Jason Aldean's Music Video Is Just Being Honest

I'm always amazed at how some people want to rewrite history, especially very recent history.

Conservative country singer Jason Aldean's music video "Try That in A Small Town" has been yanked from Country Music TV even though it is Number One on the iTunes Billboard Chart. There is a controversy about what he's saying and the video depicts. Frankly, the Left has a problem with its honesty. 

Here are the song's lyrics to see for yourself if there is anything in it that's not true. 

Try That In A Small Town
Song by Jason Aldean

Lyrics

Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk
Carjack an old lady at a red light
Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store
Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like

Cuss out a cop, spit in his face
Stomp on the flag and light it up
Yeah, ya think you're tough

Well, try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town

Got a gun that my granddad gave me
They say one day they're gonna round up
Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck

Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town

Full of good ol' boys, raised up right
If you're looking for a fight
Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town

Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town

Try that in a small town
Ooh-ooh
Try that in a small town

Source: Musixmatch

Here are the Songwriters who wrote it, Kelley Lovelace, Neil Thrasher, Tully Kennedy, and Kurt Michael Allison.

Try That In A Small Town lyrics © Bmg Platinum Songs Us, Bmg Gold Songs, Makena Cove Music, Irishsonmusic, Spirit Vault Songs, Thrash Town Music, Spirit Nashville Two Crescendo, That's Me!! Music Publishing, Songs Of Red Street Country, King Pen To Paper Songs.

If you want to see the video, click here: Try That In A Small Town

So now, since I've been asked, allow me to tell you why I think there's a controversy over this video. 

I truly believe Democrats hate the truth. From the corruption of the 2020 election with ballot harvesting and dishonest mules dumping thousands of ballots into the mail system, to the revelations later of what really took place on January 6th, 2021, during the Capitol riot, Democrats spin things to try to get us to accept what they want us to believe. 

As for the riots in 2020, many of us who live in small towns believe that what took place in large urban areas across the nation in 2020 wouldn't have happened in small towns. The reason is simple. Americans who live in small towns feel a kinship with their neighbors and business owners. We have a greater affection for where we live than city people do. And really, whether the Democrat-controlled Mainstream Media and Leftist politicians want to acknowledge it or not, it's just true. Whether it's the increase in violent crime or what's taking place with the gay/trans agenda being pushed in local schools, small-town Americans work to stop such things. 

The reason for the difference between city people and small-town Americans has to do with how we feel about our towns versus how city people do about their cities. We are more invested in the general welfare of our communities. We have a sense of community. Cities are generally made up of people with apathetic attitudes.  

It's been my experience that city people simply don't care as much about their cities and rely too heavily on their city governments to protect them. In contrast, small-town Americans are a lot more protective of their towns. Most of us own guns and support our law enforcement professionals. Most of us know that limited law enforcement means we have to provide our own security. 

While Jason Aldean's video shows News footage of members of BLM and ANTIFA looting and burning down their own cities, he rightfully points out what most Conservatives thought of things at the time:

Try that in a small town and it wouldn't happen. People will say "No, not here. Not in 'my' town."

Jason Aldean's video accurately depicts what took place in the cities. His opinion, as is the opinion of many Americans including me, is that it wouldn't happen in a small town because Americans in small towns wouldn't allow it. And frankly, he's right. 

Of course, that goes to the issue of the Left wanting to either "forget" what happened or rewrite history to justify what BLM and ANTIFA did to those cities, those homes and businesses, and the people they beat up. The Left says that what took place was a matter of "free speech" and "peaceful protest." Forget what we saw with our own eyes. The Left says we didn't see what we all saw.

We all know better and most of us agree with Jason Aldean. That in itself irks the Left to no end because Americans have simply stopped buying into the lies that the Democrat-controlled Mainstream Media is still selling.

Another part of the controversy pertaining to his video is that the Left says it is explicitly pro-gun, pro-police, and pro-small town. Okay, so it is. Jason Aldean is an American and has the right to his opinion. But what's more important than simply having a right to his own opinion is the fact that Jason Aldean is an American who supports our Constitutional Rights -- including free speech and the right to bear arms.  He is fully aware that small-town Americans are not afraid of protecting themselves. And while he also supports law enforcement, he knows the majority of small-town Americans do the same. This  

These things all anger Liberals because they are anti-gun, anti-police, and anti-rural America. Whether people like it or not, the truth is that Democrats have waged a war on our Constitutional gun rights. Democrats are against Americans defending themselves. 

As for their hatred for Law enforcement, Democrats have shown themselves to be extremely anti-police to the point of supporting those who have attacked police stations and worked to defund the police. In some cities, Democrats have voted to get rid of their police departments altogether -- as well as not charging criminals with crimes. Of course, these acts are no different than cutting off their nose despite their face since it has resulted in huge increases in violent crimes and businesses have to shut their doors in Democrat-run cities. 

Democrats in charge of those large cities allowed their cities to be looted, burned down, and their people to be assaulted. They refused to call in the National Guard. And let's not forget that the Democrats' surrogates in the Mainstream Media covered for them and their failure to stop the chaos by reporting that the cities were experiencing "mostly peaceful protest" as they burned down. That was exactly the way it took place while businesses were aflame in the background of those reporters. 

Democrats allowed the looting and arson to take place because it was their voting base that was doing the looting, committing arson, and putting people in hospitals. So no, it's no wonder that a video depicting what they did  -- and simply saying that small-town Americans would never have put up with that -- angers Democrats and the Mainstream Media. 

Here's a shock for you. People on the Left are calling Jason Aldean's video and song, "Racist." In a time and place when EVERYTHING from the air we breathe to the sky being blue is considered "Racist," a time when EVERYTHING that the Left doesn't like is now called "Racist," where's the surprise that this video would be labeled such. Frankly, that line of crap has gotten old and no one is buying it. The Left has called EVERYTHING "Racist" to the point that no one gives a damn anymore.

And as for those who say this video increases the "cultural divide" in our country? The people on the Left saying such a thing need to look in a mirror to see who is truly responsible for the division that has taken place in our nation today. Democrats have tried to divide our nation by race, pitting Blacks against Whites, including trying to bring back Segregation in schools and more. As for the Left's hatred for Christians, that assault from Democrats is non-stop. 

