinton's mishandling of classified information but then not pressing criminal charges.

Hosko said he still defends Comey for not pressing charges because the FBI always has to make a decision "based on what they have" at the time. Hosko said he thinks agents were probing a separate matter and found emails that made them say, "Oh my God look at what we have."

-- end of article from Fox News.

Friends, Federal law enforcement officials said the new emails were uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. They were actually discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner. Yes, by way of that scumbag pervert Democrat Anthony Weiner.

I was just watching Fox News and they were showing Hillary Clinton giving a speech at a campaign rally. As usually, she lied about where Donald Trump stands on issues -- all while not mentioning a word about being investigated by the FBI again.

Am I surprised that she didn't mention the fact that she is now under investigation by the FBI? No. 

And while I'd love to think something will come out of this, I don't believe anything will simply because I see FBI Director James Comey as being as crooked as she is. I base my opinion on his refusal to recommend the she prosecuted for breaches of National Security, breaking Federal laws pertaining to the use and security of Classified and Top Secret information, and of course lying during testimony regard this.

I really believe that Comey is covering for her. Whether he was bribed or simply supports her for president, I believe Comey should have allowed prosecution of Clinton for crimes that all of us would have gone to jail for committing. But as we know, he didn't.

So where does this go from here? While I'd like to see her in prison, I really don't think this is going anywhere simply because Obama and his administration is going to cover for her. And let's face facts, Democrats, especially politically powerful Democrats, are not prosecuted like Republicans are. 

There is a double-standard that absolutely stinks. The double-standard that I'm talking about is one that we see on a daily basis. It is the reason that Hillary Clinton is not on trial or in prison, but instead is running for president.

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

Tom Correa

Let Them Eat Cake

By Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/Old West Historian

It is truly sad in this day and age that many young people have no idea what this country was built upon, the Constitution!

I hear quite often now days, "the world is a global society". Do you truly understand what that means? What it means is that we are moving away from our freedoms into a Socialist/Marxist/Communist way of living.

I also hear, "being a Democratic Socialist is different". This is purely not true even though many college professors are brainwashing our young people to believe it. Socialism is socialism! Yes, we have some Socialist programs in this country but we are not a socialist run country.

Let me lay out just a few examples of how the Socialists have invaded our lives. First off, how our government has stepped into our homes through the use of our schools and such by an overreach of power on the use of paddling you child.

I do not condone beatings, but a paddling is not a beating. Without this power of the parent, we now have more young people raised without respect of others than ever before which also leads to these same young people believing the world owes them a living.

How about the auto industry, how about forcing out many corporations by over regulation, how about allowing Muslim teachings in our schools but not Christianity, and how about Political Correctness which is taking away a certain amount of free speech.

Now the government has control of much of the healthcare in this country which has become a large percentage of our GDP. Nancy Pelosi was just on the news acting like a parrot by repeating the words "affordable, affordable, affordable."

The rates of Obama care are going to rise by 25% in some locations and even more in others, so tell the people this who cannot afford the insurance already, and who are paying fines at the end of the year for not having this horrible plan because they cannot afford it. If you really pay attention to Pelosi's statement you will realize that it is really no different than the times of the French term, "let them eat cake".

Now please understand, the term cake back then was not cake as we know it now and the statement was not made by Marie Antoinette as most believe, it was originally stated by Marie-Therese, wife of Louis the XIV. Cake was a blend of flour, eggs and butter, not a true bread which the French elite could only afford, and bread was a main staple in France at that time.

No matter, Pelosi's statement is basically stating the same thing to our people. You do not see her on Obama care nor will you see any of our other elected officials on the roles of Obama care.

So let them eat cake Nancy? That's exactly what you are saying to the people beneath it all. Eat the cake yourself and see how you like it Pelosi instead of hanging on to your government Cadillac plan just like the rest of you're elite buddies in government, Democrat and Republican alike.

The bottom line, I am getting at is simple. Hillary Clinton has been involved with our government for 30 years or better and during that time she has not raised a stink about how crooked our government has become. When she mentioned the Supreme Court justice appointments, she stated that she would appoint judges that understand our modern world but did not mention how they must be judges who will defend our constitution.

She will appoint judges who will promote her agenda of more gun control, less freedom of speech through Political Correctness, and will bring in thousands of Syrian refugees many of whom want to kill us and who want this country run under their laws which makes women second class citizens.

Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and many others within our government are nothing more than traitors to our people and our Constitution. So why in the world would you vote for this greedy, power mad, horrible person which has treated our Secret Service Agents like crap, and who will not change anything about our crooked government?

All one has to do is to take the time to look into her record, and what I have stated here is easily found. No matter if you like Trump or not, he is our only chance to save the Constitution from the onslaught of the likes of Clinton and Pelosi.

Educate yourselves and see which candidate is the smart choice. Hillary Clinton is not the smart choice.

Why I'm Voting For Donald Trump

Dear Friends, 

Since I'm voting for Donald Trump, a few people have asked me what I want by my voting for him? After thinking about this, this is what I want.

I want an America where the unborn are not sold for parts and child molesters are hanged instead of set free, a society where rapists are castrated, animal abusers are beaten, murderers are executed, and terrorists are killed by any means.

I want an America where equal work for equal pay is not just a slogan, where men and women really do get the same pay but respect each for being different, where motherhood is prized and fathers are respected, an America where family is important and children are not seen as belonging to the government.

I want an America where an American can use a gun to protect his or her family, an America where the criminals are treated as criminals, where the citizenry is respected, an America where the fundamental rule of law that a person is innocent until proven guilty is applied to all and not just the well-connected and wealthy.

I want an America where a child can say a Christian prayer in school and not be attacked while a Muslim child is praised, where teachers teach instead of indoctrinate, where leftist political ideology is shown to be the fraud it is instead of worshiped in taxpayer funded American universities, where children are taught civics, math, science and our history without bashing those long dead.  

