Invasion By The So-Called Religion Of Peace

By Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Historian

Muslims and even some non-Muslim idiots like to call Islam, "A Religion of Peace." In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. 

We have all heard about the Christian Crusades, and many people seem to want to blame the Crusades on the Christian Europeans who had attacked the Muslim world. 

Once and for all, let's set this straight. Islam started the Crusades, not the Christian Europeans! The Muslims started the Crusades in or around 630 A.D. by conquering Mecca. Later, Muslims invaded Syria, Iraq, Jerusalem, Iran, Africa, Spain, Italy, France, and others.

The Western Crusades didn't begin until somewhere around 1095 to try to stop Islamic aggression, but many Atheist's today try to use the Crusades as a way to point out how Christians were the evil doers who slaughtered thousands of people, 

Why? Because they don't want to see or realize the whole truth of the matter or possibly, even more so, because they are not educated in the truth of the Crusades. The truth being, they were fighting for their existence and right to live without becoming subjects of Islam.

In order to understand Islam a little better let's take a quick look at this so called Religion of peace. Islam has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 270 million people or more: 120 million Africans, 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, and 10 million Buddhists, and forcing the conversion of Islam upon those groups which has been the norm. Islam has been at war against non-Muslims for close to 1400 years now and nothing has changed.

Muslim scholars formulated their understanding of religion and political division of the world early on by setting up two houses. The house of Dar al-Islam, or the house of peace. The other is Dar al-Harb, which is the house of war. The so called house of peace is most likely the reason that Islam is referred to as the religion of peace, but this is not true when you understand what the house of Dar al-Islam is truly about.

In a nutshell, Dar al-Islam, or the house of peace means that peace can only come when the world has submitted to Islam, then and only then will there be the peace Islam refers too. The other house, the house of Dar al-Harb, the house of war, pertains to Islam waging war to meet the ends and means of the house of peace. 

Either way you choose to look at both of these houses, Islam is not a religion of peace, period! Nor will Islam ever be a religion of peace until they have subjugated the world and its people. That's not peace, it's world domination, no different than the ideals of Hitler's Nazi regime.

Make no mistake, we are now seeing the beginnings of World War Three. The description of a World War is as such: "World War is a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populated countries. World Wars span multiple countries on multiple continents with battles fought in multiple theaters."

All one has to do is pay attention to what's going on in our world today. What's going on in Germany, France, Iraq, Syria, the U.K., as well as Russia, China, and others, and yes, even here in the United States of America? What's going on? It is the invasion of Islam, Period!

The Muslims, or radical Muslims if you prefer the term, have known for many years now that they could not take the countries I have mentioned by force so they are now trying to take us by infiltration and the sad part is, our government is doing nothing about it. Why? In my opinion the reason why is because we have Muslims who have now infiltrated our own government. 

Obama, our so-called president, has proven time and time again that he leans toward the Muslims, and why not, he was raised as a Muslim. Again, his grandfather, father, mother and stepfather were all Muslims. This so called president has appointed Muslims into his cabinet and wants to bring in thousands of more Muslim refugees into our country.

As I am writing this article, and long before this article, Muslims have set up their own regions and even a town or two where they have total control of those areas. What has our government done about this? Nothing, that's what! 

The Islamic belief does not fit in any way with our Constitution or our way of life, yet this administration has done nothing to make a stand for our constitution, the law of the land. This so called president should have been impeached a long time ago for not adhering to our constitution. 

His job is to stand by the constitution and make sure our people are protected. His lack of doing so constitutes treason by giving aid to the enemy, which he has done by his inactions against an invading force of people. 

I don't know about you, but that's the way I see it.

So Who Is Funding Muslim Terrorism?

As a young Marine, I learned many axioms of leadership and logistics. Among those was what the famous Napoleon Bonaparte, the first emperor of France, had to say about logistics. Regarded as one of the greatest military leaders in the history of the Western world, he said, "An army marches on its stomach."

Yes, to be effective, an army has to be fed -- and more so, it has to be supplied. Besides, food and water, a fighting force must have supplies and support to keep them fed, clothed, refueled, armed with ammunition, have their medical needs tended to, and much more. This is a fact of life for any fighting force big or small.

Without a supply line, whether it's 4 a man Fireteam or a 400,000 army, an army of any size can only last until they are out of food, water, arms, ammunition, and other equipment that's needed to sustain them. Without supplies, no fighting force can survive.

So knowing this fact of life, back when we all first saw those Muslim terrorists on 9/11, I asked who is funding those animals? Fact is, over the years there has been no satisfactory answer to that question, or to the question: Why can't we shut down their funding and supply lines?

They have to eat, drink water, have gasoline for their vehicles, maintenance of their equipment. Yes, they have a supply line of food, water, fuel, arms, ammo, and other essentials. So why hasn't this been found and cut off? And more importantly, where is that supply line coming from?

Wherever the money is coming from, why haven't we stopped it?

We should be tracing their funding and find out what banks they draw from? Who supplies them? Who finances them? Who are their benefactors? Then we should attack them as we would any military target.

Are their benefactors men such as Billionaires George Soros and Bill Gates and Al Gore? Are their sponsors Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, the Clinton Foundation. and Bernie Sanders who gave financial support to anti-American groups Occupy Wall Street and Code Pink?

I've read reports that point to President Barack Obama and his assistant Valerie Jarrett as being responsible for funneling Billions of American Taxpayer Dollars to support ISIS and the Muslim Invasion of Europe and the United States. Obama and Jarrett have made no secret of their allegiances to Islam.

Though they will not acknowledge that Obama's father and step-father were Muslims, his family in Kenya is Muslim, and that Barack Obama Jr was raised in a Muslim school in Jakarta until the 5th grade, Obama supporters rail against the assertion that Obama is Muslim.

Valerie Jarrett has been very open about her desire to transform the United States into an Islamic Nation as far back as the 1970s.

For most Americans, Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, remains largely an unknown. But many in Washington DC see her as the puppet-master working the strings to control Obama. For those who think she has not positioned herself as the true power in the Oval Office, they are being naive at best. 

Valerie Jarrett is a woman, who like President Barack Hussein Obama, has direct links to the Muslim world, both past and present. And yes, she has sponsored the appointment of almost all of the Muslim Brotherhood appointments in the White House under Obama.

Besides the White House supplying weapons and other supplies to the Syrian rebels which make its way into the hands of ISIS and other Muslim terrorist groups, I've read where the leader of Germany has sold out her people also -- all in favor of the Muslim Invasion of Europe.

Of course there are reports that Muslim terrorist groups such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, and others being funded by the United Nations in exchange for huge pay-offs? Remember, Saddam Hussein was being funded with the Oil For Food U.N. Scandal for the same reason -- a corrupt United Nations that prostitutes itself for the highest bidder.

The United Nations is known to sell anything from seats on committees to doing special favors, from lying as with the United Nations Climate-gate where it falsified Global Warming data for money to supplying dictators with arms.

I've read reports that the nation of Turkey is supplying ISIS and other Muslim terrorist groups with NATO arms in return for oil. That would account for why they are so angry at Russia for attacking ISIS and the Syrian Rebels that way they have.

And yes, I've even read reports that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations are giving Billions of oil dollars to Muslim terrorist groups that accompany the thousands of Mosques that they are being built throughout Europe and the United States.

More and more we are finding out that ISIS and other Muslim terrorist groups are officially being sponsored by Saudi Arabia who is using the thousands of Mosques that it is building throughout Europe and America as weapons depots? The French, the Greeks, Italians, and other Europeans have raided a number of Mosques since the Paris Muslim Terrorist attacks, and have found a huge number of weapons caches at those "religious" sites. Is it happening here, I wouldn't doubt it.