As for more division? Let's not forget that Democrats are trying to take away the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. That's because Democrats feel that children belong to the government and not their parents. Yes, that's as Communist as you can get. And yes, that too isn't going over very well in small towns.

So for me, I'm glad that Jason Aldean took to Twitter to explain that he was praising small-town communities and didn't find the need to apologize for his video. The Left hates the truth. And Jason Aldean's video is very honest. So no, there's no surprise that Democrats hate it.

Check it out for yourself below.

Tom Correa

Sound of Freedom (2023) -- An Incredible Film

If you have seen the film Sound of Freedom (2023), you know how incredible that film is. And if you become as curious about it as I did, then you will probably appreciate the well-done analysis below from the History vs Hollywood.com / Sound of Freedom website. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY (Q&A):

Did the real Tim Ballard grow frustrated after spending years stopping the end users of child pornography but never rescuing the kids?

Yes. The Sound of Freedom true story reveals that Tim Ballard, who had initially worked for the CIA for a year prior to joining the then-newly-formed Department of Homeland Security, spent several years busting the consumers of child exploitation material without ever being able to rescue the kids being exploited.

"I had spent 12 years as a Special Agent, undercover operator, for the Department of Homeland Security," says Tim Ballard, "working child crimes, child trafficking, and it was kind of an evolution, the first few years it was mostly just end-user, collector, cases of people who are possessing, distributing child exploitation material. And [I was] always wondering, 'Where are the kids?' I see these videos, it breaks my heart, I gotta describe them [in the reports]. There's a scene in the movie that breaks my heart where Jim [Caviezel] is crying as he's having to describe these horrific sex scenes of children, and when I say children, I mean average age, seven, six, five." 

Tim said that the laws changed for the better in 2006. 

"For the first time, U.S. agents could actually go overseas and prosecute Americans for engaging in sex with children overseas, and prosecute them as if they'd committed the crime on U.S. soil. So that opened up my horizons and I started finding the kids." Tim said that despite it being a step forward, it could still be a frustrating process because the law didn't stipulate how much time, flexibility, or creativity he would be given when conducting an overseas mission, and even if he found the kids, he would be told to come home if he couldn't find the American citizen who was connected to their exploitation. - The Daily Signal

After being ordered to abort his mission in Colombia, did Tim Ballard quit his job so that he could stay and rescue the children?

While conducting our Sound of Freedom fact-check, we discovered that the movie's depiction of Tim Ballard quitting his job is largely accurate. Ballard says that everything came to a head for him in 2012 when he was working on two different cases, one in Haiti and one in Colombia (due to it being a two-hour movie, the case in Colombia is the only one focused on in the film). "I was told, 'Come home,' on both of them," says Ballard. 

"They were both major cases, a significant hit against human traffickers would have taken place. ... There I am, thinking, 'They're asking me to come home once again, and I'm not gonna do it. I'm gonna stay, and that means I have to quit my job." - The Daily Signal

Tim Ballard (left) is portrayed by actor Jim Caviezel (right) in the film.

Photos: O.U.R. / Angel Studios

Was Tim Ballard's wife okay with him quitting his job in order to rescue the children and complete his mission in Colombia?

Yes, but in answering the question, "How accurate is Sound of Freedom?" we learned that Tim Ballard's wife's discussion on the phone with him was a little different than in the movie. 

After being once again told by Homeland Security to abandon his missions and return home, Ballard got fed up and made the risky decision to quit his job in order to complete his operations and save the children. As stated earlier, he was working on two operations at the time, one in Haiti and one in Colombia (the movie only focuses on the latter). 

He told The Daily Signal that he called his wife, Katherine Ballard, and part of him hoped that she would tell him to come home, explaining that he was less brave at the time than the movie portrays him to be:

I called my wife, hoping, hoping she'll say, 'Get your butt home, are you kidding me? We got six kids to feed.' And I want her to say [that], because I was being a coward, but I knew it was the right thing, and she didn't, she didn't, she didn't read my script, and she said, 'Of course you're gonna stay,' and I said, 'Are you kidding me?'

In the film, you see [Mira Sorvino's character] say to me on the phone, 'You quit your job and rescue those kids.' What [my wife] really said to me, 'cause they didn't want to make me look like the coward that I was, because I was like, 'I'm coming home. I'm not gonna do this. I'm not gonna be part of this,' and she said to me, very sternly, 'I will not let you jeopardize my salvation by not doing this.' And it breaks my heart because not only is she losing our income, but she possibly, there's a very good chance, maybe 50-50, she's gonna lose me.

When Tim Ballard quit his job as a Special Agent with DHS, he and his wife Katherine Ballard had six children. Currently, at the time of the movie's release in 2023, Tim and Katherine have nine children, including two children they adopted who Tim helped rescue from traffickers. Tim and Katherine met while they were both attending Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

The real Katherine and Tim Ballard, portrayed by Mira Sorvino and Jim Caviezel in the movie, are pictured in 2021. Photo: Tim Ballard Facebook

Who funded Tim Ballard so that he could quit his job and carry out the rescue operation in Colombia?

While analyzing the Sound of Freedom fact vs. fiction, we learned that it was media personality Glenn Beck who pulled together the funding for Tim Ballard and his team to complete the operations. "Glenn Beck, bless his heart, raised the money for us so that we could even do the operations," says Ballard. "I had no money to do it" (The Daily Signal). 

During an interview with Angel Studios CEO Neal Harmon, Ballard said that Glenn Beck started to help him raise money as he was in the process of leaving his job as a Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security. He said that Beck was even in the original script for the film, but the scene was cut in order to fit everything in. - The Daily Signal

Photo: Tim Ballard Facebook

Are the villains in Sound of Freedom based on real people?

While discussing Sound of Freedom's historical accuracy, Tim Ballard said, "Every bad guy is real. In fact, the movie was cut because it got too long. They had cards at the end, telling you every bad guy's real, every kid is real, and it told you where they are today. They had to cut it. It hurt, but..." - The Victory Channel

Manny Perez's character Fuego, who Tim Ballard (Jim Caviezel) negotiates with in the movie, is a real person who was arrested during Operation Triple Take. Fuego liked to wear a hat similar to that of Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara. -O.U.R.