I want an America where all lives matter, where Political Correctness is scorned, where having a good job in not impossible, where politicians don't run for office to get rich, where corrupt politicians are put in prison, where decisions by our elected representatives are based on what America needs and not what the United Nations wants.

I want an America where the Constitution is not violated by our government, where our Bill of Rights is not threatened by power hungry politicians, where our flag is cherished, where the amount of taxes collected is actually regulated by need instead of the greed of politicians who owe their souls to special interests, an America where anti-Americans can either get their heads out of their ass or leave.

And frankly, while I know that I cannot get everything that I want for America, I believe my voting for Donald Trump is a great first step in that direction.

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

Tom Correa

The OK Corral -- The Rest Of The Story

Tombstone's OK Corral after the 1882 fire.

In my article, Wyatt Earp -- After The Vendetta, I address what Wyatt Earp did after his now famous vendetta. Well, this is the rest of the story pertaining to most of the key figured involved.

On May 25, 1882, about a month or so after Wyatt Earp's vendetta, a second major fire ripped through Tombstone Along with other structures, the Tombstone Nugget newspaper and the OK Corral were wiped out in the fire. The spark started in the back of Tivoli Gardens, a saloon, in a water closet.

Johnny Ringo was found shot on July 13th, 1882. Some say by his own hand, but others believe it was that "Buckskin" Frank Leslie who shot Ringo after finding him passed out drunk.

Johnny Barnes died of wounds sustained at the Iron Springs shootout, while Pete Spence, Fin Clanton and Pony Diehl were eventually convicted of various crimes and all did time in state penitentiaries.

Phineas Clanton served a jail sentence and died in 1906. Pete Spence served a sentence in Arizona State Prison for an 1883 manslaughter charge and died in prison in 1914.

Billy "the Kid" Claiborne was killed in a gunfight in Tombstone in late 1882, by gunman Franklin Leslie. Billy was 22 years old.

Billy Claiborne believed Leslie killed Ringo, and it was said that his fatal shootout with Leslie was due to that fact. But in reality Claiborne was demanding that Leslie refer to him as "Billy the Kid". And when Leslie refused, well Claiborne challenged him.

Billy Claiborne was shot through the right side, the bullet exiting out his back, and died hours later. His last words were supposedly "Frank Leslie killed John Ringo. I saw him do it". Yes, yet another claim that has no evidence to support it.

Ike Clanton was caught stealing cattle on June 1st, 1887, and was shot dead by lawman Jonas V. Brighton. Supposedly he was resisting arrest. Clanton was thought to be about 40 years old at the time of his death.

John H. "Doc" Holliday died of TB, tuberculosis, in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, November 8, 1887. He was 36 years of age. And yes, back in those days, TB was called "consumption." Consumption is an old name for tuberculosis (TB) that describes how the illness consumed a person as they waste away.

Johnny Behan was not re-nominated by the local Democrat Party for the sheriff race in 1882 and never again worked as a lawman. He spent the rest of his life at various government jobs and died in Tucson of natural causes at age 67 in 1912.

As for the Earp brothers? Of course, Morgan Earp was killed after being shot in the back while playing billiards at 10:50pm on Saturday, March 18th, 1882, less than five months after the O.K. Corral fight. He was 30 years old. He was first buried in the old city cemetery of Colton near Mount Slover. When the cemetery was moved in 1892, Morgan's body was reburied in the Hermosa Cemetery in Colton, California.

The revolver that Morgan was supposedly wearing when he was killed can be seen on display at the College of the Ozarks in Branson, Missouri. The pearl-handled grip is still stained with Morgan's blood from the fatal injury sustained during his last game of pool.

Warren Earp joined older brother Wyatt and was in town when Morgan was assassinated. He also helped Wyatt in the hunt for the outlaws they believed responsible. Later in life, Warren developed a reputation as a loudmouth bully. And yes, there are reports to say that he was a homosexual.

On July 6, 1900, Warren became involved in an argument with rancher Henry Hooker's range boss, Johnny Boyett, inside Brown's Saloon in Willcox.

Boyett and Warren had been involved in verbal disputes before that night, and rumor was that their mutual dislike stemmed from affections for the same woman, possibly a local prostitute. Then again, there are those who say that Warren Earp had homosexual interest in Boyett who was not interested in that lifestyle.

Either way, the Tombstone Epitaph said the incident began out of Warren Earp's constant bullying of Boyett. In fact, there are some stories that say Earp was angry with Boyett for turning down his homosexual advances and that's why he picked on Boyett. Yes, believe it or not, there are stories out there that say Warren Earp was indeed a homosexual and a bully. Imagine that.

Later that night, the two men, both drunk, began arguing. Bystanders said they "never heard any man take such abuse."

Warren Earp is alleged to have said "Boyett, get your gun and we'll settle this right here. I've got mine, go and get yours".

Boyett left and returned shortly afterwards. Supposedly Boyett had two .45 caliber Colt handguns. Boyett called out for Earp, who walked in from another doorway. Immediately upon seeing Earp, Boyett fired two rounds, but both missed. Now we know why he needed two pistols. He needed more bullets!

Supposedly Warren Earp stepped outside of the saloon onto the street without producing a weapon, just as Boyett fired two more rounds, missing again! Then Earp walked towards Boyett, opened his coat and vest. "I have not got arms. You have a good deal the best of this".

Earp continued walking toward Boyett, talking the entire time. As Boyett warned him several times to halt, Boyett appearing slightly frightened but angry. Then when Earp did not stop, Boyett fired a fifth round, this time striking Earp in the chest, killing him almost instantly.

Boyett claimed that he feared for his life, and that by allowing Warren Earp to get too close, he believed his life was in danger. It is said that while Earp didn't have a gun on him -- he did have an open pocket knife in his fist.

