RANDOM SHOTS - Load Your Guns, Cox Suckered, Big "E" Retired, Angry Sandy Victims, And More!

City of San Bernardino, California, Warns Public To "Lock your doors and load your guns"

The reason is that they simply can't protect their citizens. Fact is that the San Bernardino is so bankrupt that the city’s attorney is advising residents to “lock your doors and load your guns,” in the face of budgetary cuts that have downsized the police force by 80 officers.

City Attorney Jim Penman made his comments to about 150 residents at a council meeting assembled to address the uptick in crime, including the recent murder of an elderly woman. Since 2011, the California city has seen a 50% increase in murders.

“Let’s be honest, we don’t have enough police officers. We have too many criminals living in this city,” Penman told KCBS-TV. “We have had 45 murders this year. That’s far too high for a city of this size.”

Councilwoman Wendy McCommack, the organizer of the meeting, added, “You could tell the swell of frustration was coming over a lot of folks. They did not feel like they could get an officer out as quickly to some of the quality-of-life issues that they were dealing with as they would have preferred.”

Under fire for the blunt statement, the city attorney of 25 years didn’t back down. “You should say what you mean and mean what you say,” Penman insisted.

“I’m not advocating that people go out, who don’t have any training, and buy firearms. I certainly strongly caution anyone who has children at home not to have a loaded gun in the house,” said Penman.

McCommack defended the overall sentiment Penman expressed by saying, “We need to take our streets back, we need to take our neighborhoods back and we need to protect our homes, and that’s what I think Jim was trying to say.”

There are many other cities in California going through bankruptcy. Citizens have to adjust their lifestyle to the change that the Obama economy has brought us.

As more and more basic city, state and federal services are cut so that needed funds can go to the non-essentials that the government believes is politically necessary, the more and more basic services will not be available for citizens.

But then again, instead of working on solutions, many are too busy pointing fingers and still blaming Bush for the lousy economy.

As the economy gets worse, I see the federal government through the Obama administration doing less and less to help. He has already won his re-election. Now he has no reason to help anyone.

As for states and cities, I believe that states like California and their cities which believe that they can over-tax and regulate their citizens to spend their way out of the mess that they created are in for a lesson in basic economics.

They cannot keep increasing regulation and taxes on businesses and their citizens, then expect citizens jobs to be created or there to be money to spend. The jobs and the money simply won't be there. And like it or not, even die-hard Socialist have to come to terms with the fact that jobs and the ability for citizens to spend money are the factors that enable towns and cities and states and the federal government to afford the programs they want to push.

Many in government seem to believe that the basic foundation of what is supporting our economy can be attacked through over regulation and increased taxes while they just keep adding on non-essential services.

They are learning that every mule can only carry so much and choices have to be made.

COX SUCKERED?

If Montana citizen William Cox wasn't suckered into being the patsy for an Atheist group out of Ohio, then maybe he should reconsider how his decision to help those Atheist will effect his neighbors?

Religious persecution is not tricky or gray in any sense. It is either taking place or it isn't. 

Sure those attempting to impose their own beliefs on others can try to be sneaky and underhanded. Sure they can be vicious or clandestine. But really, no matter if it's one religion trying to eliminate another or in the bigger sense what's happening in America with Atheist attacking Christians at every opportunity, it is easy to recognise.

The only real way to try to avoid seeing religious persecution take place around you, is to make a conscious effort to turn your back to it as it is taking place. 

The latest example of Atheist practicing the religious persecution of Christians in the United States is taking place on a mountain top in Montana. 

A statue of Jesus Christ near the Whitefish Mountain ski resort happens to sit on federal land. Now to everyone else in America, the normal response would be "Big Deal!"

But no one is saying that Atheist are normal, so the Freedom From Religion Foundation and local Atheist skier William Cox have filed a lawsuit to remove the statue that's been there since 1955. 

A lawsuit seeking the removal of a Jesus statue near a Montana ski resort will go on after a national group of atheists and agnostics produced a local member who says he is offended by the religious symbol whenever he swooshes down the slopes.

The Knights of Columbus and four individuals had asked a judge to throw out the legal challenge because the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation had not named anyone actually harmed by the statue on federal land next to Whitefish Mountain Resort.

Without such a person, the Knights of Columbus argued, the foundation had no right to bring the lawsuit.

It sounds as though the Atheist foundation went forth and found fellow atheist William Cox, who lives 15 miles from the northwestern Montana resort.

I think Cox might have been sucked in to the lawsuit by the Godless group, but then again Cox submitted a statement that says he frequently goes to Whitefish and has skied many times past the statue - which he considers religious and offensive.

“The plaintiff Cox is a frequent skier and he has skied past the statue of Jesus at issue in this case many times each winter,” the complaint states.