Is the movie's story of a woman posing as a talent recruiter and convincing a Honduran father to drop his daughter and son off at talent tryouts based in reality?

For the most part, yes. In the Sound of Freedom movie, a lower-middle-class Honduran father is approached by a well-dressed woman posing as a talent recruiter who overhears his daughter singing at the market. 

The woman, who is named Giselle, convinces the father to drop his daughter and son off at singing tryouts to see if his daughter can qualify for a young celebrity program. The father arrives with his two children at what appears to be an apartment filled with other children trying out for the program. The woman tells the father to come back at 7 p.m. However, when he returns, he discovers a dark, empty room with no sign of his children.

In the real story, there was a former beauty queen who helped lure in the children. Her name was Kelly Johana Suarez and she had been known as "Miss Cartagena." She was one of the five traffickers arrested on the island. Tim Ballard said that, similar to the film, they would lure in the children by pretending to have a modeling agency. - CBS News

Actress Yessica Borroto Perryman portrays the villain Katy-Gisselle in the movie.

According to Tim Ballard, how much of Sound of Freedom is based on the true story?

"So, they play with some times, they bring a couple of things together that didn't happen that fast, of course," says the real Tim Ballard. "Some things are definitely overreported. [Jim Caviezel] makes me look way cooler than I am. I promise. But some things are underreported, like we didn't rescue 54 kids on that island operation. We rescued over 120, and there's a documentary coming out called Triple Take, which tells everything that happened on that island." - The Victory Channel

Is Bill Camp's character, Vampiro, based on a real person who helped Tim Ballard?

Yes. In real life, Vampiro was also known as "Batman." The details of his backstory in the movie are mostly accurate. However, unlike what is stated in the film, he has never been to prison. 

The movie also states that he joined the fight against child trafficking after he slept with a prostitute and then realized it was a 14-year-old girl, which nearly drove him to suicide. 

In real life, Vampiro slept with an adult trafficking victim. He discovered that her young daughter was being exploited when she wasn't around, which is what motivated him to join the battle against child trafficking. Vampiro did help with Operation Triple Take, but he did not participate in the island operation that is depicted in the movie. He was leading another leg of that operation in Medellín, Colombia that was unfolding on the same day. - O.U.R.

How many women and children did Tim Ballard rescue during the operation depicted in the movie?

The real Tim Ballard says that his team rescued 123 trafficking victims in Operation Triple Take in Colombia. 55 of them were minors. 

"The film only gets into a piece of it," says Ballard. "There's 54 rescued on that island [depicted in the movie], but the op was bigger than that. The movie didn't have time to get into it." He says that there's so much more attached to the whole story. - The Daily Signal

In real life, the operation unfolded in three cities in Colombia over a one-hour time period in October 2014. When 25 Colombian special operatives raided the party on the island depicted in the movie, they arrested five suspects, four men and one former beauty queen. Of the 54 victims rescued on the island, 29 of them were under 18. The movie fictionalizes this a little by depicting all of the survivors rescued on the island as minors. - CBS News

Colombian law enforcement officers are pictured during Operation Triple Take in 2014 storming onto the beach of the real-life island just outside of Cartagena, Colombia that is depicted in the movie. Photo: O.U.R.

Does Sound of Freedom show the exploitation of children?

No. "I demanded they didn't," says the real Tim Ballard, who insisted that such terrible crimes not be shown in the movie. The horror is instead conveyed in part through actor Jim Caviezel's eyes and expressions as his character reacts to the exploitation. - The Daily Signal

Has Tim Ballard ever killed anyone?

No. Near the conclusion of the movie, Jim Caviezel's character kills a man in order to rescue a child. This never happened in real life. 

In addressing this scene, Operation Underground Railroad's website clarifies, "Tim Ballard has never killed anyone, contrary to what is depicted in the film." The organization emphasizes that they do not act as a vigilante group. Instead, they work with governments and local authorities, contributing intel, funds, equipment and undercover operatives.

Did Tim Ballard go into the jungle by himself to rescue a little girl?

No. After Operation Triple Take concludes in the Sound of Freedom movie, Tim (Jim Caviezel) poses as a doctor and goes into a Colombian jungle by himself to try and rescue the little boy's sister, who is still missing. 

While the real-life little boy did have a sister, Tim's jungle search in the movie was instead very loosely inspired by his organization's real-life search for a little boy named Gardy, who had been kidnapped from the grounds of his father's church. 

At one point, several years after Operation Triple Take, Tim led a team of O.U.R. operators, pretending to be doctors, into a jungle on the border of the Dominican Republic and Haiti to look for Gardy. They were unable to find him, but they did give medical care to a number of ailing children. To this day, Tim wears a bracelet with the boy's name on it to symbolize the ongoing search for Gardy.

How many children are trafficked each year?

While researching the Sound of Freedom true story, we learned that according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, approximately 350,000 children are reported missing every year in the United States. Of that total, an estimated 100,000 are being trafficked. The 2021 Federal Human Trafficking Report stated that 57% of U.S. human trafficking victims were minors.

As stated at the end of the movie, human trafficking is a 150 billion-dollar-a-year criminal enterprise. It has eclipsed the illegal arms trade and is roughly a third of the size of the drug trade. American citizens are often the ones traveling to other countries to exploit children.

The child trafficking statistics graphic below is free to share (no attribution necessary).

This graphic is free to share. No attribution is necessary.

Is America's current border situation making it easier for children to be trafficked and exploited?

Yes. "This film, the story kicks off at the port of entry at the southern border. That's a true story," says Tim Ballard. "They filmed that exactly where that happened with that little boy and the necklace, that's a real story, the necklace with Timothy on it. That's timely. Look what's happening right now on our southern border." Ballard says that he spent 10 years working at the border as a Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security. - The Victory Channel

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Ballard explained how the current lack of security at the border is exacerbating the problem of child trafficking:

The economy of pedophilia. The United States is the number one consumer of child exploitation material. We are the demand. So, that means that traffickers want to get children into that dark market. There's a lot of money to be made here. The United States, also according to the State Department, is in the top three countries for destination countries for human trafficking. So, there's every incentive to get children into America, into the black markets here of pedophilia.