Boyett was arrested for the shooting. The coroner's inquest confirmed that he killed Warren Earp in self-defense. Fearing retribution from the other Earp brothers, Boyett sought protection from the local sheriff. Maybe his fear was well founded? After all, the Earps were known for taking the law into their own hands when it suited them.

The Tombstone Epitaph reported the following on July 9th, 1900:

"Warren Earp, the youngest of the four Earp brothers whose names twenty years ago were synonymous with gun fighting on the Arizona frontier, "died with his boots on" here. He was shot through, the heart in a saloon by Cowboy Johnny Boyett, and died almost Instantly. The shooting occurred early in the morning and grew out of a feud that had existed between the two men ever since the bloody fights between the Earp's and Arizona cattle rustler about Tombstone In the early eighties [1880s]. Earp had habitually bullied Boyett for months past, and the latter always tried to avoid a quarrel. A few days ago Earp cornered Boyett in a saloon, and, pressing a revolver against Boyett's stomach, made him promise that if they ever quarreled again the one should kill the other.

The two men met in a restaurant and Earp began his abuse. Boyett went Into an adjoining saloon, followed by Earp. The latter said: "Boyett, go get your gun and we'll settle the matter right here. I've got my gun; go get yours." Boyett was willing and agreed to return in a few moments and fight it out. Earp also left the saloon. Boyett returned very soon and finding Earp gone warned all loungers in the saloon to clear out, emphasizing his warning by shooting into the ceiling. Earp shortly appeared through a back door. He started toward Boyett, throwing open his coat and saying: "Boyett, I am unarmed; you have the best of this," advancing as spoke. Boyett warned him not to come nearer, but Earp did not heed the words, and when within eight feet Boyett fired, shooting Earp through the heart and killing him instantly. Warren Earp was the youngest brother of the Earp family.

He was well known by Under-Sheriff Paul of Tucson, who was Sheriff of Pima county in the eighties when trouble occurred between the Earps and the Clanton gang. Earp came to this country about the time of the beginning of the feud from Colton, Cal. He was one of the original brothers and took an active part in their fights after he arrived. Morgan Earp was killed In 1883 In Bob Hatch's saloon in Tombstone, being shot from the back as he was playing billiards. Virgil Earp later was shot in the arm and seriously wounded and the killing of Frank Stilwell occurred In Tucson not long after, when he attempted to shoot Virgil through a car window. Stilwell was shot by Wyatt Earp. Warren came here when his brothers got into trouble at Tombstone with the Clanton gang and he has remained here since. He was driving stage from Willcox to Fort Grant and had done freighting."

Johnny Boyett returned to work on Hooker's ranch, staying out of Willcox for a long period of time. James and Newton Earp did not get involved in the incident, nor did Wyatt who was staying out of Arizona as he was still wanted for murdering Frank Stilwell.

It was later falsely reported that the Earps avenged Warren's death by killing Johnny Boyett. Fact is that Johnny Boyett eventually retired in Redlands, California. He later died while visiting Texas.

Virgil Earp was ambushed on the streets of Tombstone on the evening of December 28, 1881, by hidden assailants shooting from the second story of an unfinished building. The wound eventually left him without the use of his left arm. Of course, as most of us already know, Wyatt used his brother getting shot to send off a plea to be made Deputy U.S. Marshal.

Virgil left Tombstone for California after Morgan was killed. Later, he served as the "Town Marshal" in Colton, California. He was also hired by the Southern Pacific Railroad as a Railroad Policeman, He lived without use of the left arm, continuing as a lawman in California. He died of pneumonia at the age of 62 in 1905, still on the job as a peace officer.

For me, I don't think Virgil was like his other brothers. He surely wasn't like Wyatt. In fact, after reading about Virgil Earp, I'd have to say that he was in the same position as lawmen Frank Dalton who was nothing like his famous outlaw brothers. And while I see James Masterson as the best lawman in the Masterson family, I'd say that Virgil was the real lawman in the Earp family.

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

Tom Correa

1948 Chicago -- Children Sold For $2

In 1948, the caption to this famous picture read:

A big "For Sale" sign in a Chicago yard mutely tells the tragic story of Mr. and Mrs. Ray Chalifoux, who face eviction from their apartment. With no place to turn, the jobless coal truck driver and his wife decide to sell their four children. Mrs. Lucille Chalifoux turns her head from a camera above while her children stare wonderingly. On the top step are Lana, 6, and Rae, 5. Below are Milton, 4, and Sue Ellen, 2.

So, have you ever seen a picture and wondered what's the story behind it? Well, the picture above was taken in Chicago in 1948. And as hard as it is to believe, the mother of the children in that photograph, Lucille Chalifoux, decided to sell her four children.

Some reports say that it was both parents, Ray and Lucille Chalifoux, who wanted to sell the children. Some say they decided to do so because they fell behind with their rent payments. Yes, you read it correctly. some reports say they decided to sell their four children because they fell behind in rent payments. Yes, that's what some say their justification was for doing such a thing.

While that sounds pretty horrible all by itself, even without the excuse of saying it was "because they fell behind with their rent payments," that wasn't the case.

Actually, Ray Chalifoux, the father, was an out-of-work truck driver in Chicago. After being unable to find work, like the coward that he was, he eventually abandoned his family.

Lucille Chalifoux, the mother, was only 24 at the time. She was alone and without income to support their children. Soon after Ray deserted them, she met and dated a man who wanted nothing to do with her kids. Yes, another "real man" who didn't know the first thing about being a man.

As for the photograph, before being picked up by national newspapers, the picture first appeared in The Vidette-Messenger of Valparaiso, Indiana on August 5th, 1948. The photographer later said the children looked confused when the picture was taken. Of course, their pregnant mother hid her face in shame, as rightfully she should have.

The children in the picture are identified as follows: Lana (top left) who was likely adopted and died of cancer in 1998. Her sister RaeAnn (top right) was sold for $2 along with her brother Milton (bottom left) to an abusive family. Sue Ellen (bottom right) was adopted. Inside their pregnant mother, Lucille Chalifoux, was their brother David. He would be put up for adoption as well. And just in case you're wondering if she had other children, Lucille Chalifoux would have four more daughters. 