“Mr. Cox also plans to continue his skiing on Big Mountain in the future, including this winter, when he will again have exposure to the Jesus statue at issue. As a regular skier on Big Mountain, the plaintiff Cox has frequent and unwanted contact and exposure to the Jesus statue when he is skiing on Big Mountain many times each winter. Mr. Cox perceives the statue of Jesus to be a patently religious display which he finds to be offensive on public land. Mr. Cox perceives the Jesus statue to be a conspicuously Roman Catholic monument," reports The Missoulian.

That was good enough for U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to deny the Knights of Columbus' request Tuesday and to proceed with the lawsuit. A trial is scheduled for March.

Charlie Harball, the attorney representing the Knights of Columbus, said he had anticipated the judge's ruling but he believed the motion to dismiss had compelled the atheists to produce a person as they are required.

"If we hadn't filed the motion in the first place, we still might not have an individual named," Harball said. "It's kind of forcing people to do what they're supposed to do."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit in February, arguing the U.S. Forest Service is unconstitutionally sanctioning the 57-year-old statue maintained by the Knights of Columbus.

The statue was originally conceived by World War II veterans who saw similar shrines while fighting in the mountains of Italy and other countries in Europe.

Several out-of-state conservative and religious groups have pledged their support in defending the statue's existence on its 25-by-25 foot patch of land, saying it represents the history and heritage of the region.

The Forest Service initially decided last year not to reauthorize a special-use permit for the statue, but reversed that decision and said its historic nature allowed it to remain.

Attorneys for the Forest Service said in court filings they had no position on the Knights of Columbus' request to dismiss the lawsuit.

"I could just say, 'Hallelujah,'" Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said. "It was very obliging of the judge to let it proceed."

I don't mind advising Atheist Ms Gaylor that "Hallelujah" means praise God. It really doesn't surprise me that an Atheist is ignorant about that, after all they are about so much more than that.

This lawsuit is another great example of the lengths that Atheist groups will go to just to attack any Christian symbol. There is no logic to their hate. And yes, you better believe that their actions are motivated by hate.

Federal land belongs to the people of the United States. It does not belong to any one belief.  It actually belongs to all beliefs - as all beliefs constitute the whole of the American people.

It does not belong solely to those who believe in nothing. Their belief in nothing does not give them special rights to federal or state property.

Public properties, city, state or federal, are not administered by Atheists.  They are governed by all Americans. Public property is not governed by groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation - even if they assume so!

And yes, I believe that all Americans have the right to go to any federal park and sit there and pray to Jesus Christ - or to dance and howl at the moon if they want to - it's their right.

You see, public land belongs to all Americans. And since America is made up of multiple beliefs, all are owners of that land - not just those who believe in nothing like the Atheist at Freedom From Religion Foundation.

It's community property!

I can sit and pray and read my bible at any park in America if I want to because I - along with over 300+ Million Americans - own it.

It's the ultimate room-mate situation and the Atheists ought to find a way to get along with who they are sharing this room with.

If there were three young men in a dorm room in a college. All paying exactly the same for that room. All having the same rights to that room.

One were Christian, one were Muslim, and one a pagan. Would it be proper for the Muslim room-mate to tell the Christian that the bible on his nightstand offends him? Should he have the right to tell another to remove his small not violent not obscene book from the room because he has "frequent and unwanted contact and exposure" to Jesus?

It wouldn't happen. They would figure a way of getting along. They do, same as they do in the military.

So too should the people like Cox or those at the Freedom From Religion Foundation who believes in nothing. They should respect those others they are rooming with.

As I stated initially, if Cox wasn't sucked in and is not just the patsy for an Atheist group out of Ohio - then maybe he should reconsider how his decision to help those Atheist will effect his neighbors?

Christian Symbols Everywehere - They Should Get Used To It!

Across the United States, there are thousands if not millions of examples of Christianity on private, state, and federal lands.

In California, we have a chain of Spanish Catholic Missions on state property. And just as there are across the nation, here we have cities and towns named after Catholic Saints. Even San Francisco was in fact named after Saint Francis Assisi.

The Atheist group representing Cox says "the plaintiff Cox has frequent and unwanted contact and exposure to the Jesus statue when he is skiing on Big Mountain".

"Frequent and unwanted contact and exposure" to Jesus and Christianity is just part of being an American. Like it or not, Atheist groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation who have "frequent and unwanted contact and exposure" to Jesus should understand that that is going to take place when you're in a nation built primarily by Christian people.

I hope Cox never visits California State's Historic Missions, the crosses and the history would surly offend him. I hope he never goes to cities like San Antonio, Las Cruxes, or San Jose because exposure to those names of Catholic Saints would for certain screw up his day.

He better not go to the National Shrine To Saint Francis Assisi in San Francisco which “is the first papal ordained Holy Place in the United States” according to Angela Alioto. It will certainly harm him in some way. If not only mentally.