And so, when I find out that in the last couple of years that at least 85,000 — I think it's much higher than that — that at least 85,000 unaccompanied minors [have shown up at the border], thousands of them, I've seen the CBP reports, are under five years old. Why is a three-year-old showing up at the border? 

Well, I can tell you why, because they show up with a name, the name of the sponsor that they're given by the trafficker. HHS gets the kids and they by law have to call the number.

*pretends to pick up phone*

'Hi, we have Jose Gonzalez, Mr. George Smith.'

'Yeah, yeah, that's my kid, whatever.'

They used to actually fly down and have to pick the kid up. Not anymore. Our taxpayer dollars will [now] send the kid by plane or bus to this 'sponsor', no background check, no DNA, nothing. And they deliver the kids. Our taxpayer dollars are literally, for the first time in American history, our taxpayer dollars are going to facilitate the last leg of a child trafficking event.

Ballard says that the only compassionate border policy is border enforcement, including barriers and walls, because, as emphasized in Sound of Freedom, "the walls and the barriers lead the children who are being hurt into that funnel of rescue. Trained women and men in uniform are there. Those kids want to go through the port of entry. Those kids pray for a wall. The wall will save their lives! But let's take it all down. Let's open it all up. Kids are being abused by the thousands and our taxpayer dollars are actually funding it."

Who did Tim Ballard want to play him in Sound of Freedom?

During our Sound of Freedom fact-check, we learned that it was Tim Ballard who requested that Jim Caviezel portray him in the film, despite Caviezel being much taller and with dark hair. Their physical differences aside, Ballard wanted Caviezel for more personal reasons. 

"I don't trust Hollywood," said Ballard, "but I know one thing about Jim Caviezel. One, he's a great actor. My favorite movie of all time was The Count of Monte Cristo. And I know he loves Jesus, and that is important to me, someone who loves the Lord. I can at least trust in that." - Angel Studios

Photo: Tim Ballard Facebook

Did movie studios shy away from wanting to release Sound of Freedom?

Yes. It was a long journey and a struggle for the filmmakers to get the movie made and released. Actor Jim Caviezel spoke about the challenges during several different interviews for the film:

We struggled making it. We struggled gettin' the money together. We lost our money. We lost our studios that were supporting us, and yet we were just getting by, a little bit at a time. Faith bonded us together. Once we got it done, Eduardo Verástegui (Bella) had to bear the burden and try to get this film [released], and studio after studio, it's like nobody would want it. ... We had the same issue with The Passion of the Christ, and that thing ended up becoming a juggernaut. -The Daily Signal

When it went to the studios, you clearly see people getting up and crying and weeping, and moved to tears, and laughed and highly entertained, and then when it was all said and done, it was, 'Sorry, this isn't for us.' - Q&A with Jim Caviezel and Neal Harmon

20th Century Fox produced Sound of Freedom and Disney owned it after they purchased 20th Century Fox. However, Disney decided to shelve the film. After pulling together funds and negotiating, Angel Studios, the company behind the hit series The Chosen starring Jonathan Roumie, picked up the movie.

How did actor Jim Caviezel prepare for the role of Tim Ballard?

While dissecting the Sound of Freedom fact vs. fiction, we discovered that in order to prepare for the role, Caviezel said that he spent time training with Ballard, specifically in close-quarter combat. 

He was even able to accompany Ballard on missions. "I go and literally sit in on these missions," says Caviezel, "and I'm watching him and his analysis of what he sees. And it has to be done very methodically. And I'm trying to find out who he is and what I am and how we're similar." - National Catholic Register

The real Tim Ballard and actor Jim Caviezel 

are pictured during an interview for Sound of Freedom.

Did Jim Caviezel lose his agents over the movie?

Yes. In an interview with Angel Studios CEO Neal Harmon, Caviezel said that, as with The Passion of the Christ, he and the filmmakers have endured blowback for making Sound of Freedom:

"I want this to be so huge that they're forced to look at this. I lost my agents over this. Yep, 17 years, 15 years. I lost my lawyer over this, and now I understand why all these actors didn't want to do the movie because of this. Listen, you do Schindler's List fifty years later, you're a hero. Try doing Schindler's List when the real Nazis are right there. Understand how that becomes more dangerous? I don't understand why people are willing to let children be hurt, but in this time, Hollywood says, 'No, no, let's kick that down fifty years from now and then [see where we're at]. That's crap."

Did Tim Ballard start an organization to fight human trafficking?

Yes. The Sound of Freedom true story confirms that in 2013, former Department of Homeland Security Special Agent Tim Ballard founded Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.), a nonprofit organization that rescues children from sex trafficking and sexual exploitation. 

His team includes many former government operatives who gave up their careers to focus on rescuing children, in part because the U.S. government has not made fighting child trafficking a priority.

According to the O.U.R. website, the team can work in any jurisdiction and alongside law enforcement to rescue children directly. 

They have reportedly been involved in more than 4,000 operations and 6,500 arrests since their inception (FOX News). Ballard says that they've extracted over 6,000 women and children, who they've helped get into recovery (Lewis Howes).

Tim Ballard says that he would never have been able to quit his job with the government and start O.U.R. without the support of his wife, Katherine Ballard, with whom he shared six children at the time (they currently have nine). 

As Tim was tempted to make the easy decision and remain at his cushy DHS job and not give up his pension, Katherine encouraged him and offered him spiritual guidance, telling him that even if they lost their house, rescuing the children was more important and would be the path that would not jeopardize their salvation.

Photos: Tim Ballard Facebook / Angel Studios

Tim says that he would not have been able to start O.U.R. if it wasn't for the unwavering support of his wife Katherine. Actors Jim Caviezel and Mira Sorvino portray the couple in the movie. 

Unlike The Other President's, Trump's Ancestors Were Not Slave Owners

Reuters published a report on June 27, 2023, that still has a lot of Americans talking. Of course, this became one of those Mainstream Media stories on slavery that ended up backfiring on Democrats who have a vested interest in making former President Donald Trump look bad. In this case, Democrats who have attacked Trump as a "Racist" for many years now didn't like the research results. 

According to the story in the news, "In researching the genealogies of America's political elite, a Reuters examination found that a fifth of the nation's Congressmen, living Presidents, Supreme Court Justices and Governors are direct descendants of ancestors who enslaved Black people."