Her son David would later tell The Times of Northwest Indiana, "She kept them. She didn't keep us."

Supposedly family members accused Lucille of being paid to stage the photograph. But unfortunately, they and the world would find out that she was dead serious about selling her children. And within two years, all of the children pictured, as well as the unborn child she was carrying at the time, were all "sold" off to different homes.

I wondered about this picture, then I found an article in the New York Post from July 14th, 2013, entitled Finding peace in a life sold for $2. That article originated from a story that ran in The Times of Northwest Indiana.

Here is the story from The Times of Northwest Indiana:

After being sold as children, Sue Ellen Chalifouxis (left) and RaeAnn Mills were finally reunited in 2013 just before Chalifouxis’ death. RaeAnn was 70. Her sister Sue Ellen Chalifoux was 67. The picture above was taken by Jonathan Miano of The Times of North Northwest Indiana.

In the story, it said that during their meeting that RaeAnn Mills bobbed a brush in a bottle of nail polish the color of a Barbie doll box. She took her sister's hand and smoothed a thin layer of "pink forever" over each nail.

It was the first time they bonded over painting nails, a moment sisters usually share as teens. But the women never had the chance. They were 7 and 4 when life pulled them apart, and they say their reunion at Chalifoux's Hessville home last month was only their second interaction since they were children.

A picture that made its way into newspapers in 1948 tells a piece of their story. In the image, four small children sit huddled on steps outside a home in Chicago, behind a sign that reads “4 Children For Sale Inquire Within.” Their mother – pregnant at the time and wearing a floral dress – turns her head and shields her face from the camera. Mills and Chalifoux are two of the girls in the picture.

One weekend in early May, Mills and her son Lance Gray traveled from their home in Washington, Ind., near Vincennes, to visit Chalifoux at the Hessville home she shares with her son, Timothy Charnote. They arrived with dozens of old photos and trinkets, fodder for storytelling.

"It's one of the happiest days of my life,” Mills said.

The reunion was bittersweet, as Mills figured it would be her last time with Chalifoux. Chalifoux is dying from lung disease. She cannot swallow food or talk. She has spent all of June hospitalized and is on a ventilator.

Before she dies, she wants people to know the story behind the photo, Charnote said.

When Charnote was a child and acted up, his mother would warn him to be good or she would sell him, just like her mother sold her. He thought she was being facetious. Then he saw the photo.

It was published in The Vidette-Messenger of Valparaiso on Aug. 5, 1948, with the caption, “A big "For Sale" sign in a Chicago yard mutely tells the tragic story of Mr. and Mrs. Ray Chalifoux, who face eviction from their apartment. With no place to turn, the jobless coal truck driver and his wife decide to sell their four children. Mrs. Lucille Chalifoux turns her head from camera above while her children stare wonderingly. On the top step are Lana, 6, and Rae, 5. Below are Milton, 4, and Sue Ellen, 2.”

No one knows how long the sign stood in the yard, whether it was long enough for the camera shutter to close or whether it was years. Some family members claim the mother was paid to stage the photo.

The photo was also published in newspapers in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Texas, among others, said Linda Herrick Swisher, public information coordinator for the Hammond Public Library. A story several days later in the Chicago Heights Star stated a Chicago Heights woman offered to open her home to the children and that offers of jobs, homes and financial assistance poured in. 

Two years after it appeared, the children went in different directions:

RaeAnn

RaeAnn Mills' birth certificate shows she was born at her mother's residence near 91st Street and South Commercial Avenue in South Chicago. She still has the brown-and-white checkered dress she wore and the torn green corduroy pants Milton Chalifoux wore the day they went to live with John and Ruth Zoeteman on their farm in DeMotte.

It was August 27, 1950, and RaeAnn Mills claims she was sold for $2 so her mother could have bingo money and because the man her mother was dating did not want anything to do with the children. Her brother was crying nearby, so the couple took him, too, Mills said.

She has no documents to prove she was sold and no adoption papers to prove she was adopted. However, school yearbook pictures from DeMotte and later family obituaries support her claim that the couple changed RaeAnn's name to Beverly Zoeteman and Milton's name to Kenneth Zoeteman.

With the help of her son, Mills has been using social media to reconnect with siblings and build new connections with extended kin.

"I want to find family before I die," she said.

During that search, the photo surfaced. "My brother (Milton Chalifoux) in Tucson somehow sent it to my email," she said. "I got on there and said, 'Good God. That's me.'"

She doesn't remember the picture being taken and has no recollection of her birth father. She said the Zoetemans raised her in an abusive, loveless home.

"They used to chain us up all the time," she said. "When I was a little child, we were field workers," she said.

Mills said when she was in her late teens, she was kidnapped, raped and got pregnant. She was sent to Michigan to a home for unwed mothers and brought the baby girl back to DeMotte, but the baby was taken from her and adopted.

"At 17, I left home and I never looked back," Mills said.

She deals with health problems now but focuses on the blessings, such as being thankful for the family she has and connecting with family she never knew. Her son Lance Gray said his mother's life is like a horror story. "No one believes it," he said.

Despite being raised in a home with no love or compassion, she turned out to be loving and compassionate, he said. "They don't make 'em like her no more," he said. "Tough as nails."

Mills said she reunited with her birth mother when she was 21, but it wasn't a pleasant experience. Her mother expressed no remorse or regret. And she expressed no love, Mills said. Mills felt one expression of love from John Zoeteman. It came on his deathbed. He asked her for a hug, the only one she ever got from him. Then he told her, "I really did love you."

David

David McDaniel was in his mother's womb when the photo was taken. Now 63, he is organizing a sibling reunion in the fall in Washington state, where he lives and works as a semitrailer driver.