Cox should try to explain his neurotic behavior to someone who believes it. Personally I think Cox suffers from Christian-phobia. He is apparently Christian-phobic!

According to his lawsuit William Cox exemplifies Christian-phobia, which is an intolerance of Christians - someone who demonstrates hostility towards or discrimination against Christians.

Even ultra-liberal San Francisco acknowledges that it is named after St. Francis of Assisi and the City officially reveres Saint Francis as its patron saint. And if anyone is ultra-sensitive to the sensitivities of others, its those folks in San Francisco.

America's religious freedom has been the pea under non-Christians’ mattress for more years than many want to admit.

It is a shame that Atheists groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation cannot respect the history of Christianity in America. It is a shame that they discount the contributions that Christians have made while creating this nation.

They completely disregard the fact that more Christians, than any other belief, have died to preserve their rights as Americans. How many Atheists have fought to protect a Christian's right to pray?

It would have been easy enough to make America a Christian State when it was founded, but they didn't out of respect for others. The reason was that they knew first hand what hate and religious persecution really was.

Atheist would have probably created a state where people are forced to believe in nothing. Yes, just like what the Soviet Union tried to accomplish -  but failed at.

One of the tenants to Communism is Atheism. And yes, I'm certain that Atheists groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are irked by the fact that that Marxist Communist Soviet Union - the ultimate example of an Atheist State - failed partly due to their people's desire to worship Christianity.

As with the Freedom From Religion Foundation , Cox also appears Christian-phobic as demonstrated from his intolerance and discrimination against Christians.

The USS Enterprise Retires

The Big "E" is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. And yes, the USS Enterprise, was formally retired on Saturday at a ceremony in Norfolk, Virginia, attended by thousands of crew members who served on the ship during its five decades in the U.S. Navy fleet.

The 1,123-foot (342-metres) long Enterprise was commissioned in 1961 with eight nuclear reactors on board, and the next year was deployed to participate in a blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Since then, it has played a role in a number of naval missions, including deployments to Vietnam and to the Middle East as part of the U.S. response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. It returned from its final deployment about a month ago, said Navy spokesman Mike Maus.

Nicknamed the "Big E," the Enterprise was the oldest active duty ship in the U.S. Naval fleet, according to the military, and was the eighth U.S. military ship to bear the name Enterprise.

The roughly 12,000 people who participated in the ceremony for the USS Enterprise include many former crew members and their friends, Maus said. The ceremony was held in Virginia at Naval Station Norfolk.

The Enterprise will stay at Naval Station Norfolk for several months and then will move to a shipyard in nearby Newport News, Virginia, where its nuclear fuel will be removed from the vessel, Maus said.

After that, the ship will be towed to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington state, where its nuclear reactors will be dismantled and the Enterprise will be scrapped, Maus said.

There are no plans to turn the Enterprise into a museum, as has been done with other historic warships.

The Navy said in a statement that inactivation and defueling of the Enterprise will have "major impacts on the structure of the ship" and that it would be too costly to "return the ship to a condition that would support it becoming a museum."

To be scrap. To me, to become nothing less than scrap is a sorry oprtion for a great ship which has served America for 51 years. The Navy should be ashamed at the way they treat ships like the Enterprise which have served us so well for so long.

Angry Sandy Victims say Obama Doing Nothing To Help

Hurricane Sandy victims say President Obama’s promise to cut red tape and get them aid in the aftermath of Sandy has proven to be hot air.

Angry citizens vented at FEMA officials at a town hall meeting held by the disaster relief agency with tempers boiling over.

Some 1,000 people, many left homeless by the October 29th Mega-Storm, attended the meeting at Staten Island’s New Dorp High School.

Believe it or not, someone had the nerve to tell them to put their questions in writing!

Yes, that right! Initially they were scheduled to submit written questions that would be picked and answered at random, but the session turned into an angry shouting match where residents booed FEMA officials and accused them of lying.

"I told the president … that FEMA was giving us the royal finger. And he said, ‘FEMA works for me.’”

- Scott McGrath, Staten Islander left homeless by superstorm Sandy.

“We are the people – we are the middle class, and we are getting the finger,” said frustrated resident Scott McGrath, who personally spoke to President Obama and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo when they came to Staten Island to inspect storm damage earlier this month. “You were there when I met Obama, and I told the president … that the middle class was getting the royal finger. And he said, ‘FEMA works for me.’”

“FEMA ain’t doing nothing,” McGrath added. “They keep going around in circles.”

The storm made landfall on the coast of southern New Jersey and traveled north, leaving a swath of death, destruction and darkness. Some 125 people were killed, including 48 in New York. It's been estimated that half of the city's deaths occurred in Staten Island. Millions were left without power for weeks by the storm, which also caused widespread gasoline shortages.