Is it possible that a select few, a Radical Islamic American President and his key adviser who is an Iranian Muslim, crooked politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton, an anti-American psychopath like George Soros and Muslim sympathizers Billionaires Bill Gates and Al Gore, the leader of Germany, oil rich Arabs, and a corrupt United Nations getting pay-offs from Islamic OPEC nations, could be responsible for most the Muslim troubles that we are experiencing today?

I believe it's certainly possible. Look how Obama has drug his feet in the war against ISIS even going so far as to give them 45 minute warnings that they were about to be bombed. Look at George Soros who recently admitted to financing the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, and the Muslim Invasion of Europe. Look at the leader of Germany Ms. Merkel who insists that German must allow Muslim refugees even though she knows that they are rapists, murderers, terrorists, as well as other assorted criminals. 

Look at the United Nations which is attempting to disarm any sort of resistance to any sort of Muslim Invasion. And yes, look at the United Nations' Syrian Refugee Mandate that it has "ordered" its member states to adhere to. And of course, look at Saudi Arabia's refusal to take in refugees while sending huge amounts of arms to Mosques throughout Europe and the United States.  

So yes, as a matter of fact, I do think this handful along with their lap dogs in the Liberal Media are responsible for the troubles that we are in. While these are only a handful of people, most of them hold tremendous power and incredible wealth. So, yes I believe it is possible that these people are at the root of all of our problems. And yes, I really believe that they need to be arrested, stopped, imprisoned, and in the case of the United Nations -- disbanded!

We can stop the United Nation by withdrawing from that corrupt organization. Actually, I believe the United Nations should be disbanded as it has grown into a "World Order" when it was never intended to be such.

As for OPEC and Saudi Arabia, I'd like to see their influence and money dry up -- and the only way to do that is to out produce them. As for Germany's leader Ms Merkel, I'm real surprised that the German people have not thrown her in prison. At the least Germans need to vote her out as soon as possible before she throws all of Germany into Civil War.

The EU, the European Union, needs to rethink its Leftist ideology of mandatory "Open Borders" to stop the Muslim Invasion. Those countries being effected by Muslim terrorists committing domestic crimes such as murder, rape, home invasions, robbery, and assault and battery, should jail and deport their Muslim criminals to some Muslim friendly nation.

I have always believed in boycotting anti-Americans. We can boycott Bill Gates, George Soros, and Al Gore. We can rid ourselves of the Clintons by not putting Hillary Clinton in the presidency. We can get rid of the Obama at the end of this year, then fumigate the White House of any lingering parasites which have stayed around to plague us.

Our nations can relieve itself of a great deal of Muslim problems by forbidding their entrance into the United States using the laws already on the books, US Code 8 Section 1182, to do so. Since Islam forbids Muslims to "assimilate" into non-Muslim cultures, we shouldn't let them into our country since assimilation is the corner stone of our being the melting pot that we are.

Muslims can take their lack of desire to assimilate, and their funding from various sources, and live in the Middle-East. They certainly do not belong anywhere else, especially in multi-cultural societies.

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

Article by Ranch Manager, Dillon Land and Cattle Co., Maupin, Oregon

By Keith Nantz 

January 8th, 2015

I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff. 

The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink.

This week, the Ammon Bundy-led seizure of a federal wildlife refuge thrust Oregon’s ranchers into the spotlight. While I don’t agree with the occupiers’ tactics, I sympathize with their position. Being a rancher was always challenging. And it has become increasingly difficult under the Obama administration.

I grew up in a ranching community in northeast Oregon. Even as a kid, I knew I wanted to be a rancher. After eight years as a firefighter, I’d saved enough to start my own business. I wanted to work on the land, raising delicious, wholesome beef for our growing population.

For almost a decade, I’ve done just that. Most days, I’m up before the sun rises. I spend my mornings tending to my horses, dogs and livestock. In the winter, when it’s bitter cold, I’m outside with my cattle, making sure their water isn’t frozen and that they’re properly fed. In the summer, I often work 15-hour days, cultivating my crops and tending to the animals. In the afternoons, I’m in my office, reaching out to customers and handling the ranch’s business side. Over the course of a given day, I act as a vet, a mechanic, an agronomist and accountant.

I love the work, but it’s grueling. As a rancher, I’m always one bad year away from financial disaster. Every purchase I make — from new cows ($2,000 each) to a new piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars — is a major investment. And my ranch operates on very slim margins, so I have to be savvy to make ends meet.

Money isn’t the only challenge. Raising cattle requires a lot of land, much more than most ranchers can afford to own outright. I lease about a third of the space I use from private owners. But most ranchers aren’t so lucky. The federal government controls a huge amount of land in the west (more than 50 percent in some states, like Oregon), and many ranchers must lease that space to create a sustainable operation.

Utilizing federal land requires ranchers to follow an unfair, complicated and constantly evolving set of rules. For example, a federal government agency might decide that it wants to limit the number of days a rancher can graze their cattle to protect a certain endangered plant or animal species, or they might unilaterally decide that ranchers can’t use as much water as they need because of a fight over water rights. Or they might take over land that once belonged to the state or private individuals, imposing an entirely new set of restrictions.

I saw this play out firsthand when the federal government considered listing the sage grouse, a chicken-like bird, as endangered. That regulation would have shrunk the amount of land where ranchers could graze cattle, putting many out of business and decimating the industry. To avoid this, ranchers like myself and local officials spent months meeting with federal officials looking for compromise. We ultimately found middle ground. But we already have an enormous workload in our daily lives. The pressure of having to drop everything to lobby against a rule (which happens more often than you’d think) is a tremendous burden.

Most of the time, those regulations are written by people with no agriculture experience, and little understanding of what it takes to produce our nation’s food. The agencies that control these lands can add burdensome regulations at any time. Often, they will begin aggressively enforcing them before ranchers have a chance to adjust.

This forces us to either find new grazing land, reduce the size of our herd or sell out completely. In rural communities, this can have a catastrophic effect on the local economy and environment. Ranching is a billion-dollar industry in Oregon.

Overall, agriculture accounts for 15 percent of the state’s economic activity and 12 percent of the state’s employment. The income of a local farm generates double the money for the local economy as a supermarket’s income in the same area, according to the London-based New Economics Foundation.

The siege on our industry has only increased under the Obama administration. Officials are effectively regulating us out of business by enforcing a string of unprecedented environmental restrictions. In Malhuer county (next to Harney county, where the current standoff is taking place), the Obama administration is considering a measure that will turn 2.5 million acres of federal land into a “national monument,” a move that would severely restrict grazing. These restrictions would cause a huge economic downturn for those communities.

These decisions are being made by people who are four to five generations removed from food production. The rule-makers don’t quite understand our industry, and are being spurred on by extreme environmentalist groups asking for unreasonable policy changes.

It’s not that I don’t care what the environmental community wants. In every part of my business, I try to find a balance between economics, mother nature and our culture. I know that if we don’t treat our land properly, we will go out of business by our own hands. It is of utmost importance for us to be true conservationists if we want to continue producing the most nutritious and safest protein in the world.

But all too often, I’m not given the autonomy to do so. I’m given rules, not a conversation about how ranchers and government officials and environmentalists might be able to work together. That’s an approach that fails everyone.

-- end of article, The Washington Post

Keith Nantz is Ranch Manager at Dillon Land and Cattle in Maupin, Oregon.