To go even further, researchers had proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that every living American President descended from slaveowners -- except Donald Trump. In fact, the new investigation found that former President Donald Trump, who the Democrat-controlled press attacks as being "Racist," is the only living U.S. President to not have slave-owning ancestors.

So imagine their shock to find out that Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and America's "First Black President," Barack Obama, are all descended from slave owners. And believe it or not, at least 100 of the 536 members of Congress and more than 25 percent of the Senate, both Black and White lawmakers alike, descended from slave owners. 

Why did President Trump's family not own slaves like all of the other President's families? Donald Trump's ancestors never owned slaves because they immigrated to the United States in 1885 after slavery was abolished.

Joe Biden's great-great-great-grandfather owned two slaves, while another of Biden's great-great-great-grandfather actually enslaved a 14-year-old boy. That fact is according to a 2021 genealogical analysis published by Politico.

The report did point out how inconvenient such an investigation such as this can be. In fact, while Reuters tried to focus that report on Republican lawmakers with ties to slavery in their family trees, Reuters was conspicuously silent in pointing out that Vice President Kamala Harris has a slave-owning lineage. What's sort of funny is how Reuters tried to play down tn fact Vice President Kamala Harris' ancestors owned slaves by saying that they were slave owners in Jamaica and not the United States. As if that makes it better.

Let's be clear on this, this is a major problem today. In this case, the people in the Mainstream Media, the Democrats who run Reuters, were probably hoping and praying to uncover some deep dark secret about slave owners in President Trump's family tree. And yes, it's probably putting it mildly to say that Reuters was seriously disappointed when their hunt for race-baiting trash on Trump's ancestors backfired and actually confirmed that Biden, Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all descendants of slave owners. 

Of course, if you listen to the con-artist Democrats, those hustlers and grifters on the Left who see big dollars coming their way because of their demands for Reparations, you'd get the idea that every American owned slaves at one time or another. And there's the problem. There's a great deal of misinformation out there about slavery and who owned slaves. 

Tom Correa

What Is Juneteenth? And Why That Day?

As most everyone knows, Juneteenth Day is a National Holiday in the United States. It is a day that is celebrated today on June 19. It is supposed to be a day to commemorate the emancipation of slaves in the United States. From what I gather, even though I'd never heard of it until it was made into a National Holiday, supposedly it's been a day that many Black Americans have called "Black Independence Day," "Emancipation Day," "Jubilee Day," "Juneteenth Independence Day," and even "Juneteenth National Independence Day." Yes, in reality, it was a day celebrated in Texas and not very many other places to my knowledge. 

Why Texas you ask? Well, on September 22nd, 1862, with the Civil War raging, Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863. It declared slaves living in the Confederate states to be free. 

President Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation which was an edict to free the slaves of the Southern states of the Confederacy which also included Texas. As most know, President Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation, that Executive Order, did not free slaves in border states of Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia. In fact, as many will point out, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the states that remained in the Union during the Civil War -- only in the Confederate states.

To be historically correct, while the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves of the Southern states of the Confederacy, the rest of those enslaved and those in "forced labor" were not freed until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution on April 8th, 1864. Democrats who were fighting for the Confederacy and tried to keep chattel slavery intact were out voted by Republicans who fought to free slaves.

So again, why Texas you ask? That has to do with how the news of the Emancipation Proclamation spread and where it spread to. 

So how did the word spread that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and that slaves in Confederate states were freed? Well, it is said that news of President Lincoln's proclamation relied mostly on the advance of Union troops during the Civil War. 

Because Texas was the most remote Confederate state at the time, the folks there were among the last to get the news about the proclamation. Supposedly, as the legend goes, it took more than two years for news of the Emancipation Proclamation to reach the state of Texas. And frankly, that didn't happen until Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, on June 19th, 1865. That was the day that the people in state of Texas were informed that slavery had been abolished in Confederate states. It happened to be the same day the folks in Texas were told that the war had ended. 

On April 2nd, 1865, Richmond, Virginia, which was the Confederate capital had fallen to Union troops. Officials in the Confederate government, including President Jefferson Davis, fled as fast as they could while evading arrest and the possibility of being shot. After Richmond had fell, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered the Confederate Army at Appomattox on April 9th. So, when on June 19th, 1865, Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, to proclaim the war had ended, he also advised those there that slavery had ended in the Confederate states. 

Legend says that the free slaves in Galveston, Texas, immediately began to celebrate with song and dance. Since that was one of the last places to get the news of the proclamation, June 19th is now celebrated as a Fedearl Holiday. It's official name is Juneteenth National Independence Day.

While Juneteenth is now seen as the "National Independence Day" for some, I will always refer to July 4th as America's National Independence Day. 

After all, the 4th of July is the day that we Americans commemorate the Declaration of Independence, which was ratified by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. It is that day when Americans put everything on the line to establish our great nation, the United States of America. And yes, it is a day when we remember how thousands of Americans died to establish our freedoms. 

Now, before someone writes to tell me that there is nothing wrong with Black Americans having their own separate Independence Day from the rest of America, the only question that I have is why descendants of slaves, whether they are African slaves or Irish slaves or Chinese slaves, celebrate the start of their freedom on the day the proclamation was read instead of on the day it was issued. 

I cannot understood why June 19th is celebrated as "Black Independence Day," "Emancipation Day," "Jubilee Day," "Juneteenth Independence Day," and even "Juneteenth National Independence Day" by Black Americans -- when in reality, September 22nd was the day when President Lincoln freed the slaves in Confederate states? Of course, the answer to that question is something that I will never understand.

Tom Correa

Decision of Judge Wells Spicer after the Preliminary Hearing in the Earp-Holliday Case

November 30, 1881

Judge Wells Spicer

Territory of Arizona
VS.
Morgan Earp, et al Defendants

Defendants Wyatt Earp and John Holliday, two of the defendants named in the above entitled action were arrested upon a warrant issued by me on the 29th day of October, on a charge of murder. The complaint filed, upon which this warrant was issued, accuses said defendants of the murder of William Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Thomas McLaury on the 26th day of last month, at Tombstone, in this County.

This case has now been on hearing for the past thirty days, during which time a volume of testimony has been taken and eminent legal talent employed on both sides.