Obama addressed the nation from FEMA headquarters in Washington on November 3rd, promising to cut red tape and bring the full force of FEMA to hard-hit residents.

"What I told the governors and the mayors is what I've been saying to my team since the start of this event, and that is we don't have any patience for bureaucracy, we don't have any patience for red tape, and we want to make sure that we are figuring out a way to get to yes, as opposed to no, when it comes to these problems," Obama said.

On November 15th, Obama came to Staten Island, where he repeated his pledge.

A top FEMA official said agency workers understand the public's frustration, but he defended their performance in the wake of the storm.

Thursday's meeting was organized by Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro, many of whose constituents have been left without homes, food or clothing. The auditorium was so crowded that many people were turned away at the door. FEMA officials dutifully absorbed the gripes, took down contact information and promised to meet privately with homeowners.

But residents showed little confidence that the agency would help, and they said they've been left to fend for themselves.

“Our communities are helping," said Nicole Chati, to cheers from the audience. "Red Cross comes by, rings our bell, says, ‘Come get a hot meal’ and leaves. We help each other and that’s what we want to do, but we need your support.

“These people are frustrated," she added. "Lives were lost. My house ... I can rebuild my house. My neighbor is dead.”

Hurrican Sandy hit in October. So much for Obama's line of BS about making Sandy victims his number one priority. He has not done what he has said and the people there are seeing him for the campaigner and chief that he is. A campaigner that said anything for their vote just a few weeks ago.

And yes, MSNBC's Chris Matthews was happy that Sandy took place because it allowed Obama to look in charge and presidential. I wish he would act presidential now and help those people.

As for jerks like Matthews, I can't help but wonder how he feels now that weeks have passed and there are still Americans living in tents in the midst of winter?

Congress Considers Ending Use Of Dollar Bills To Save Money

OK, so someone has come up with the idea of eliminating the $1 bill all together. And in it's place, use a $1 dollar coin.

So will dollar bills soon be a thing of the past? Congress says the change could save billions.

As lawmakers search for creative ways to slash spending without touching spending on non-essentials, Congress is taking a new look at killing the dollar bill.

A new report by congressional auditors claims that replacing dollar bills with dollar coins could save taxpayers $4.4 billion over 30 years.

The coins last for decades, but the bills wear out and must be replaced every four or five years, the auditors found.

It’s the seventh time that the Government Accountability Office has documented the savings that dooming the dollar could generate.

Now a coalition of mining companies, vending machine operators and other interested parties is trying to rally Americans behind the idea, framing it as an easy way to attack the deficit without hiking taxes.

On Thursday, a House Financial Services subcommittee held a hearing to explore phasing out the dollar.

Several there took the smart road and didn't back the idea of consigning all those George Washingtons to history.

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said men don’t like carrying coins in their pockets or their suits. And yes, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) said the $1 coins have proved too hard to distinguish from quarters. “If the people don’t want it and they don’t want to use it, why in the world are we even talking about changing it?” she said.

Logic from Democrats? Miracles are always welcome!

Fact is, there are reasons why all of the other bills have been redone yet not the $1 bill with George Washington.

Polls show that America's $1 dollar bill is the most recognized currancey note in the world, and of course there is the that most Americans oppose the idea by a huge margin.

An official at the U.S. Mint testified at the hearing that most of the 2.4 billion $1 coins made in the past five years sit in Federal Reserve vaults. The coins are so unloved, production was halted last year.

The switch would save taxpayers $4.4 billion over the next 30 years, congressional auditors said.

But wait, hasn't that $4.4 billion dollar saving already been used for something else?

I believe that there are no such thing as savings in Washington DC. They simply spend those funds somewhere else in multiples of ten.

For example, there is a good possiblity that someone in the Obama administration has already allocated that "preposed savings" of $4.4 Billion to cover the cost of those free condoms that Sandra Fluke is so worried about.

Would that cover the cost of rubbers for Sandra Fluke over her lifetime?

I don't know, but maybe it would depend on whether she remains a student at Georgetown Law where there's a lot of need for birth control.

Obama Voters Banned From Arizona Gun Store

Some are saying its discrimination, others claim its profiling, but in reality it is neither.

I believe that other gun stores can follow suit and follow the letter of the law in the no firearm should be sold to anyone who has demonstrated an inablity to conduct themselves in a safe and sane manner.

If you voted for President Obama, you won't be welcome to make any purchases at one Arizona gun store.

The owner of the Southwest Shooting Authority took out a full page ad in a local Pinetop, Arizona, newspaper that read "if you voted for Barack Obama you're business is not welcome."

Just to make sure the point got across, owner Cope Reynolds also posted a sign on the store's front door.

"If you voted for Obama, please turn around and leave! You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a firearm."

Make sense to me. After all, gun ownship is all about "Safety First!"

Regulation Nation 101

Today is December 2nd, 2012. And yes, in the last 90 days the Obama administration has issued 5,798 new federal regulations. 