Professional Politicians and Media Don't Get It

By Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Historian

Politicians within the political establishment as well as many people associated with the media don't seem to grasp or understand why so many voters are standing behind Donald Trump and Ted Cruz rather than the old guard politicians like Jeb Bush and others.

The answer to this is very simple, people are sick and tired of politics as usual. We have had enough of the lip service and empty promises that these professional politicians spew out of their mouths in order to get elected. Then once they do get elected, their empty promises fall into the eternal vacuum of complacency which has become the standard operational procedure in Washington D.C.

Why is it that the old establishment politicians along with the mainstream media are saying everything against Trump and Cruz possible? Simple, the politicians do not want things to change, and why? Because they are completely happy with the power and wealth they have been able to accumulate over the years.

As far as the media goes, they don't want things to change either because most of the media outlets are owned by liberals, which have become socialists, who believe that we the people have to be controlled.

The Socialist media has provided the propaganda necessary in order for the liberal agenda to take hold in our country. Political Correctness, gun control, division of the people by race, ridiculing Christians, standing behind Muslim immigration from countries where radical terrorists can infiltrate, and these are just to name a few.

Then we have the Liberal Socialist agenda which has infiltrated our schools in order to brainwash our children which the media and Liberals, along with RINO Republicans, have done nothing to stop. To do nothing is the same thing as to agree with this agenda in my opinion.

I believe that these are just some of the reasons why the left, as well as the right, along with the media, are afraid of Trump and Cruz, neither one of them belong to the good old boy system which makes all three entities feel very un-easy.

Think about it, all three entities are basically stating that Trump and Cruz are radicals. Well, maybe what we need is someone who is a radical pro American president rather than a radical anti-American president. That's what it may take to put a stop to the socialist agenda of our current so called president. A man who would possibly bring our enemy into our gates and who has promoted the things I have listed above, and Hillary is no better.

Being neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and being a Constitutional Conservative, I have no crystal ball. I do not know if Trump or Cruz would make a great president or not, but I do know that we as a country cannot stay on the same course this ship has been sailing for these past many years. This is a ship with many holes in it that has only been patched and not repaired correctly, and if we don't take care of these repairs permanently, this ship is going to sink with all hands on board, and there will be no life boats available.

The only life boat we as a people have right now is the constitution, the law of the land, and if something isn't done, and done soon, they will figure out how to get around that also. The Socialists/Communists are doing their best every day to get rid of our Constitution, and if you open your eyes you will see that this is true.

We Need Obama Prominently Featured In American History Books

In an article on Breitbart.com, titled "Matthews: Angry White Guys Want To Erase Obama From the History Books" on December 22nd, Pam Key reported:

Monday night on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews warned there are some wanting to “erase” President Barack Obama from the history books.

Matthews said, “My theory Molly [Ball], and I’m not a person of color but I have a particular theory about this charge. I think the really angry guy out there, mostly guy, white guy, thinks if he can erase him from that picture of what we get as kids from the presidents, begins with George Washington through Lincoln and Roosevelt, and there is a president who is black, they want to make sure he is not there. Somehow that book has an asterisk. Pete rose didn’t really get in the hall of fame. Somehow he’s not there they keep picking at it. because they do. All the polls, 43% of Republicans say he’s a Muslim. Where do they get that from?”

The Atlantic’s Molly Ball said, “This is the sense which Donald Trump is pandering to a market need. There’s a number of people — I think the president’s analysis that this is a time of rapid social change, that he is a representative of and there are a lot of people who feel dislocated by that, who feel uncomfortable with that and it’s not only about this president, it’s about a lot of things happening in this country. It’s about these economic woes. Interestingly does not associate himself with. He doesn’t see himself as part of this scenario. He doesn’t think the troubles the country is going through have anything to do with him. He is talking like a sociology professor.”

For me, this is the sort of thing that confirms why MSNBC is failing miserably. It assaults one's sense of right and wrong, of what is truly racist and what is not. While the term racist is batted about these days way too easily, Chris Matthews is truly a racist because he makes excuses for America's first Black President.

Yes, Matthews is a true racist because he makes excuses for Obama lack of ability to lead by attacking those who demand leadership from President Obama.

Why? Because Obama is black. I truly believe MSNBC's talking head Chris Matthews makes excuses for Obama in a way that he would never do if Obama were indeed white -- and certainly not if he were a Republican. And yes, that is the proof of Matthews being the racist.

He and others at MSNBC conduct themselves more as racists than I or any other "white guy" who I know. While I have called President Obama's policies dangerous and spiteful. I remember saying the very same thing about Jimmy Carter's policies some 40 years ago.

I see Obama and Carter as kindred spirits because both have demonstrated a deep seated hatred for America. Yes, both wanted to change America at her foundation. In Obama's case, he wants to change this from the largest Christian nation on earth to a Muslim state through indoctrination and denial of the truth about Islam.

Obama refuses to admit that Islam is a shrinking religion, especially since the Koran's doctrine of hate and murder has been revealed to the world. As what takes place when television and the news shows the world Islamic insanity, the demands of a demented cult, are showing people what Islam is really about -- and more are leaving Islam than joining it.

In Carter's case, he wanted to institute changes that would push our nation closer to Socialism. Like Obama, he too tried stripping our military and using it as place to test social changes like women in combat. Yes, it was tried before and failed.

American Socialists like Carter, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and the like, are living to see a world embracing Capitalism and its power to empower instead of enslave.

Before I move on to the main point of this blog post, I need to ask how can I be a racist if I dislike both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama the same? I wasn't unhappy with Jimmy Carter because he was from Georgia, and I certainly don't give a damn that Obama is black. So since one is white and the other is black, one from Georgia and the other from Chicago, how can I be a racist if its both of their policies that I haven't liked?

But don't try to convince Matthews that one can be unhappy with a president over his policies and be blind to where he is from or what the color of their skin is. Logic such as that evades Chris Matthews who sees all Whites as born Racists.

I assert that Chris Matthews is the real racist here because he cannot let go of the fact that our President is half-Black. And no. that is not a real surprise considering the Democrat Party's legacy of racism in America starting before the Civil War. 

While Matthews is enamored with Obama, he does not give the same respect to Black Conservatives and routinely flings racist slurs at them. But that is something that he will deny, yet it's true. He routinely says we Conservatives are thin skinned, but who likes being called something they are not? Does he? 

Now as for his assertion that the "really angry guy out there, mostly guy, white guy, thinks if he can erase him from that picture of what we get as kids from the presidents, begins with George Washington through Lincoln and Roosevelt, and there is a president who is black, they want to make sure he is not there."

You see, I suppose Matthews is talking about me when he says "the really angry guy out there, mostly guy, white guy, thinks if he can erase him from that picture of what we get as kids". But boy is he wrong! 

Sure, like others, I'm angry that I don't have representation. And no my anger at what's going on these days doesn't stop there.

My anger has to do with the majority being neglected while only minority views are respected. My anger is at those who give traitorous activity a pass. And yes, traitors like Hillary Clinton should be in prison for her breeches of national security.

Yes, my anger has to do with the double standard where the politically favored such as Democrats can break the law and go free -- all while Republicans and Christians are made to pay dearly for things like failing to bake a cake or associating with the Tea Party. My anger has to do with a government with such power that it can target innocent law abiding citizens such as the Conservatives that were targeted in the IRS scandal. 

My anger has to do with those who funneled thousands of guns illegally to Mexico at the cost of thousands of innocent lives, by have not been made to pay for what they've done. My anger is at those who do nothing about stopping the black market sales of illegal guns to criminals, yet they want to disarm Americans with more gun laws that criminals by definition will not observe.