He was born Sept. 26, 1949, as Bedford Chalifoux. Records he released to The Times show he was legally adopted by Harry and Luella McDaniel, who changed his name to David McDaniel.

"They couldn't have children," he said.

The records show the McDaniels had custody of him since July 16, 1950. When he was taken from his birth mother, he was in bad shape. "I had bed bug bites all over my body," he said. "I guess it was a pretty bad environment."

According to the records, his birth mother was on "public relief" [welfare] for several years and her husband abandoned her and their children. His birth father had seen him only once, his whereabouts were unknown and he "does not return to his home because of a criminal record against him in Cook County, Illinois," the records state.

McDaniel grew up in Wheatfield, a couple miles away from his siblings RaeAnn Mills and Milton Chalifoux. From time to time he would ride over on a bike or horse to visit.

"They'd be tied up in the barn," McDaniel said. "They were badly abused."

He would untie them and leave before he was caught, he said.

McDaniel said he was a rebellious teen, despite living a pretty good life. His adoptive parents taught him good morals and values. It was a strict Christian home, and he ran away at 16-1/2, spent 20 years in the military, and has been driving a semitrailer in Washington ever since.

On leave from the Vietnam War in 1969, he reunited with Mills and did so again in 1982. Their birth mother had remarried.

"She got rid of all us children, married someone else, had four more daughters," he said. "She kept them. She didn't keep us."

[ The Times of Northwest Indiana placed phone calls to the youngest four daughters, seeking comment for this story, but they were not returned.]

McDaniel said he saw his birth mother after he became an adult. "As soon as my mom seen me, she said, 'You look just like your father,'" McDaniel said. "She never apologized. Back then, it was survival. Who are we to judge?"

He doesn't harbor bitterness. He said, "We're all human beings. We all make mistakes. She could've been thinking about the children. Didn't want them to die."

Milton

"There's a lot of things in my childhood I can't remember," Milton Chalifoux said. And much of what he does, he'd rather forget.

He joined his sister Mills living on a DeMotte farm with John and Ruth Zoeteman, who changed his name to Kenneth David Zoeteman. The first day on the farm, he was tied up and beaten by his adoptive father, who told Milton that he expected him to serve as a slave on the farm.

"I said I'd go along with that," Milton recalled. "I didn't know what a slave was. I was only a kid."

After that first encounter, Ruth Zoeteman cleaned Milton's wounds and told him, "I love you, and from now on, you're going to be my little boy," he recalled.

But his adoptive father continued the abuse, Milton said. He was beaten, kicked, left alone for days tied up in a barn and fed only some milk and peanut butter. Milton used a corn knife to fight off the rats in the barn.

"I asked why?" Milton said. "He said he had to keep me in line. 'If you're afraid, you'll listen to me.'"

Abuse continued, and Milton went to live with an aunt and uncle, helping with their egg delivery business. Meanwhile, he attended DeMotte High School.

A case worker later placed him in the care of a friend's family. It was then he learned the Zoetemans were considered foster parents, he said.

"I thought I had been adopted," Milton said. "I don't know how they got away with it."

Police were called to another altercation, and Milton threw an officer into a tree. He ended up in front of a judge, who called him a menace to society and told him he could enter a mental hospital or a reformatory. After hearing horror stories about the reformatory, he chose the mental hospital.

He said he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and having fits of rage. In June 1967, he was released.

Milton Chalifoux eventually moved to Chicago and got married. A doctor told him the polluted air was bad for his heart and he needed fresh air.

"My in-laws gave us $500, and we moved to Arizona," he said.

Now 69, Milton Chalifoux still lives in Tucson and no longer is married. He met his birth mother only once as an adult, staying with her for a month in 1970. She threw him out when he got into a fight with her second husband, and the police arrested the husband.

"My birth mother, she never did love me," he said. "She didn't apologize for selling me. She hated me so much that she didn't care."

Lana and Sue Ellen

The siblings don't know much about their sister Lana's upbringing, but they are connecting via social media to her family. They want to learn more about her life.

"I never even got to know my sister Lana because she died in 1998 of cancer," Mills said.

Timothy Charnote said his mother had adoption records, but they were lost in a fire.

Sue Ellen Chalifoux believes she was legitimately adopted by a couple with the last name Johnson.

She was raised not far from her original home, growing up in Chicago's East Side neighborhood, attending St. Francis de Sales High School, Charnote said.

Too sick to talk, Chalifoux scribbled answers on paper during an interview with The Times of Northwest Indiana in May. She was grateful to be reunited with Mills.

"It's fabulous. I love her," she wrote. Moments later, Chalifoux shared her opinion of her birth mother.

"She needs to be in hell burning," she wrote.

-- end of the article. 

So yes, while David said "We’re all human beings. We all make mistakes. She could’ve been thinking about the children. Didn’t want them to die", Sue Ellen said that she hopes her mother was "in hell burning." 

I understand why she feels that way, just as I can understand David trying to be as understanding and forgiving as he was. 

My interest in history has actually led me to many many stories where I just shake my head amazed at what took place. This one is too unbelievable to think real, yet it is. 

During the hardest of times, we have all made hard decisions that we hope will lead to the best outcome. But selling your children for money to pay the rent or to go play bingo? No, that's just not right by anyone's definition of right and wrong.

Friends, it was not something out of the ordinary for people during the Great Depression to farm out their children to friends and relatives who were better off. Times were tough and many made sacrifices so that their children would be cared for. But while that is true, we should all understand that the economic recession in the late 1940s after World War II was not as bad as the Great Depression.

This act did not need to take place. That is even plainer when considering that their mother was collecting welfare for many years. Of course, as with the welfare system today, the money one gets from welfare is not being paid out to fulfill a parent's need for cigarettes or liquor or drugs or bingo. Welfare payments are supposed to help take care of one's children. This just demonstrates that what's taking place today with welfare abuse is really nothing new.