To find out which might effect you or your business or our rights as citizens, check out Regulations.gov 

Who manages Regulations.gov?

Well, Regulations.gov is managed by The eRulemaking Program Management Office with the assistance of partner Federal agencies. Yes, the government.

The eRulemaking Program was created in 2002 as an E-Government project and is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Yes, the EPA!

The eRulemaking Program says it is committed to:

■Increasing access to and participation in developing regulations and other related documents that impact you
■Promoting more efficient and effective rulemaking through public involvement

There's all sorts of information on this site and well worth a look. And maybe, just maybe, you might want to get involved in the process of making regulations.

We know they're going to make them anyway, that's just the nature of the beast, so why not try to get involved in the process.

By getting involved, maybe we can get the beast to work in favor of the American people? That my friends, would be a change from what has been taking place in recent years.

TRIVIA

She actively campaigned for Republicans Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater during her High School years. -- Her name is Hillary Clinton!

Story by Tom Correa

Gunfight At The OK Corral - Preliminary Hearing - Virgil Earp

Testimony of Virgil Earp

in the Preliminary Hearing in the Earp-Holliday Case,

Heard before Judge Wells Spicer

November 19-22, 1881

On this nineteenth day of November, 1881, on the hearing of the above entitled cause on the examination of Wyatt Earp and J. H. Holliday; Virgil W. Earp, a witness of lawful age, being produced and sworn, deposes and says as follows:

My name is Virgil W. Earp; I reside in Tombstone, Cochise County, Arizona Territory. My occupation: Chief of Police of Tombstone and Deputy U. S. Marshal.

(Q) State what official position, if any, you occupied on the 25th and 26th of October last.

(A) Chief of Police of Tombstone and Deputy United States Marshal, and was acting as such on those days.

(Q) State what official or other position, if any, with respect to the police department of Tombstone, was occupied on the 25th and 26th of October last by Morgan Earp.

(A) He was sworn in as Special Policeman and wore a badge with "Special Police" engraved on it, and he had been sworn and acted as a "Special" for about a month.

(Q) State what official or other position, if any, with respect to the police department of Tombstone, was occupied on the 25th and 26th of October last by Wyatt Earp.

(A) Wyatt Earp had been sworn in to act in my place while I was in Tucson, and on my return his saloon [Oriental) was opened and I ap­pointed him a "Special," to keep the peace, with power to make arrest, and also called on him on the 26th, to assist me in disarming those parties: Ike Clanton and Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury.

(Q) State what position or deputization, if any, with respect to assisting you as Chief of Police, was occupied on the 26th of October last, or anytime during that day by John H. Holliday.

(A) I called on him that day for assistance to help disarm the Clantons and McLaurys.

(Q) State fully all the circumstances of and attendant upon the difficulty which resulted in the death of Frank McLaury, Thomas McLaury, and Billy Clanton, commencing on the day of the difficulty and confining your answers for the present entirely to what occurred within your sight and hearing on the day of the difficulty, on the 26th of October.

(A) On the morning of the 26th, somewhere about six or seven o'clock, I started to go home, and Ike Clanton stopped me and wanted to know if I would carry a message from him to Doc Holliday.

I asked him what it was. He said, "The damned son of a bitch has got to fight."

I said, "Ike, I am an officer and I don't want to hear you talking that way at all. I am going down home now, to go to bed; I don't want you to raise any disturbance while I am in bed."

I started to go home, and when I got ten feet from him he said, "You won't carry the message?"

I said, "No, of course I won't." I made four or five steps more.

He said, "You may have to fight before you know it." [Here, counsel for the prosecution reserves the right to strike out at the close, any portion of the answer].

I made no reply to him and went home and went to bed. I don't know how long had been in bed. It must have been between 9 and 10 o'clock when one of the policemen came and told me to get up, as there was liable to be hell. I did not get up right away, but in about half art hour I got up. I cannot tell exactly what time it was.

Along about 11 or 12 o'clock I came up on the street and met a man by the name of Lynch. I found Ike Clanton on Fourth Street between Fremont and Allen with a Winchester rifle in his hand and a six-shooter stuck down in his breeches. I walked up and grabbed the rifle in my left hand. He let loose and started to draw his six-shooter. I hit him over the head with mine and knocked him to his knees and took his six-shooter from him.

I ask him if he was hunting for me. He said he was, and if he had seen me a second sooner he would have killed me. I arrested Ike for carrying firearms, I believe was the charge, inside the city limits. When I took him to the courtroom, Judge Wallace was not there. I left him in charge of Special Officer Morgan Earp while I went out to look for the Judge. After the examination I asked him where he wanted his arms left, and he said, "Anywhere I can get them, for you hit me over the head with your six-shooter."