My anger is at those who want to change everything good about America because it doesn't fit in their concept of Liberal Utopia -- no matter how much bad it does to this great nation.

Yes, I'm an angry American. And since there are Black Americans who are as angry as I am, what does skin color have to do with anything when it comes to recognizing tyranny? Any color of American can recognize it, especially these days with over-regulation and a Federal government out of control and in violation of the Constitution. 

Whether people want to admit it or not, it is a fact that our Constitution was designed to restrain our Federal government and stop it from becoming an all-powerful Central Government. Our founders fear Totalitarianism.

They knew that Totalitarianism is centralized control by an autocratic authority. It is the political concept that a citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority. Yes, totalitarianism means slavery! 

In our case, we are a Constitutional Republic. And yes, as such, we are a state where officials are elected as representatives by us. And yes, they must govern according to existing Constitutional Law which limits the government's power over American citizens.

The Constitution was written by men who knew that government needs to be controlled. They understood that an all-powerful government is more of a threat to our personal freedoms, that of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, than all of the foreign armies combined.  

But, am I so angry that I want Obama taken out of American History Books? Am I so disappointed in Obama that I want some sort of "an asterisk" put by his name as Matthews suggested? Not only no, but Hell No!

I Want Barack Hussein Obama In Every American History Book!

Let me be very clear on this. Yes, I 'm an angry American, but I really want ALL of Barack Hussein Obama's actions and lack of actions, his enemies list, his demeaning America, his callous discontent for our legislative process to be in every American History book ever printed from this day forward!

Yes, I want his ineptness and his divisiveness, his cowardice, his treasonous acts, his betrayal of the American people, his exorbitant spending, his Socialist policies, his anti-Capitalism stance, his radical Islamic sympathies, his attempts to become a dictator, yes, I want it all in our history books!   

As a man who studies history, I believe American History needs to be absolutely correct. We need to learn from failures like Obama. We need to learn just how he's made our nation weaker, more divided, fractured, unsafe, and less respected by our enemies and allies both. And don't kid yourself, that is his legacy. It is one that will show a nation down-graded and weakened, demoralized, and degraded on the world stage by Obama himself.

And frankly, history needs to be completely accurate with the biases of people like Chris Matthews taken out of the equation. Can you, any of you who read my blog, just imagine if the history of the Obama years is left to a man like Chris Matthews? Can you imagine the glowing review of what Obama has done to us? 

Can you imagine just how impartial some ultra-Liberal like Matthews would be when chronicling Obama's conduct in office? It's scary to think about what he would leave out and simply not include because it would not be seen as favorable to Obama's legacy.

No, Chris Matthews will never understand it. But frankly, I don't want Obama's conduct to be selectively put in the History Books, I want ALL of what Obama has done while in office in the History Books.

I don't want history re-written by Liberals to spin the truth. I want ALL of what Obama has done to America completely open to the public. I certainly do not want it buried. 

I want the truth of his actions and lack of actions. I want his desire to make excuses for Islamic Terrorism, his race-baiting bigotry, his want to divide our nation, his breaking the law, his by-passing the legislative process, his desire to represent a few while persecuting others, and of course his lies. Yes. I want it ALL in there! 

I want ALL of what Obama has done to America chronicled for future generation to examine and learn from. I want Obama to serve as a lesson of failure and ineptness in office. I want his desire for glory and fame on the world stage to be read over and over again. 

Oh yes, I want the Barack Obama Chapter of American History to serve as a model of what America does not need nor need in a President!

Frankly, because I believe that everything that Obama has done while in office can ultimately serve as a lesson, as a warning, for future generations of Americans as to just how bad it can get when the American people put a president in office who does not love his country. 

Chris Matthews is not only offensive in his racial overtones toward White, Asian, and Hispanic Americans while giving Obama a pass because he's Black. He is wrong and should apologize to us all for his ridicule of the American people.

Fact is American History needs to have the history of Barack Obama's conduct in office featured prominently in our history books. We should not bury what he has done or has attempted to do with his desire to "fundamentally change" America.

No, we need to have him front and center to serve as a warning to all in the future. Obama will be useful so that we can learn what not to allow again -- if we get through this.

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

Tom Correa

Let's Do Onto Others While Keeping Ourselves Armed And Ready

Dear Readers,

This is my first post of 2016. This post answers a question put to me by quite a few of you, "Should I arm myself to protect my family and myself, even if it means breaking the law?"

Before going to my answer, allow me to pass on some advice from our 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, who was a rancher, a cowboy, a statesman, author, explorer, soldier, naturalist, and a true reformer. Yes, one of my heroes.

In a speech in San Francisco, California, on May 13th, 1903, he said: "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." 

Since I have been a around a while, have done a few things, and have, like most of you, learned a few things over the years, I agree 100% with Theodore Roosevelt. Yes, we should live the Golden Rule while taking responsibility for our own safety is needed.

While Matthew 7:12 tells us "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law ...," common sense tells us we need to look after ourselves in all matters including our own security.

Knowing this, to answer your question, let's break it down into two parts. As for the first part of the question, "Should I arm myself to protect my family and myself"? My answer goes along with what Theodore Roosevelt said in that we should treat others with the Golden Rule in mind -- but take ownership of our own security.

My belief is that if you value your family's safety and security, you must take ownership for your family's safety and security -- and arm yourself. 

Because I believe that all of our lives matter, and that we need the ability to protect ourselves, our guns matter. We can arm ourselves legally because of our Right to Bear Arms. But because there are those wanting to take our rights away, take our right and ability to defend ourselves away from us, I believe that our vote matters more than ever.

Because of this, I believe to protect our families and ourselves, we must: 1) Arm ourselves, 2) Travel with others who are armed, 3) Vote for Gun Friendly representatives, 4) Be ready to use deadly force, and 5) Encourage others to do the same.

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia's or the national average.
In fact, across the nation, there has been an 89% drop in burglaries in places with mandatory gun laws. So yes, arm yourself and travel with others who are armed, because there is strength in numbers. Get training and be ready to use deadly force if need be. Register to vote and then vote for representatives who support your right to defend yourself and your family. And also, it is very important to spread the word to encourage others to do the same on all 5 points,

Our government will only improve when it enforces present gun laws, improves border security, and restrains criminals, both foreign and domestic, from roaming free. After all, we don't need new gun laws, or other new laws. We need to have the laws that we already have enforced.

200,000 times a year, that is the approximate number of times women use a gun to defend against sexual abuse.

We have to depend on ourselves to provide us security, and our ability to own guns as instruments to defend ourselves is an important right to ensure that. We have to vote in people who understand and respect our ability to fend for ourselves. Only getting off our backsides and buying guns and voting will make things better.

A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. Yes, more guns equals less crime.

In general, states with strict gun control laws have much higher murder rates than those who don't. And yes, that is the same with nations. In general, nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. 

In fact, the nine European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate 3 times higher than that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate. And yes, for my readers who do not live in the United States, that leads me to answer the same question of "Should I arm myself to protect my family and myself"? 

For my readers who don't live in the United States, my advice is this: 1) Arm yourselves, 2) Travel with others who are armed, 3) Replace your Socialist anti-Gun governments with governments who will allow you to protect your family and yourself with arms, 4) Train and be ready to use deadly force, and 5) Encourage others to do the same.  

Sound familiar? Yes, it is the same advice I give to all. We have the God given right to defend and protect ourselves, and we need to exercise that right as human beings. Don't depend on others to do for you when you need to do it yourself! 

Yes, in other countries it's difficult to own or possess a firearm because governments there have convinced many that "guns are bad" and "people cannot be trusted to provide for their own security." But frankly, that asinine propaganda was designed to keep you under control, as dependent on government protection while being at the mercy of the armed criminal. 