The great importance of the case, as well as the great interest taken in it by the entire community, demand that I should be full and explicit in my findings and conclusions and should give ample reasons for what I do.

From the mass of evidence before-much of which is upon collateral matter-I have found it necessary for the purposes of this decision to consider only those facts which are conceded by both sides or are established by a large preponderance of testimony.

Viewing it in this manner, I find that on the morning of the 26th day of October, 1881, and up to noon of that day, Joseph I. Clanton or Isaac Clanton, the prosecuting witness in this case, was about the streets and in several saloons of Tombstone, armed with revolver and Winchester rifle, declaring publicly that the Earp brothers and Holliday had insulted him the night before when he was unarmed, and now he was armed and intended to shoot them or fight them on sight. These threats were communicated to defendants, Virgil Earp and Wyatt Earp.

Virgil Earp was at this time the chief of police of Tombstone and charged as such officer by the city ordinance with the duty of preserving the peace, and arresting, with or without warrant, all persons engaged in any disorderly act, whereby a breach of the peace might be occasioned, and to arrest and disarm all persons violating the city ordinance which declares it to be unlawful to carry on the person any deadly weapon within the city limits, without obtaining a permit in writing.

Shortly after noon of October 26th, defendant Virgil Earp, as chief of police, assisted by Morgan Earp, who was also at the time a special policeman in the pay of the city and wearing a badge, arrested and disarmed said Isaac Clanton, and in such arrest and disarmament, inflicted upon the side of his head a blow from a pistol-whether this blow was necessary is not material here to determine.

Isaac Clanton was then taken to Justice or Recorder Wallace, where he was fined and his arms, consisting of a revolver and Winchester rifle, taken from him and deposited at the Grand Hotel, subject to his orders.

While at Justice Wallace's court and awaiting the coming of Judge Wallace, some hot words passed between Isaac Clanton and Wyatt Earp. Earp accused Clanton of having previously threatened to take his life, and then proposed to make a fight with him anywhere, to which Isaac Clanton assented, and then declared that "Fight was his racket," and that when he was arrested and disarmed, if Earp had been a second later, "there would have been a coroner's inquest in town.”

Immediately subsequent to this, a difficulty occurred in front of Judge Wallace's courtroom, between Wyatt Earp and the deceased Thomas McLaury, in which the latter was struck by the former with a pistol and knocked down.

In view of these controversies between Wyatt Earp and Isaac Clanton and Thomas McLaury, and in further view of this quarrel the night before between Isaac Clanton and J. H. Holliday, I am of the opinion that the defendant, Virgil Earp, as chief of police, subsequently calling upon Wyatt Earp, and J. H. Holliday to assist him in arresting and disarming the Clantons and McLaurys-committed an injudicious and censurable act, and although in this he acted incautiously and without due circumspection, yet when we consider the conditions of affairs incident to a frontier country; the lawlessness and disregard for human life; the existence of a law-defying element in [our] midst; the fear and feeling of insecurity that has existed; the supposed prevalence of bad, desperate and reckless men who have been a terror to the country and kept away capital and enterprise; and consider the many threats that have been made against the Earps, I can attach no criminality to his unwise act. 

In fact, as the result plainly proves, he needed the assistance and support of staunch and true friends, upon whose courage, coolness and fidelity he could depend, in case of an emergency.

Soon after the conclusion of proceedings at Judge Wallace's court, Isaac Clanton and Thomas McLaury were joined by William Clanton and Frank McLaury, who had arrived in town. In the afternoon these parties went to [the] gun shop, where they were seen loading their guns and obtaining cartridges. These proceedings were seen by Wyatt Earp, who reported the same to Virgil Earp, chief of police, said Wyatt Earp at the time being a sworn policeman.

After this, the Clantons and McLaurys went to the Dexter Stables, on Allen Street, and shortly after, crossed the street to the O.K. Corral and passed through to Fremont Street. With what purpose they crossed through to Fremont Street will probably never be known. It is claimed by the prosecution that their purpose was to leave town. It is asserted by the defendants that their purpose was to make an attack upon them or at least to feloniously resist any attempt to arrest or disarm them that might be made by the chief of police and his assistants.

Whatever their purpose may have been, it is clear to my mind that Virgil Earp, the chief of police, honestly believed [and from information of threats that day given him, his belief was reasonable], that their purpose was, if not to attempt the deaths of himself and brothers, at least to resist with force and arms any attempt on his part to perform his duty as a peace officer by arresting and disarming them.

At this time Virgil Earp was informed by one H. F. Sills, an engineer from the A. T. & S. F. R. R., then absent from duty, on a lay-off furlough, and who had arrived in town only the day before and totally unacquainted [with] any person in town, or the state of affairs existing here. Sills had overheard armed parties just then passing through the O.K. Corral say, in effect, that they would make sure to kill Earp, the marshal, and would kill all the Earp.

At the same time, several citizens and a committee of citizens came to Virgil Earp, the chief of police, and insisted that he should perform his duty as such officer and arrest and disarm the cowboys, as they termed the Clan tons and McLaurys.

Was it for Virgil Earp as chief of police to abandon his clear duty as an officer because its performance was likely to be fraught with danger? Or was it not his duty that as such officer he owed to the peaceable and law-abiding citizens of the city, who looked to him to preserve peace and order, and their protection and security, to at once call to his aid sufficient assistance and persons to arrest and disarm these men?

There can be but one answer to these questions, and that answer is such as will divest the subsequent approach of the defendants toward the deceased of all presumption of malice or of illegality.

When, therefore, the defendants, regularly or specially appointed officers, marched down Fremont Street to the scene of the subsequent homicide, they were going where it was their right and duty to go; and they were doing what it was their right and duty to do; and they were armed, as it was their right and duty to be armed, when approaching men they believed to be armed and contemplating resistance.

The legal character of the homicide must therefore be determined by what occurred at the time and not by the precedent facts. To consti­tute the crime of murder there must be proven not only the killing, but also the felonious intent. In this case, the corpus delicti or fact of killing is in fact admitted as well as clearly proven. The felonious intent is as much a fact to be proven as the corpus delicti, and in looking over this mass of testimony for evidence upon this point, I find that it is anything but clear.