I told him I would leave them at the Grand Hotel bar, and done so. I did not hear, at that time, any quarrel between Wyatt Earp and Ike Clanton. The next I saw them, they were, all four; Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury in the gun shop on Fourth Street. I saw Wyatt Earp shooing a horse off the sidewalk and went down and saw them all in the gun shop, filling up their belts with cartridges and looking at the pistols and guns. There was a committee waiting on me then and called me away to one side. I turned to Wyatt Earp and told him to keep peace and order until I came back and to move the crowd off the sidewalk and not let them obstruct it. When I saw them again, all four of them were going in Dunbar's Corral. They did not remain long there. They came out and went into the O.K. Corral.

I called on Johnny Behan who refused to go with me, to go help disarm these parties. He said if he went along with me, there would be a fight sure; that they would not give up their arms to me.

He said, "They won't hurt me," and, "I will go down alone and see if I can disarm them."

I told him that was all I wanted them to do; to layoff their arms while they were in town. Shortly after he left, I was notified that they were on Fremont Street, and I called on Wyatt and Morgan Earp, and Doc Holliday to go and help me disarm the Clantons and McLaurys. We started down Fourth Street to Fremont, turned down Fremont west, towards Fly's lodging house. When we got about somewhere by Bauer's butcher shop, I saw the parties before we got there, in a vacant lot between the photograph gallery and the house west of it.

The parties were Ike and Billy Clanton, Tom and Frank McLaury, Johnny Behan, and the Kid. Johnny Behan seen myself and party coming down towards them. He left the Clanton and McLaury party and came on a fast walk towards us, and once in a while he would look behind at the party he left, as though expecting danger of some kind. He met us somewhere close to the butcher shop.

He threw up both hands, like this [illustrating] and said, "For God's sake, don't go there or they will murder you!"

I said, "Johnny, I am going down to disarm them."

By this time I had passed him a step and heard him say, "I have disarmed them all."

When he said that, I had a walking stick in my left hand, and my right hand was on my six-shooter in my waist pants [verbatim], and when he said he had disarmed them, I shoved it clean around to my left hip and changed my walking stick to my right hand. As soon as Behan left them, they moved in between the two buildings, out of sight of me. We could not see them. All we could [see] was about half a horse.

They were all standing in a row. Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury had their hands on their six-shooters. I don't hardly know how Ike Clanton was standing, but I think he had his hands in an attitude where I supposed he had a gun. Tom McLaury had his hand on a Winchester rifle on a horse.

As soon as I saw them, I said, "Boys, throw up your hands, I want your guns," or "arms."

With that, Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton drew their six-shooters and commenced to cock them, and I heard them go "click-click."

Ike Clanton threw his hand in his breast, this way [illustrates]. At that, I said, throwing both hands up, with the cane in my right hand, "Hold on, I don't want that!"

As I said that, Billy Clanton threw his six-shooter down, full cocked. I was standing to the left of my party, and he was standing on the right of Frank and Tom McLaury. He was not aiming at me, but his pistol was kind of past me. Two shots went off right together. Billy Clanton's was one of them. At that time I changed my cane to my left hand, and went to shooting; it was general then, and everybody went to fighting.

At the crack of the first two pistols, the horse jumped to one side, and Tom McLaury failed to get the Winchester. He threw his hand back this way [shows the motion]. He followed the movement of the horse around, making him a kind of breastwork, and fired once, if not twice, over the horse's back.

[TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1881, EXAMINATION RESUMED]

(Q) When you met Lynch on the morning, or noon, of October 26th, what did he tell you?

(A) He told me to look out for Ike Clanton that he was hunting me, and allowed to kill me on sight.

(Q) State what threats, if any, were made by Isaac Clanton, William Clanton, Thomas McLaury, or Frank McLaury, to you, or in your presence, and what threats if any, by either of the aforementioned persons were communicated to you as having been made in the presence of others, giving the name of the persons making the communications to you, in detail.

(A) The first man who spoke to me about any threats was Officer Bronk. I was down home in bed when he called. He came down after [a] commitment I had for a party that was in jail. It was about 9 o'clock I should think, on the 26th of October. While he was getting the commitment, he said, "You had better get up. There is liable to be hell!"

He said, "Ike Clanton has threatened to kill Holliday as soon as he gets up." And he said, "He's counting you fellows in too," meaning me and my brothers. I told him I would get up after a while, and he went off.

The next man was Lynch; I've stated what he said. The next I met, was Morgan and James Earp. One of them asked me if I had seen Ike Clanton. I told them I had not. One of them said, "He has got a Winchester rifle and six-shooter on, and threatens to kill us on sight."

I asked Morgan if he had any idea where we could find him. He said he did not. I told him then to come and go with me, and we could go and arrest him, and disarm him. Several men came on Allen Street between Fourth and Fifth; miners whose names I do not know. This was after Ike Clanton's arrest and before the fight.