Yes, along with that sort of "we'll take care of you" propaganda, politicians all over the world have used criminal and terrorist attacks, all tragedies in themselves, to get anti-gun bans instituted. All that this has accomplish is to strip away your ability to protect yourselves while outlaws remained armed. 

This is a situation that many governments have created. It is one where government officials live with armed security details, police are armed, criminals are armed, all while citizens remain unarmed and easy prey.

In the decade following the Great Britain's Labor party's election and the banning of handguns in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77% to 1.2 million in 2007. That means that they recorded more than 2 attacks every minute.
And yes, that was after they banned their people from having the ability to defend themselves with firearms. And sadly, here in the United States, we have politicians who want to create the same here. Politicians want to keep their armed security details, allow the police to be armed, but not attend to the real problem of armed criminals -- all while trying to disarm American citizens.

If I were living in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, or the Netherlands, I would find a way to arm myself to protect my family and myself -- even if that meant obtaining guns and ammunition illegally.

I'd do that just the same as I would if I were living in anti-gun cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and New York where criminals and illegals aliens have guns but citizens have a hard time obtaining such protection legally.

Now, as for the second part of the question, "even if it means breaking the law?"

Do I advise breaking the law? No of course not. I've always believed in working within the law. But on the other hand, would I risk going to jail to protect my family? Yes, absolutely, because I love my family and would do whatever I need to do to keep them safe.

Would I rather be tried by a jury of my peers rather than place my family's security in the hands of the police or some other government agency who may be too overworked to attend to my family's moment of need? Yes, because I couldn't live with myself knowing that I didn't do something when the police were not available at the moment.

Would I use deadly force to save members of my family from rape or murder? Yes. I have been trained to do so and will. Would I use deadly force if my life or the life of another is in mortal danger? Yes, no doubt about it. 

Do I want those who would attack my family or me to know that I have the ability to use deadly force, and that I'm willing to use deadly force? Absolutely yes. I firmly believe that bad guys respect force and avoid contact with armed resistance.

Fact is, of the felons in prison who were polled, 3 out of 4 say they won't mess with armed citizens. They knew their victims were unarmed.

Like it or not, human nature like water flows with the path of least resistance. Criminals do not look at someone armed as a target of opportunity because they themselves may get killed. Criminals see un-armed citizens as targets of opportunity. People attack those who cannot fight back. 

We need to vote for Gun Friendly representatives if we value our safety and security. We need to vote for representatives who are for our right to Self Protection if we are to have laws that are favorable to us taking ownership of our own security needs.

We need to acknowledge that states with Right-to-Carry laws have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country: total violent crime by 31 percent, murder, 39 percent; robbery, 55 percent; and aggravated assault, 19 percent. 

We need to understand that more than 80,000 Americans a year used guns in an effort to protect themselves or their property against crime, and that more than 2 million crimes are prevented each year by the presence of privately-owned firearms.

Ownership of our security needs means taking responsibility for our own safety is a big deal. It starts with our having the belief that there are good and bad folks out there, and living in the reality of today, and that we should be prepared to deal with both. 

Yes, let's live the Golden Rule as stated in Matthew 7:12 and do to others what you would have them do to you. Or as Theodore Roosevelt put it, "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."

We should welcome the good, and deter the bad. And frankly, if the bad are not deterred? Than make them wish they were!

Friends, that is the Cowboy way. That is the American way, It is a fact of life because we all matter.

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

Tom Correa

John B. Stetson -- "Father Of The Cowboy Hat"

Since 2015 is the 150th Anniversary of the John B. Stetson Hat Company, we should all take a moment to recognize the creator of the cowboy hat, John Batterson Stetson.

Friends, while James Lock & Company of London is credited with the introduction of the Bowler hat in 1849, and Giuseppe Borsalino is credited with the Fedora in the early 1860s, there is no question that John B. Stetson is deserving of being called "The Father of the Cowboy Hat."

Yes, he is credited with inventing the classic cowboy hat. And because of his hats, I don't think there is a cowboy alive today who hasn't heard of Stetson.

And just to be fair, while there are other brands of hats, no other name brand carries with it such historical identification to America and the Old West as Stetson. Yes, and it's all due to the resilience of one man.

The man who became a legend was born John Batterson Stetson on May 5th, 1830, the 7th of 12 children, in New Jersey. Yes, the man who is responsible for inventing the "cowboy hat" was an Easterner. And shocking as that sounds, it's true.

Hats, and hatters, hat makers, were in the Stetson family as his father, Stephen Stetson, was a "hatter." Subsequently as a youth, young John Stetson learned hat making by working with his dad.

He did so up until his father's death, then John B. Stetson worked for his older brothers. As for that, well it's said that while he bought the raw materials, made hats, taught others the trade, and sold hats, his brothers took the profits. And yes, it was no surprise that after a while of this, John Stetson decided to go into the business for himself.

It was while he was just completing arrangements for opening his own hat business that he was diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB), what was called at the time "consumption" because it slowly consumed the afflicted patient enduring the hardship of the disease. Yes, for Old West fans, I suppose the most famous person to ever be afflicted with TB was the gambler John Henry "Doc" Holliday.

Since Stetson was diagnosed with tuberculosis and a doctor predicted he had only a short time to live, TB was a death sentence at the time, Stetson decided that his only chance for survival was to get away from the industrial East and head for the open spaces and clean air of the West.

During his travels, it is said that he met cattle drovers, bull-whackers, settlers, and of course day wage cowboys, all very hardy men and boys who worked in the heat of the day and snows of winter, weathering all seasons.

And frankly, while it might still baffle some how places Kansas and Missouri in the East can be referred to as the West, soon Stetson found himself in St. Joseph, Missouri, where he got a job making bricks.

It is said that even with fragile health that he was a hard worker. And through his hard work, he soon became manager and then a partner in the brickyard. But as in life, even when everything looks great, disaster can strike.

In his case, one day the Missouri River flooded and everything at the brickyard was lost. Yes, a half-million bricks, ready to be baked, melted into silt under the river’s advance and floated downstream, carrying Stetson’s job with them. After that disaster, Stetson looked around for something new to do. The Civil War was being fought, and he tried to enlist, but his physical disability of TB mean that he was rejected by the Union Army.

At the time, St. Joseph, Missouri, was a trading post where parties were outfitted for the long trek to Pike's Peak to the gold prospects in the Rocky Mountains. One of these parties actually invited Stetson to join them on their journey. And yes, it is said that with high hopes, he accepted the invitation.

OK, so as with most stories of great men and women, there are those moments that occur to enlighten them as to what they should be doing in life. The trek up Pike's Peak was his.

Friends, remember, he has TB and subsequently his lungs are in a horrid condition. But in late spring, 1862, with the weather mild enough for sleeping under the stars, John B. Stetson took the challenge of heading for the gold fields.

Occasionally a storm came up, and when that happened the 12 members of the party rushed to lash animal skins together to serve as tents to shelter them from the weather. Since the skins were not tanned, they ruined under the soaking. Afterwards the ruined skins had to be discarded.

There in the Rocky Mountains, each storm meant new work and lost hides for the gold seekers. The story goes that once as they were bedding down, one of the men remarked, "Too bad there isn't some easier way to make tent cloth."

And yes, supposedly Stetson replied, "There is by felting!"

Felting is a process that dates back centuries before Christ. Although a strand of animal fur appears smooth to the naked eye, it is actually covered with scales. When clean fur is matted together, the fur's scales interlock. If the mat is alternately dipped in hot water and then squeezed, the scales lock even more tightly together. The material that is formed is "felt."