And as for the mere idea of selling one's children for any reason, that is as deplorable an action as one with low moral character can demonstrate. It's no wonder that the mother of those children hid her face. She should have. After all, that is almost the lowest thing that one can do as a parent.

For me, the only thing lower than someone selling their children is when a parent intentionally prostitutes their children or turns them into thugs and thieves to support that parent's drug habit. And this, this happens in America's inner cities today with regularity. A shameful situation that it is.

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

Tom Correa 

Connor Brewer Had The Guts To Stand Alone

Millikin University player Connor Brewer has guts. He has shown the world that he has guts, the cojones, the heart, that what it takes to stand up and say this is not right. He has what America was built on. He is a patriot.

Millikin University student and football team player Connor Brewer decided to stand up and be his own man. Yes, he decided not bow to peer pressure. Yes, he consciously decided to show others that he thinks for himself.

He did this recently when consciously decided not to go along with the disrespectful actions of several members of the Millikin University football team. The rest of the Millikin University football team decided that they would follow San Francisco 49er second string quarterback Colin Kaeperduck and sit or taking a knee during our national anthem, Connor Brewer had the guts to stand alone.

And yes, as you can see from the picture above, Connor Brewer did just that. While the rest of the team waited in the locker-room until after our national anthem was played before coming out, Connor Brewer had the guts to take the field and stand alone he gave respect where respect is due -- to our nation, our flag, and our national anthem.

On September 24th, several Millikin University football players decided to take page from disgraced NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick by taking a knee during the national anthem.

The community responded with outrage. And it was so apparently severe, that the Millikin University football team decided to "forge a new path." Instead of standing along the sidelines and showing a little respect for America, the nation that has provided them with more than any other nation in the history of man, the ingrates on the football team chose to sit in the locker-room and not attend pay respect to America and our national anthem.

Yes, no kidding, the rest of the team decided that they would stay in the locker room while their "fans" listened to "The Star-Spangled Banner" before the game commenced, "rather than create more furor."

And believe it or not, a Millikin University spokesman for the team had the nerve to try to justify the behavior by the team of ingrats. Their statement published in the Herald-Review read, "Rather than have our message be misunderstood or misconstrued, we are united in our decision to stay in the locker room until kickoff, during which time we will engage in a moment of reflection to personally recognize the sacrifice of so many and renew our commitment to living up to those most important words: 'with liberty and justice for all.'"

Their statement went on to say, "Please let there be no doubt that we have the utmost respect for the sacrifice made by those who served or do serve in our armed forces, including many of our family and friends. Therefore, it is our desire to do nothing that could be viewed as disrespectful of their sacrifice."

As one writer reporting on this said, "Well, the team wasn't as united as they said they were."

It's true. One of the Millikin University football team players decided that he would show others, and subsequently the world, that he is not some sort of ingrate. Yes, he stood tall on that field to show proper appreciation and thanks for America. He did what his ungrateful team members couldn't find the cojones to do.

Yes, Connor Brewer defied his teammates, his coaches, the staff, and the school, and decided the right thing is to pay respect for his country.

And because of Political Correctness, there are a number of Americans who are worried about personal repercussions when defying the anti-American sentiment that's sweeping America, it would not surprise me if Connor receives some sort of backlash for his school or his teammates. After all, it is always the case isn't it, that when a gutless group is shown for their complete lack of courage by someone who has courage -- that they turn on that person.

And while, I read someone say that Connor Brewer's actions were inconsequential, I found myself asking if that writer actually believed that or simply hoped that that would be the case. Because friends, I found what he did both important and significant in addressing the fact that it takes courage to stand up for what is right and not bow to peer pressure.

As for Connor Brewer, for his showing that his love of America, he is a true American patriot. And while some might not understand how it can be done these days, while Connor Brewer is a player fiercely loyal to his college football team, he is also fiercely loyal to the United States of America.

When the Millikin University football team decided to protest the national anthem by remaining inside the locker room, and then claiming that their's was a the "patriotic thing to do." Connor knew better and went it alone. 

The Gutless Garfield High School Football Team

The story of Connor Brewer is inspirational because it speaks to the strength of conviction of a young man who has the guts to stand up against Political Correctness, even while knowing that he is going against the wishes of his peers and may have reprisals from those who can make his life miserable. But sadly, there are stories of the sheep among us. Yes, those who get on their knees.

What Connor Brewer did was in complete contrast to what took place a few weeks ago when it was reported on September 16th that the entire Garfield High School football team knelt during the national anthem before their game against West Seattle took place.

They decided to disrespect the America, our flag and our national anthem because a multi-millionaire second string football player on San Francisco 49ers Keaperdick who has decided that he wanted to protest how police treat black thugs. Not because of how the majority of blacks are killed by other blacks. Not becuase of how black thugs are trying to kill cops, even black cops. No, just how police treat black thugs.

Believe it or not, Garfield High School football team in the great state of Washington didn't have a single player with the guts enough to stand on his own and stand during our national anthem. Yes, the entire team demonstrated nothing but gutless behavior!

And along with the entire Seattle Washington Garfield High School football team that decided to take a knee instead of stand in respect of our nation during the national anthem, was their coaches and staff who knelt as well.

I understand the whole Liberal mindset in places like California, Oregon, and Washington state. And yes, I really do understand how the anti-American indoctrination of students is a constant in America's universities across the nation. But frankly, I was taken by the fact that this was going on at a high school and the coaches and staff there appeared to condone it.

Worse though, not one High School player stood up for what's right. I was absolutely surprised that not one, not a single one, none of those "boys" had the courage or the conviction, nor the guts, to defy their coaches and the peer-pressure. Not one of those ingrates had the gumption to stand, be defiant, and stand up for America.

And how about the school's responsibility in this?

Through their action of allowing their football team to protest the police, Garfield High School is in essence supporting the hate group Black Lives Matter. The hate group Black Lives Matter calls for the killing of police officers, and they certainly don't care if blacks kill blacks, or if black thugs kill cops -- black or white.