There was one man in particular who came and said, "Ain't you liable to have trouble?"

I told him I didn't know, it looks kind of that way, but couldn't tell.

He said, "I seen two more of them just rode in," and he said, "Ike walked up to them and was telling them about you hitting him over the head with a six-shooter."

He said that one of them rode in on a horse [and] said, "Now is our time to make a fight." This was after the arms of Ike Clanton were returned to the Grand Hotel.

Just about the time the man was telling me this, Bob Hatch came and beckoned to me, as though he wanted to speak to me, and said, "For God's sake, hurry down there to the gun shop, for they are all down there, and Wyatt is all alone!"

He said, "They are liable to kill him before you get there!" The other man told me to be careful, and not turn my back on them or I would be killed, that they meant mischief. Lynch remarked­ [paragraph not completed.

There was a man named W. B. Murray and a man named J. L. Fonck came at separate times and said, "I know you are going to have trouble, and we have got plenty of men and arms to assist you."

Murray was the first man to approach me, on the afternoon of the 26th. I was talking to Behan at the time in Hafford's Saloon, trying to get him to go down and help me disarm them. Murray took me to one side and said, "I have been looking into this matter and know you are going to have trouble. I can get 25 armed men at a minutes notice."

He said, "If you want them, say so."

I told him, as long as they stayed in the corral, the O.K. Corral, I would not go down to disarm them; if they came out on the street, I would take their arms off and arrest them. He said, "You can count on me if there is any danger."

I walked from the comer of Fourth and Allen Streets, west, just across the street. J. L. Fonck met me there, and he said, "The cowboys are making threats against you."

And he said, "If you want any help, I can furnish ten men to assist."

I told him I would not bother them as long as they were in the corral; if they showed up on the street, I would disarm them. "Why," he said, "they are all down on Fremont Street there now."

Then I called on Wyatt and Morgan Earp, and Doc Holliday to go with me and help disarm them. Frank McLaury made a threat to me one day on the street. It must have been about a month before the shooting and it might have been a week after the notice in the paper of the formation of a vigilance committee. Frank McLaury stepped up to me in the street between the Express Office and the Grand Hotel. He said, "I understand you are raising a vigilance committee to hang us boys."

I said, "You boys?"

He said, "Yes, us and [the] Clantons, Hicks, Ringo, and all us cowboys."

I said to him, "Frank, do [you] remember the time Curly Bill killed White?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Who guarded him that night and run him to Tucson next morning to keep the vigilance committee from hanging him?"

He said, "You boys."

I said, "Now do you believe we belong to it?"

He said, "I can't help but believe the man who told me you do."

I said, "Who told you?"

He said, "Johnny Behan,” "Now," he says, "I'll tell you, it makes no difference what I do, I never will surrender my arms to you."

He said, "I'd rather die fighting than be strangled."

I made some remark to him, "Alright," or something-and then left him.

[Counsel for the Prosecution moves to strike out all the proceeding conversation with Frank McLaury on the ground that it is irrelevant and contains no threats against this defendent. Objection taken under advisement.]

(Q) State any conversation had by you, if any, with Isaac Clanton or Frank McLaury in this town with respect to obtaining information from them, or either of them, that should lead to the capture or killing of the parties suspected to have been engaged in the killing of Bud Philpot and the attempt to rob the Benson Stage.

[Objected to by Prosecution on the ground that the question is too broad and enquires into conversations with Frank McLaury which are more hearsay and irrelevant and for which no foundation had been laid. Objection sustained as to Frank McLaury, but overruled as to Ike Clanton and admitted to contradict his statement.]

(A) About last June, in Tombstone, Ike Clanton asked me where we could go to have a long talk, where nobody could hear us excepting those who were along at the time. We turned around the corner of Allen and Fifth Streets, alongside of Danner and Owen's Saloon.

He said, "I've had a long talk with Wyatt in regard to Leonard, Head, and Crane," and he said, "I believe I can trust you."

He said, "I am going to put up a job for you boys to catch them."

I said, "How can I know you are in earnest and can trust you?"

"Well," he said, "now I'll tell you all about it."

He said that Leonard had a fine ranch over in the Cloverdale County [New Mexico]. He said, "As soon as I heard of him robbing the stage, I rounded up my cattle on the San Pedro here, and run them over and jumped his ranch." And he said, "Shortly after you boys gave up the chase who should come riding up but Leonard, Head, and Crane." And he said, "By God, they have been stopping around there ever since, and it looks as though they are going to stay."

He said, "They have already told me that I would either have to buy the ranch or get off of it. I told them that I supposed after what they had done, they would not dare to stay in the country and I supposed you would rather your friends would get your ranch than anybody else."

He said, "But if they were going to stay in the country he would either get off or buy the ranch. Now you can see why I want these men either captured or killed, and I would rather have them killed."