Story has it that rather than trying and explain the concept of felting to his companions, John B. Stetson gave them a demonstration on the spot. He did so by taking his axe and sharpening it to a razor's edge before shaving fur off several hides.

After gathering the fur, with a hickory sapling and a leather thong, he made a bow and began agitating the fur, keeping it in the air until the long hairs and dirt were separated. Once it was ready, he then sprayed water over the fur. In a few minutes he had a mat that could be lifted. Stetson then dipped the mat in boiling water. As it began to shrink, he squeezed out any excess water until he had a soft blanket of felt. Stetson then fashioned the limited supply of fur, not into a tent, but into a big hat -- one that would protect a wearer from rain, sun, cold, wind and even hail.

After reaching Pike's Peak, Stetson discovered that mining was very hard work and that only a few of miners were actually making any money. But even though that was the case, as with other die-hards who don't know the meaning of giving up, he decided to linger and keep trying his luck.

While at the camp, he soon discovered that his felt hat had become the talk of the mining camps. And then, one day out of the clear blue sky, it is said that a rough-looking horseman appeared and wanted to try it on. Stetson handed over the hat and the horseman placed it on his head.

Stetson is said to have watched the giant of a man, sitting in a silver-ornate-saddle on a spirited horse, and noticed that he liked Stetson hat. In fact, legend says that the horseman liked it so much that he gave Stetson a five-dollar gold piece for that hat.

He knew that the common hats of the day, the flea-infested coonskin caps, the sea captain hats, straw hats, and wool derbies, were all left-overs from other occupations. Stetson looked at this and knew that fur-felt would work for a lightweight, all-weather, hat suitable for the West.

In 1865, yes the last year of the Civil War, John B. Stetson returned East to Philadelphia. There with $100, John B. Stetson rented a small room, bought tools he needed, and then set out to make a hat that no one had ever seen before. Yes, it was there that he bought $10 worth of fur and the John B. Stetson Hat Company was born.

Stetson’s first output was simply a copy of the style then in vogue in Philadelphia. He put those out while experimenting with other hat designs. But sadly, there were only limited sales and time was running out for his fledgling hat company.

To survive was one thing, but to prevail he know that if he were to avoid disaster that he would have to make a hat different from those being worn in fashionable East Coast circles. However, dealer resistance to anything new was strong.

Slowly going broke, Stetson asked himself the question that would turn his life around: "Why not sell hats somewhere else?"

And yes, it was then that Stetson decided to not to make copies of fashionable hats for Eastern "dudes" -- but instead make hats for hardy Westerners.

He knew that it had to be durable, waterproof, and have a style all its own. Durability alone meant he did in fact do what he set out to do -- manufacture hats suited to the needs of the Westerner. Not Easterners, not citified folks, but a hat for the rugged individualist, those pioneers and settlers, and yes cowboys out West.

Thinking about out that horseman and how he placed his on his head, Stetson knew that the cattle business was a new enterprise in the 1860s and that cattlemen needed hats that distinguished them as cattlemen. Because he saw that the hats they worn were from every walk of life, he saw the cattleman as an untouched market waiting for a hat that would address their unique trade and would give them their own identity.

As with the greatness of America, knowing that nothing worth achieving comes easy, he kept at it until after a year of trial and error, he finally produced what would be known as a Stetson design unique among other designs. It was a design that would make the term "Stetson" interchangeable with what later became known as the "cowboy hat."

In fact, it is said that one day John B. Stetson went out wearing a hat made from the finest fur he could obtain. He named the hat "Boss of the Plains." The hat achieved instant popularity and was the first real cowboy hat.

Yes, with that first very soft felt hat, the name Stetson was on its way to becoming the mark of quality, durability, innovation and beauty. And yes, with his selection of that name "Boss of the Plains," Stetson showed his understanding of the wearer's desire to make his hat a symbol of authority and style.

While some have this belief that the "Boss of the Plains" only came in black, the original designs was a big natural-colored hat with a four-inch brim and a four-inch crown. It came with a plain strap that was used for the hatband.

The hat included a sweatband, a lining to protect the hat, and, as a memorial to earlier designs, a bow on its sweatband, which had the practical purpose of helping distinguish the front from the back. All features still used today. And yes, a high quality hat in good condition was also viewed in some places as a status symbol.

To answer the question as to the reason why a "cowboy hat" is commonly called "Stetson" is because he had his name John B. Stetson Company embossed in gold in every sweatband.

The "Stetson" soon became the most well known hat in the West. In fact, after the introduction of Stetson's "Boss of the Plains" hat, all the high-crowned, wide-brimmed, soft felt western hats that followed were associated with the cowboy image created by Stetson.

The "Boss of the Plains" hat was designed with a high crown to provide insulation on the top of the head, and a wide stiff brim to provide shelter from both sun and rain for the face, neck and shoulders. The original fur-felt hat was waterproof and shed rain. Overall, the hat was as tough as nails and lightweight.

Because the wide brim would protect those outdoors from the hot sun and winter rain, there were those who saw the "Boss of the Plains" as a modified version of a Mexican sombrero. But all in all, the new hat was designed with durable and style in mind.

So what about using beaver you ask? Well, it is said that Stetson worried about the waterproofing his hats for a year until he finally decided to make his hat of beaver felt.

It took about 42 beaver belly pelts to produce a high quality hat. And yes, as with the legend of a Stetson being used a bucket to fetch water for your horse, because of the tight weave of most Stetson hats -- yes, it really was waterproof enough to be used as a bucket.

In the early advertising, Stetson featured of a cowboy watering his horse with water carried in the crown. The wearer could also use the brim as a cup to direct water to a person's mouth.

Of course there is an old story about a cowboy crossing a long dry stretch of prairie. The story goes that since his canteen sprung a leak, he is said to have saved his drinking water by carrying it in his Stetson.

It quickly caught on with cattlemen as they needed in a hat those very things Stetson recognized when he made the original Stetson hat to cope with the rugged Colorado weather. Stetson soon decided to mass market the “Boss of the Plains,” which later became known simply as the "B.O.P."

Obtaining a list of every hat dealer in the Southwest, he sent each one a sample hat, along with a letter asking for an order. And yes, being a good businessman, Stetson made a Western hat for each hat dealer in the "Boss of the Plains" style he had invented during the trek to Pike's Peak.

This was considered a calculated risk because Stetson knew his new hat would either make or break him. His gamble forced him to go into debt to obtain raw materials, but within weeks orders started pouring in. Business was a boom and some dealers even sent cash with their orders in the hopes of getting preferential treatment and expedited orders.

Before long, a big "Stetson" hat became the most distinguishing feature of a cowboy’s outfit almost as identifiable as the type of saddle he used. And yes, like a good saddle, the new hat was a tool for cowboys. The broad brim shielded a working cowboy from blistering sun and driving rain, but also by waving it above his head -- a cowboy could use it to turn cattle during a roundup or even a stampede.

In case of emergency, he could carry oats in the crown for his horse. Many a cowboy climbed into almost inaccessible places, dipped up water in his hat, and carried it out to his horse. He would do as many would and cup the brim to use it as his own drinking vessel.

The hat started out at $4.50, but soon was $10 to $20 or more, which really was a considerable amount of money at the time -- especially when considering the day wage was usually one dollar in the late 1800s.

But all in all, since a Stetson was practically a lifetime investment because it would last almost forever, it was seen as a great buy.

I've read somewhere that supposed "a Stetson with a bullet hole in it has always been a prized possession with cowboys."