Witnesses of credibility testify that each of the deceased or at least two of them yielded to a demand to surrender. Other witnesses of equal credibility testify that William Clanton and Frank McLaury met the demand for surrender by drawing their pistols, and that the discharge of firearms from both sides was almost instantaneous.

There is a dispute as to whether Thomas McLaury was armed at all, except with a Winchester rifle that was on the horse beside him. I will not consider this question, because it is not of controlling importance. 

Certain it is that the Clantons and McLaurys had among them at least two six-shooters in their hands, and two Winchester rifles on their horses. Therefore, if Thomas McLaury was one of a party who were thus armed and were making felonious resistance to an arrest, and in the melee that followed was shot, the fact of his being unarmed, if it be a fact, could not of itself criminate the defendants, if they were not otherwise criminated.

It is beyond doubt that William Clanton and Frank McLaury were armed, and made such quick and effective use of their arms as to seriously wound Morgan Earp and Virgil Earp.

In determining the important question of whether the deceased offered to surrender before resisting, I must give as much weight to the testimony of persons unacquainted with the deceased or the defendants, as to the testimony of persons who were companions and acquaintances, if not partisans of the deceased. And I am of [the] opinion that those who observed the conflict from a short distance and from points of observation that gave them a good view of the scene, to say the least, were quite as likely to be accurate in their observation as those mingled up in or fleeing from the melee.

Witnesses for the prosecution state unequivocally that William Clanton fell or was shot at the first fire and Claiborne says he was shot when the pistol was only about a foot from his belly. Yet it is clear that there were no powder burns or marks on his clothes. And Judge Lucas says he saw him fire or in the act of firing several times before he was shot, and he thinks two shots afterwards.

Addie Bourland, who saw distinctly the approach of the Earps and the beginning of the affray, from a point across the street, where she could correctly observe all their movements, says she cannot tell which fired first-that the firing commenced at once, from both sides, on the approach of the Earps, and that no hands were held up; that she could have seen them if there had been. Sills asserted that the firing was almost simultan­eous. I could not tell which side fired first.

Considering all the testimony together, I am of the opinion that the weight of evidence sustains and corroborates the testimony of Wyatt Earp, that their demand for surrender was met by William Clanton and Frank McLaury drawing or making motions to draw their pistols. Upon this hypothesis my duty is clear. The defendants were officers charged with the duty of arresting and disarming armed and determined men who were expert in the use of firearms, as quick as thought and as certain as death and who had previously declared their intention not to be arrested nor disarmed. Under the statutes [Sec. 32, page 74 of Compo Laws], as well as the common law, they have a right to repel force with force.

In coming to this conclusion, I give great weight to several particular circumstances connected with [the] affray. It is claimed by the prosecution that the deceased were shot while holding up their hands in obedience of the command of the chief of police, and on the other hand the defense claims that William Clanton and Frank McLaury at once drew their pistols and began firing simultaneously with [the] defendants. Wil­liam Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with his left. 

This wound is such as could not have been received with his hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not have been received with his hands on his coat lapels. These circumstances being indubitable [indubitable] facts, throw great doubt upon the correctness of the statement of witnesses to the contrary.

The testimony of Isaac Clanton, that this tragedy was the result of a scheme on the part of the Earps to assassinate him and thereby bury in oblivion the confessions the Earps had made to him about "piping" away the shipment of coin by Wells Fargo & Co. falls short of being a sound theory, [on] account of the great fact, most prominent in this matter, to wit: that Isaac Clanton was not injured at all, and could have been killed first and easiest, if it was the object of the attack to kill him. He would have been the first to fall; but, as it was, he was known or believed to be unarmed, and was suffered and, as Wyatt Earp testified, told to go away, and was not harmed.

I also give great weight in this matter to the testimony of Sheriff Behan, who said that on one occasion a short time ago Isaac Clanton told him that he, Clanton, had been informed that the sheriff was coming to arrest him and that he, Clanton, armed his crowd with guns and was deter­mined not to be arrested by the sheriff-or words to that effect. And Sheriff Behan further testified that a few minutes before the Earps came to them, that he as sheriff had demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and that they "demurred," as he said, and did not do it, and that Frank McLaury refused and gave as a reason that he was not ready to leave town just then and would not give up his arms unless the Earps were disarmed-that is, that the chief of police and his assistants should be disarmed.

In view of the past history of the county and the generally believed existence at this time of desperate, reckless and lawless men in our midst, banded together for mutual support and living by felonious and predatory pursuits, regarding neither life nor property in their career, and at the same time for men to parade the streets armed with repeating rifles and six-shooters and demand that the chief of police and his assistants should be disarmed is a proposition both monstrous and startling! This was said by one of the deceased only a few minutes before the arrival of the Earps.

Another fact that rises up preeminent in the consideration of this said affair is the leading fact that the deceased, from the very first inception of the encounter, were standing their ground and fighting back, giving and taking death with unflinching bravery. It does not appear to have been a wanton slaughter of unresisting and unarmed innocents, who were yielding graceful submission to the officers of the law, or surrendering to, or fleeing from their assailants; but armed and defiant men, accepting their wager of battle and succumbing only in death.

The prosecution claims much upon the point, as they allege, that the Earp party acted with criminal haste that they precipitated the triple homicide by a felonious intent then and there to kill and murder the deceased, and that they made use of their official characters as a pretext. I cannot believe this theory, and cannot resist the firm conviction that the Earps acted wisely, discretely and prudentially, to secure their own self preservation. They saw at once the dire necessity of giving the first shots, to save themselves from certain death! They acted. Their shots were effective, and this alone saved the Earp party from being slain.

In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the threats made, the character and positions of the parties, and the tragic results accomplished in manner and form as they were, with all surrounding influences bearing upon resgestae of the affair, I cannot resist the conclusion that the defendants were fully justified in committing these homicides-that it is a necessary act, done in the discharge of an official duty.

It is the duty of an examining and committing magistrate in this territory to issue a warrant of arrest in the first place, whenever from the depositions given there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed a public offense [Sec. 87, page 111 of Compo Laws].

After hearing evidence, however, the statute changes the rule, and he is then required to commit the defendant only when there is "Sufficient cause to believe" him guilty. [Sec. 143, page 111 of Compo Laws].