By extension it obviously doesn't matter to Garfield High School that that's the case. They administration of that school and the coaching staff seem to forget their jobs is that of guiding and educating. They are not there to use children to make political statements. And yes, I blame the sorry conduct of that football team on the school administration and the sorry excuse of a coaching staff.

If the school's administration and its coaches want to be political activists and protest the police, then leave the school and join the other scum out there who also have the same warped sense of right and wrong. As for as the "boys" on the

And yes, I really believe that people like Kaeperdick and his Black Lives Matter supporters think it's OK when a police officer or a deputy is killed by some ignorant black racist with a stolen gun. If not, if I'm wrong, then why haven't they stepped forward to say it's wrong to kill law enforcement officers? They haven't because they see law enforcement as the enemy.

By extension, do the boys on the Garfield High School football team feel the same way? After all, that's what they are saying when they took a knee and supported Kaepordick and Black Lives Matter. Has anyone told them the truth about the groups they are supporting? If not, why hasn't anyone researched Black Lives Matter as I have? Why hasn't some teacher actually taken the time to educate them about the cause that Keaperdick is supporting?

I find it amazing that none of them were taught why we stand and give respect to our nation during good times and bad. None of them understand why we are truly exceptional in the world. And frankly, by their actions, it's evident that no one has ever bothered to explain to them that we're a nation that fixes things and makes them better. Yes that includes race relations, economic disparity, and other social ills.

It's just plain sad that those boys either don't know or don't care that Americans should have pride in our nation. We have spent our entire history as a nation improving things while correcting wrongs. It's just sad that we have done this while helping the world, all while enduring malicious anti-American propaganda that makes sheep do things like this.

Friends, even if no one in that ultra-Liberal part of America hadn't taken the time out to teach those boys about the evils of the hate group Black Lives Matter or how truly screwed up Kaeperduck is, I still can't believe how not one of the boys on the Garfield High School football team didn't have the balls to say "No, I'm not going along with this. I'm not going to disrespect America, our flag or our national anthem!"

I'll always remember Conner Brewer for his guts to stand alone. And yes, I'll always remember the Garland High School football team as a gutless team of weak minded children. A team where not one player had the guts to stand up for America during the national anthem. A team either not smart enough, or not mature enough, to realize that simple minds are easily influenced in the wrong way. They have proven such.

On September 16th, Garland High School football team proved they're all just sheep. Yes, just simple minded sheep following the Political Correctness crowd. Conner Brewer has proven they don't have to be that way.

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

Tom Correa

California's Pot Growing Partnership

Friends, many of you have written to ask questions pertaining to the black market trade and if there are legal products being sold on the black market. Some of you ask if pot would still be sold on the black market after legalization?

I've been asked if I thought legalized pot would be treated differently than how other legal products are, in so far as being taxed and over-regulated by the State? I was asked if I thought legalization would end the criminal element associated with pot the same way it was with liquor after Prohibition ended in the 1930s? And yes, I was also asked if the criminal element stopped with the end of Prohibition in the 1930s?

So let's take first things first, marijauna legalization in California means the State of California will in essence become a partner in the drug trade with pot growers. Some say this could help keep pot off the black market. But will making pot legal really do that?

The black market is the system through which products of all sorts are bought and sold illegally. I read where there is a $10 trillion economy of all the world’s black markets. In fact, the world's black markets would be considered the second-largest in the world, second to the United States, if it were legal.

So what's sold on the black market to enable that sort of commerce? Well, on the black market, you can find all sorts of illegal items for sale. From hand grenades and bombs to rhino horn believed by some fools to be an aphrodisiac, from elephant ivory, human organs, and human trafficking to exotic pets, there are all sorts of illegal items for sale internationally on the black market.

While those things are illegal, there are legal products such as cigarettes, liquor, wine, guns, prescription drugs, bodybuilding supplements, cosmetics, computers and software, all sorts of copyrighted materials, Tide detergent, sperm, crude oil, and even water, that is being sold on the black market. It's true, even water -- especially here in California during the drought that we've been experiencing the last few years.

Why do these shadow markets thrive when it comes to selling legal products? Most experts believe it's because of organized crime, high taxes, and some sort of restriction placed on the items.

In contrast to illegal items like say rhino horn and hand grenades which are more expensive because they are rare, dangerous, and smuggled goods, illegally acquired legal goods can be either cheaper or more expensive than legal market prices. Yes, some legal products on the black market can be either or. This is because they are usually stolen goods, un-taxed, or over-regulated goods that are found elsewhere but not in other places.

California's black market for guns falls into the category of over-regulated goods that are fond across state lines but not here. Subsequently, they are more expensive and there are those who are willing to break the law to buy guns that are legal product in the United States -- just not this part of the United States.

The State of California restricts the personal ownership of firearms, either altogether or by classification by caliber or type. The black market supplies the demands for firearms that can't be obtained legally. Of course, there are those who buy guns illigally, what is basically a black market purchase, because the firearms they want may only be obtained legally after paying fees which they do not want to pay.

Because of unreasonable restrictions on gun sales in California, and the ever present desire of the State of California to put gun dealers out of business, today there is a huge market for homemade guns. And frankly, I don't know if the State of California wants to admit that they are actually responsible for the creation of the black market on guns.

According to the BATF, those guns are assembled in homes and shops, and are sold without serial numbers or other identifying features. Thus, they are known as "ghost guns."

Federal officials say hundreds of AR-15s and silencers have been seized in a series of ongoing undercover operations in 2015. But let's be honest here, even they know that they are only scratching the surface of what's out there.

So why the black market sales of AR-15s when they are still legal to own in some configurations? Well, though it is legal to own an AR-15 with the California "bullet button" magazine release, it is just as easy to purchase and assemble all the parts needed for an AR-15 rifle and get one without the button restriction. Of course it is a felony to sell or trade a weapon without a serial numbers anywhere. But here in California, the state feeds the black market by making it a felony to own an AR-15 without the California "bullet button" magazine release.