But frankly, after reading that -- I laughed. And yes, the last thing I want is someone putting a hole through one of my hats. I would not be happy at all!

By the late 1800s, the Stetson became the best-known hat West of the Mississippi River. Wealthy ranchers wore them, but so did others including the ranch-hand out painting some barn, cowboys moving cattle, teamsters pulling their wagons into town, surveyors charting new towns, engineers and builders of bridges, the lone prospector looking for gold in some cold river. Yes, just about anyone who worked outside.

Of course that included lawmen, the U.S. Marshals, County Sheriffs and their Deputies, from small town City Marshals to big outfits like the Texas Rangers, they all adopted the Stetson.

Before the invention of the cowboy hat, which really means before John B. Stetson came along, cowboys and men of the plains wore castoffs of previous lives and vocations. So thanks to the time that he had spent with cowboys and settlers out West, Stetson knew firsthand that the hats they wore were extremely impractical. He knew that something else was needed.

The straight-sided, round cornered, flat brimmed original "Boss of the Plains" design dominated for about twenty years. Most 19th-century photographs show that the hat doesn't have an intentional crease at all. Most hats were kept open crown.

But, fact is, through use, abuse, and customization by individual wearers, hats were modified from their original appearance. In particular, the crown would become dented, at first inadvertently, then by deliberate choice of individual owners.

Over time the manufactured styles also began to change. The first popular modification was a long crease sloping from the high back down towards the front, called the "Carlsbad crease" after a style used by wearers in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Another design became known as the "Montana peak," which had four dents, originally derived from being handled on top with four fingers.

The brim was often rolled or curved and ornamentation of sorts were sometimes added. Often, these creases and brim shapes began to reflect where a particular hat owner lived or worked, and in some cases, even cowboys on individual ranches could be identified by the crease in their hat.

Yes, as with the tack that a cowboy used, type of saddle, bit, reins, stirrups, and even spurs one wore, all telling volumes about you and where you're from and who've you worked for. And while it is true that most Stetsons were kept open crown, they could be ordered with creases. 

For example, while the overwhelming majority of hats were first shipped as open crowns and it was the hat shops that created the creases and bend designs in them. the original five creases by Stetson became known as the original five "Stetson" creases:

1) The Montana Crease: Back when people traveled less from place to place, regions of the country developed a hat crease unique to their own local land , much like an accent. The Montana Crease or Montana Slope, known today as "The Gus", was created on a Montana ranch and adopted by other Montana cowboys.

2) The Cattleman Crease: The hat crease most people identify today is the Cattleman. It was originally worn by cattle ranchers and buyers in the 1880s. It meant you ran a ranch and probably had a lot of money. That fact is likely why fine Cattleman hats today are like a status symbol. The Cattleman compliments a wider face and squarer jaw and is the crease that was worn mostly by men. Today that has changed as now cowgirls also like to wear a Cattleman crease. 

3) The Pinch Front Crease: Over the years, women lean toward a Pinch Front Crease as it accentuates the narrower jaw line and can make the face look thinner. However, it's important to note that today, both pinch front creases and Cattleman Creases are worn by both men and women.

4) The Telescope Crease: The Telescope crease came from the "Charros" (Mexican cowboys) who came to Nevada from Mexico and South America for work. The low crown covers your head but stops hot air from accumulating and its wide brim provides even more sun protection. The Telescope Crease is often known today as "The Gambler's" hat.

5) The Tom Mix Crease: Hollywood has helped dictate the popularity of some styles, like "The Gus" which was originally called "the Montana Crease". It was made famous by Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove. Fame can even earn a custom crease style named after you. Such is the case with Tom Mix. Tom Mix was one of the first movie cowboy stars in America and often carried with him a half a dozen or a dozen Stetson Hats which he was known to gave away to important people as he traveled around the world. Imagine that. 

They say the greatness of someone is not only measured in what one creates, but by what one does with his creations. In the case of John B. Stetson, while Stetson profited from his business, he also wanted to give back to his community and did in huge ways. In fact, toward the end of his life, John Stetson began donating a great deal of his money to charitable organizations.

He built grammar and high schools and helped build colleges, including Temple and Stetson Universities. He also helped establish the YMCA in Philadelphia. Stetson donated generously to DeLand University in DeLand, Florida, which was renamed in 1889 to John B. Stetson University. In 1900, Stetson created the first law school in Florida, Stetson University Law School.

John Stetson co-founded Sunday Breakfast Rescue Mission, a homeless shelter and soup kitchen, in 1878. Sunday Breakfast Rescue Mission has since expanded to provide more services and is still in use for the homeless population of Philadelphia.

Under Stetson's direction, The John B. Stetson Company became one of the largest hat firms in the world. Stetson hats won numerous awards, but his company grew, he "faced the challenge of developing a reliable labor force."

Reportedly, at the time it was said that people working in the hat trade at that time tended to drift from employer to employer and absenteeism was rampant.

Stetson, who was "guided by Christian principles," believed that by providing for his employees he would lend stability to their lives and attract higher caliber craftsmen and women.

Unlike most other employers at the time, Stetson decided to offer benefits to entice workers to stay. Stetson also made sure his employees had a clean, safe place to work, while also building a hospital, a park and houses for his 5,000 employees. Stetson's unusual moves helped him build a factory in Philadelphia that grew to 25 buildings on 9 acres.

Some in the Labor Union movement tried to criticize John Stetson's employee policies. Yes, believe it or not, the caring that John Stetson had shown for his employees was demonized by the Labor Unions as "paternalism" which they said was akin to slavery.

Fact is, John Stetson's care for his employees was ages ahead of his day. The safety and cleanliness, the health benefits and the housing allowances, were all years ahead of other employers in the manufacturing industry of the Industrial Age. His feelings of taking providing for his employees came out of Christian kindness and a sense of family.

John Stetson owned a mansion in DeLand, Florida, where he died in 1906. The over 8,000 square ft masterpiece called John B. Stetson House is a mixture of Gothic, Tudor, and Moorish styles.

Stetson is buried in West Laurel Hill Cemetery, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. And yes, when John B. Stetson died in 1906, his company was making two million hats a year. He left an estate worth seven million dollars. By 1915, nine years after Stetson's death, there were 5,400 employees turning out 3.3 million hats.

While he might not know it at the time, his company's hats would one day be synonymous with the term "cowboy hat" most now commonly refer to simply as Stetsons.

John B. Stetson led the hat industry his entire career by designing new hat styles for fashion and function. When it came to quality, it was his creed and for the past 150 years that it has so stamped the product that the name and the word are synonymous.

Today the Stetson hat factory in Garland, Texas, is one of the largest in the country and produces a line of hats in hundreds of different styles and colors. In spite of its size, nothing has been sacrificed as classic styling and premium quality remain as the driving forces behind each and every hat.

As a result, Stetson hats are the most well known hats in the world. Wherever and whenever hats are discussed Stetson will be mentioned. Stetson is the standard in cowboy hats. And yes, the spirit of the West lives in each as an icon of America. Because of its authentic American heritage, Stetson is a big part of American History.

Yes, John Wayne advertised Stetson

The Stetson cowboy hat was the symbol of the highest quality. Western showmen such as Buffalo Bill Cody, Pawnee Bill, and the famous Annie Oakley all wore Stetsons. And as for Hollywood, yes indeed, most all silver-screen cowboys including Hopalong Cassidy, John Wayne, and Robert Duvall have all worn Stetsons.