My interpretation is that the rule which should govern an examin­ing magistrate is the same as that which should govern the conclusions of a Grand Jury. That such as prescribed by statute [Sec. 188, page 121 of Compo Laws] is: "The Grand Jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them, taken together, is such as in their judgment will, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.”

The evidence taken before me in this case, would not, in my judgment, warrant a conviction of the defendants by trial jury of any offense whatever. I do not believe that any trial jury that could be got together in this territory, would, on all the evidence taken before me, with the rule of law applicable thereto given them by the court, find the defendants guilty of any offense.

It may be that my judgment is erroneous, and my view of the law incorrect, yet it is my own judgment and my own understanding of the law as I find it laid down, and upon this I must act and decide, and not upon those of any other persons. I have given over four weeks of patient attention to the hearing of evidence in this case, and at least four-fifths of my waking hours have been devoted, at this time, to an earnest study of the evidence before me, and such is the conclusion to which I am forced to arrive.

I have the less reluctance in announcing this conclusion because the Grand Jury of this county is now in session, and it is quite within the power of that body, if dissatisfied with my decision, to call witnesses before them or use the depositions taken before me, and which I shall return to the district court, as by law required, and to thereupon disregard my findings, and find an indictment against the defendants, if they think the evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction.

I conclude the performance of this duty imposed upon me by saying in the language of the Statute: "There being no sufficient cause to believe the within named Wyatt S. Earp and John H. Holliday guilty of the offense mentioned within. I order them to be released."

[Signed] Wells Spicer, Magistrate

The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party

The description of the video below states: 

Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? 

Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.

I hope this video has sparked your interest in learning more about the Democratic Party's legacy of racism, segregation, and connection to prolonging slavery in America. If it has and you want more in-depth information than that of what is presented in the great video, I have written several articles about slavery in America. 

I have taken an honest look at the relationship between the Democratic Party and slavery, the desire of the Democrats to ensure the continuation of slavery, that political party's efforts to kill any and all legislation that would have provided Equal Rights to both Women and Blacks for the last 200 years.

Below are some of my articles on slavery and the Democratic Party's legacy pertaining to its connection to slavery, as well as other aspects of slavery in our history. 

Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part One

Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part Two

Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part Three

Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part Four

The Truth About Slavery In The United States

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?

Let's Educate Uneducated Democrats

Reparations Have Already Been Paid

Blacks Too Profited From The Slave Trade

Blacks Still Selling Blacks Into Slavery

America's Story Of Slavery Is Not Black & White

I hope you find this information interesting.

Tom Correa

Extraordinary Before-And-After Photos Show How Full Lake Oroville Is Today (2023)

Story by Katie Dowd, SFGATE
June 19, 2023

California’s second-largest reservoir is unrecognizable when compared to photos taken just a few years ago — a reassuring sight for Californians accustomed to exposed lake beds due to years of drought.

Lake Oroville is a human-made lake created in the 1960s by the construction of the Oroville Dam. When it’s full, it offers more than 160 miles of shoreline, but in recent years, it’s been so bone-dry that boats couldn’t even use some of the launches. Getty Images photojournalist Justin Sullivan visited the lake last week and photographed the remarkable rebound after a rainy winter.

As of June 17, 2023, the California Department of Water Resources has listed Lake Oroville at 100% of its total capacity. That’s 129% of its historical average for the date. In contrast, conditions were dire on Memorial Day 2021 at Lake Oroville. 

At that time, the reservoir was at 37% of capacity. Boat ramps were closed, 120 houseboats were pulled from the marina and there were even worries the power plant would have to shut down. In December 2022, before the winter rains came in force, Lake Oroville was at 27% of capacity.

In an aerial view, the Enterprise Bridge crosses over a section of Lake Oroville that was previously underwater on July 22, 2021, in Oroville, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

In an aerial view, the Enterprise Bridge passes over a completely full Lake Oroville on June 15, 2023, in Oroville, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Low water levels are visible at Lime Saddle Marina at Lake Oroville on July 22, 2021, in Paradise, California.  Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

A parking sign stands in the water at Lake Oroville on June 15, 2023, in Oroville, California. 

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

2021 Lake Oroville. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

2023 Lake Oroville. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Water levels have risen dramatically at Lake Oroville between 2021, and June 2023, as seen in photos by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

California drought officials warn we shouldn’t get too lax about water conservation, though. It takes more than a year to recover from a drought, especially one as severe as what California has seen in recent years.

Ryan Endean, a spokesperson for the California Department of Water Resources, told SFGATE in January, “It’s just really important to remember that we are in a continued drought emergency; we’re kind of dealing with this extreme flood during an extreme drought. And so we’re of course encouraging Californians to continue to conserve water and make conservation a way of life.”

A picnic table sits partially submerged in the waters of Lake Oroville on June 15, 2023, in Oroville, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

THE THINGS WE PASS DOWN

 I received this story from Stetson with a suggestion that my readers would ejoy it. Well, after reading it, I agree. This is from Stetson. And frankly, I don't know who wrote it. But, you may like it this Father's Day.

THE THINGS WE PASS DOWN

Happy Father’s Day from all of us at Stetson. In celebration of all the fathers and father figures out there, we’re honored to share the story of fourth-generation Wyoming rancher Luke Long, who’s looking forward to carrying on the Stetson tradition with his own newborn son, Stetson Long.

My great-grandparents arrived in Jackson Hole in 1912. Homesteading in those days required determination and toughness, qualities my great-grandfather possessed. That same year my grandfather was born. Over the course of his life he became a renowned bronc rider, which landed him as a member of the Wyoming Cowboy Hall of Fame. His legendary status was well-deserved.

My father moved to Wyoming shortly after college, drawn to the state's pioneer spirit and vast open spaces. My fondest memories are assisting my grandpa and dad on the ranch, where knowledge was passed down through hands-on experience; riding horses, caring for the land and cattle.

This year, my wife and I joyfully welcomed our son, Stetson, into the world. We named him after the cherished Stetson cowboy hats worn by generations of our family. The name symbolizes western values such as hard work, integrity, stewardship, and a pioneering spirit. When the time is right, I will proudly pass down my Stetson hat to my son. It’s an item that represents our heritage—four generations that have embraced the spirit of the cowboy.

Luke Long and his family own and operate Diamond Cross Ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.