According to one report on the black market sales of the AR-15 in California, it stated, "The AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle, already was one of the most popular weapons in the country. Their being restricted from the marketplace has made them even more popular on the black market."

And while the AR-15 in California is an example of a legal product that is being sold for a lot of money on the black market just because this state unlike others is restricting availability, this is not the number one legal product on the black market in California. That distinction goes to cigarettes entering this state.

Cigarettes on the black market in California are cheaper because of over-taxation, and subsequently high prices. Right now, because of the State of California's anti-cigarette policies and people like ultra-Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, cigarette sales on California's black market is on the increase. 

San Francisco's ultra-Liberal Steyer has became the largest individual political contributor in the United States according to Politico. Steyer has successfully placed Proposition 56 on the November 2016 California ballot. It would require an additional $2-per-pack cigarette tax on cigarettes sales in California.

California Proposition 56, Tobacco Tax Increase will be on the November 8th, 2016, ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute. A "yes" vote will increase the cigarette tax by $2-per-pack with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.

Ultra-Liberal Steyer is said to be confident that Prop 56 will pass because he knows most California voters are not smokers. But, there are consequences to over-taxation, and people are fooling themselves if they don't understand the impact of increasing cigarette taxes. 

Fact is, California presently has a .87 cents-per-pack cigarette tax. When the tax is increased to $2.87-per-pack, because of cheaper cigarettes on the black market, the over-taxation of cigarettes will make California the smuggling capital of America. 

So no, since we know legal products are on the black market and have a criminal element attached to them. The criminal element being those dealing in stolen-goods, those transporting, and of course those distributing un-taxed or restricted items. So what makes people think pot legalization is not going to have the same criminal element that's already associated with pot? 

Why are proponents of the legalization of pot always comparing it to Prohibition in the 1930s, and talking about how when Prohibition ended so did the criminal element associated with Prohibition? Especially when it didn't? 

People forget that when Prohibition ended, the criminals element was still present and in fact were still dealing in stolen-goods, as well as transporting and distributing cheap booze on the black market. And yes, many like the Kennedys in Massachusetts went legit and later gained an appearence of respectibilty.

We should remember that the only thing that changed for criminals after Prohibition was that they didn't have to concern themselves with the manufacturing of the booze. But let's face the fact also that the successful bootleggers like the Kennedys in Massachusetts didn't make the booze. 

Back during Prohibition, the people making the big money were the bootleggers who distributed the booze.  And yes, they kept making money after it was legal -- just not as much as they did simply because Uncle Sam wanted his cut through taxation. People should understand, just as it is today, the illegal business of transporting, yes smuggling, alcoholic beverages is usually done because they are trying to circumvent taxation and/or laws. 

If pot supporters really take a long look at the end of Prohibition in the 1930s, a time they cite a great deal, they will find they are wrong. No, the criminal element associated with illegal booze did not go away. In fact, it just went farther under-ground to deal on the black market. Where do people think the 

If pot growers are basing their idea of a new world opening up to them when it becomes legal, they really should think again. Besides, what makes pot growers and their supporters think that the illegal distribution of pot will change once the State of California makes pot more expensive with high taxation and regulations? What makes them think that some pot growers, those who refuse to pay the fees and the taxes, would simply go farther under-ground and deal on the black market as they do today?

And really, what makes pot growers think they will have the same profits after it becomes legal and the State of California starts taking its cut through taxation?

One of the things that I can see taking place is that plant thieves, those who steal the marijuana, they will be able to sell the stolen trees easier and not have the problems that they have selling them right now. And frankly, I believe that a large percentage of plants grown legally will still end up on the black market just the same as so many other legal products do, simply because there are those who refuse to give the State of California their cut through taxation and will find a way around it.  

So please don't kid yourself, while the State of California demonizes cigarettes and guns, they are fine with being a partner in the drug trade as long as they get their share. And please don't kid yourself on that point either, as long as the state gets its share is the point here.

The state of California will allow growers to get away with anything as long as they get their share. Remember, they are already doing this by passing laws that make it OK to have commercial grows in places like Calaveras County. The state is doing so passively by not supporting our Sheriff's Department in any way.

And if illegal pot growers think that they have the government raiding their grows right now, just imagine how things will get when the state government becomes a partner with legal growers? Imagine how it will be when the state government sees the illegal growers as people intruding on their cut in the action? 

To my way of thinking, this might expand the war on pot instead of end it for illegal pot farms. And as for the legal pot farms, many say they want very little regulation. But frankly, they don't know what regulation is until they get in bed with the State of California.

My readers wrote to ask questions pertaining to the black market trade and legal products being sold on the black market. I was asked about legal products taxed and over-regulated by the State of California. I was asked if legalization would end the criminal element which associated with pot and the problems that those criminal bring to our communities? Yes, we are seeing an increase in criminal activity since the County Supervisors opened the doors to commercial pot growing.? 

And I was also asked if the criminal element would stop now as it supposedly stopped for the illegal sales of liquor at the end of Prohibition in the 1930s. If pot becomes legal, of course it will be taxed. Will it still be sold on the black market after it becomes legal? Of course it will, just as many other legal products are today. 

As for revenues to help counties and the question as to whether or not the State of California get the lion's share of the taxes and give the counties very little? Of course it will. that's been the history of Califonria government. And by the way, California forbids counties from imposing levies. So if pot becomes legal, will our Sheriff remain overworked without support from the State the same as what's taking place right now? Yes. 

So really, what will change as far as for the legalization of pot? Legalization is when pot growers will truly find out what over-taxation and over-regulation is all about. The growers may find out, sooner than later, why legal businesses, manufacturers and tech firms, those who abide by all of the rules and try to exist within the law, are actually leaving California faster than they are coming in. 

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

Tom Correa