Stetson has also made hats for law enforcement departments, such as the Texas Rangers. Stetson's Western-style hats have been worn by employees of the National Park Service, U.S. Cavalry soldiers,  our armed forces. and many U.S. Presidents including Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

The "cowboy hat" is truly an example of form following function. Invented by John B. Stetson, today's cowboy hats have remained basically unchanged in construction and design since the first one was created in 1865. In addition to the cowboy hats, Stetson has also made fedoras, derbies, and women's hats, but it is the cowboy hat that Stetson will always be famous for creating.

John B. Stetson experienced trying times in his life, but through it all he relied on the one thing that he did exceptionally well. He was a hat maker. Remember, he was trained by his father, who was a master hatter, and he applied the skills and knowledge he learned from his father to a trade that was really not held in high very regard at the time. It's true, the reason is that back in those days "hatters" had a reputation of being unreliable, lazy, free spirit types who only wanted to make money to have fun.

John B. Stetson changed all that when he built one of America's most well-known and successful businesses. A business which has longevity and history based on innovation and quality. A business that today sells a lot more than just hats.

This article has been compiled from many sources with the hopes of telling you about a man who did not quit, found a way to make his live and others better and did so.  John B. Stetson was an American who typifies the "Can Do" spirit of America . He is someone who should truly be admired as we can all learn a great deal from him.

Let's not forget that he himself was given the death sentence of TB in a time when TB killed millions. He was a hard worker who did not come from money. He strove to produce just the right product, and did just that. He was a creative genius but also smart in business. Because of his Christian ideals, he gave back a great deal to his community and our nation -- all while making the lives of his employees better and safer. Friends, that is someone to be admired.

Yes, I truly admire John B. Stetson.
Tom Correa 

Merry Christmas My Friends!

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your wonderful support of my blog. I cannot thank you enough for making my blog such a success. I am truly grateful for your support.

While it never ceases to amaze me just how many people out there are interested in the same things that I am, as a kindred spirit I feel blessed that you visit to see what's new. It is great to know that I can provide something that you may enjoy reading. And yes, it also feels pretty good knowing that I can be useful in passing on information whether it be history as it really was, or simply current events that might be buried on the back pages of the news.

I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year. I pray that God Blesses you and those you love. May the good Lord keep you safe and well.

As always, your friend,
Tom Correa

California Gold Rush Christmas & The Christmas Nugget

Christmas was a huge celebration that was always looked forward to during the years of the California Gold Rush. And yes, as with other Christmas celebrations all having their own customs taking place in different regions of the nation, Christmas in the California Far West had it's own customs.

Because the California Gold Rush was such an extraordinary event that brought people from all corners of the earth, many who participated in the Gold Rush were young and far from home. Many from foreign lands, many religions, many customs, and all were factors that added to the intense revelry. 

In its earliest days, the Gold Rush was almost exclusively male and the sentiment was usually a mixture of homesickness, horseplay, and revelry. Yes, Christmas celebrations in the mining camps were typical for 19th Century America. 

A Gold Rush Christmas was usually an unassuming, often spontaneous affair that consisted primarily of eating, drinking, companionship and entertainment. Although, in the mid-19th century, gift giving was becoming fashionable, if there were presents in the gold fields they were practical in nature. 

For example, clothing, hats, knitted socks, scarves, and mittens were always prized. In the towns where there were children, little girls received homemade rag dolls and miniature quilts while little boys received tops or other wooden toys. 

Often Christmas represented the only time when some people, both adults and children, received presents. As a result, Christmas held an important place in the hearts, minds, and memories of 19th century Californians.

There are many accounts of Christmas festivities in the gold fields -- most modest, some complicated, but all heartfelt.

Alfred Doten, who is well known to have chronicled the Gold Rush, was also a friend of Mark Twain. He was widely renowned as a leading "reveler," and he described Christmas in Amador County in 1853. In his account, Doten talked about how he threw a "Christmas Spree" which featured "a glorious game supper of fried deer tongue, liver, quails, and hares, washed down with barrels of cognac and accompanied by fiddle, flute, banjo, clarinet and accordion music." 

Andrew Hall Gilmore wrote about his California Christmas Day experience in 1851 in a letter to his brother in Indiana:

Thursday night - 25th

Dear Brother,
"Christmas Gift to You." Oh, I wish that I could be at home today. I think we would have a Christmas party. We would have the old gobbler roasted with a score of fat hens, pound cakes, pies, and lots of other good things. But the best of all would be the pleasure of seeing you all. Probably if we live we may be with you next Christmas.

I will tell you what kind of a day it has been and what we have been doing. It has been the most rainy day I believe that I have ever seen in this country. … As we had no invitations to any Christmas parties: and feeling no inclination to go on a "bust", we thought we might spend the day as profitably by going down to our diggings and working like fine fellows, even if it was Christmas and awful rainy at that. So Aaron and I encased ourselves in our waterproof suits and went to work …. We made $11.25 each, which was a tolerably good rainy day's work …

An elaborate California Christmas during the Gold Rush was described by Louise Amelia Knapp Smith Clappe in 1851. Better known as Dame Shirley, Ms Clappe wrote a series of letters describing her life in the Gold Rush community of Rich Bar on the Feather River. 

These letters are considered one of the best eyewitness accounts of the California Gold Rush. Here, Dame Shirley recalls the "Saturnalia" of Christmas 1851:

The saturnalia commenced on Christmas evening, at the Humboldt [Saloon], which, on that very day, had passed into the hands of new proprietors. The most gorgeous preparations were made for celebrating the two events. The bar was retrimmed with red calico, the bowling-alley had a new lining of the coarsest and whitest cotton cloth, and the broken lamp-shades were replaced by whole ones. All day long, patient mules could be seen descending the hill, bending beneath casks of brandy and baskets of champagne, and, for the first time in the history of that celebrated building, the floor (wonderful to relate, it has a floor) was washed …. At nine o'clock in the evening they had an oyster-and-champagne supper in the Humboldt, which was very gay with toasts, songs, speeches, etc. I believe that the company danced all night. At any rate, they were dancing when I went to sleep, and they were dancing when I woke the next morning. The revel was kept up in this mad way for three days, growing wilder every hour.

The Christmas Nugget

Yes, then there is the California Gold Rush Christmas story of the "Christmas Nugget" which was recounted in William P. Bennett’s 1893 memoir of the California Gold Rush entitled The First Baby in Camp.

On Christmas Day in 1849, Mrs. William George Wilson delivered a healthy 12-pound baby boy at Canyon Creek, near Georgetown up near Hangtown.

Soon the news spread to a neighboring claim. Then before you knew it, the gold field grapevine had spread the news that Bill Wilson had struck it rich with a 12 pound nugget. 

"News of the big find spread like wildfire up and down the canyon where hundreds of men were at work," wrote Bennett, "At once, there was a grand rush to Bill Wilson's cabin. Every miner was anxious to see the 12-pound lump."

Seeing that most took the news literally, the Wilsons thoroughly enjoyed the moment as the men lined up at the cabin door to get a look at the large nugget. 

"Then a few were let in at a time to view the Christmas nugget." Bennett wrote. "Each of the miners loved being had."

For three more days, the joke continued throughout the area. Bennett wrote of miners who came from more than ten miles away to see the giant "Christmas Nugget."

It turned out to be a very Merry Christmas. One that many talked about for months to come. One that few forgot. After all, it was one that spoke to their struggle and their sacrifice, their hard work and their search, the elusive prize and their belief, and of course their grasp of holding on to those things that mean more than gold. 

For as Bennett recalled, "As each squad came out of the cabin, the men solemnly asserted that the Wilson nugget was the finest ever seen."

Yes, it was a very Merry Christmas indeed. 

Merry Christmas!
Tom Correa