I said, "There are three of you and there is only three of them. Why don't you capture or kill them, and I would see that you get the reward?"

He says, "Jesus Christ! I would not last longer than a snowball in hell if I should do that!" He says, "The rest of the gang would think we killed them for the reward and they would kill us." "But," he says, "We have agreed with Wyatt to bring them to a certain spot, where you boys can capture them." And he said, "As soon as Wyatt gets a telegram he is going to send for, in regard to the reward dead or alive, and they will give it, dead or alive, we'll start right after them, to bring them over."

I said, "Where will you bring them to?"

He said, "Either to McLaury's ranch or Willow Springs.”

"Now," he said, "I want you never to give us away or say a word about it, except [to] the party you take along."

There were some few more remarks made-I don't remember what they were-and we broke up for that time. This is about 3 o'clock in the morning after [the] conversa­tion Ike Clanton had with Wyatt Earp. I had another conversation with him when he said Wyatt showed him the dispatch saying that the Wells, Fargo would pay the reward dead or alive.

(Q) In reference to the statement made by Isaac Clanton in his testimony, I ask you: Did you ever, at any time, tell Isaac Clanton to tell Billy Leonard not to think that you were trying to catch him when you were running him, or to tell Billy Leonard that you had thrown Paul and the posse off Leonard's track when he left Helm's ranch at the foot of the Dragoon Mountains, or to tell Billy Leonard that you [had] taken the posse in pursuit of him on to a trail in New Mexico, or to tell Billy Leonard you had done all you could for him, or to tell Billy Leonard that you wanted him to get Crane and Head and get them out of the country, because you were afraid one of them might get captured and get all his friends into trouble?

(A) I never did.

(Q) State now, Mr. Earp, any threats communicated to you that you have omitted to state heretofore.

(A) There was a man met me on the corner of Fourth and Allen Streets about 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the day of the shooting. He said, "I just passed the O.K. Corral," and he said, he saw four of five men all armed and heard one of them say, "Be sure to get Earp, the Marshal" Another replied and said, "We will kill them all!" When he met me on the corner he said, "Is your name Earp?" and I told him it was. He said, "Are you the Marshal?" and I told him I was. I did not know the man. I have ascertained who he was since. His name is Sills, I believe.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

(Q) Where does Sills live, and what is his business?

(A) I never met him until that day. I do not know what his business is I don't know where he resides.

(Q) At what house in Tombstone does he live?

(A) I don't know, only by say-so.

(Q) Can you give us any information as to where he lives?

(A) I understand he is stopping at the hospital.

(Q) When did you last see him?

(A) Yesterday. I saw him here.

(Q) Who, if anybody, was present when he made that communication to you, on the corner of Fourth and Allen Streets?

(A) I don't think anybody was close enough to hear the conversation.

(Q) How long did that conversation take place, before you started for Fremont Street?

(A) Somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter or half an hour not over half an hour; it might not have been that long.

(Q) Was it before or after Behan left Hafford's Saloon?

(A) To the best of my recollection, it was just after.

(Q) At the time you took Isaac Clanton's rifle and pistol from him, did you approach in front or behind him?

(A) Behind him.

(Q) Did you speak to him before you seized his rifle?

(A) I think not.

(Q) With which hand did you take his rifle?

(A) With my left hand.

(Q) Where was your pistol when you seized his rifle?

(A) In my right hand.

(Q) Was he facing you, or was his back towards you when you struck him?

(A) He was turned about halfway around. I don't know whether his body was turned; his head was.

(Q) Which of the Clantons or McLaurys did you see putting cartridges in their belts at the gun shop on the occasion you have spoken of in your direct examination?

(A) William Clanton, Frank McLaury was standing right beside him. I don't think I saw any of the others putting cartridges in their belt. It looked like Frank McLaury was helping Billy Clanton.

(Q) Where was Tom McLaury at the time and what was he doing?

(A) I can't say. They were all in a bunch, and I could not see what each was doing.

(Q) Were Isaac Clanton and Frank McLaury in the gun shop at that time?

(A) I am positive that Billy Clanton, Ike Clanton and Frank McLaury were in there, and am under the impression that Tom was there.

(Q) Where was Wyatt Earp at the time?

(A) He was standing on the edge of the sidewalk when I first discovered him in front of the gun shop.

(Q) Was that during the time that Billy Clanton and the other persons you have named were in the guns hop?

(A) It was. I first saw Wyatt Earp as I turned the comer of Allen and Fourth Streets, in front of the gun shop, on the edge of the sidewalk. I noticed him step into the crowd and take hold of a horse and "shoo" him off the sidewalk.

(Q) What crowd do you allude [to]?

(A) There was a dozen or more on the sidewalk, gathered in a knot. I can't call to mind who they were.

(Q) Where were Morgan Earp and Holliday at this time?

(A) I don't remember seeing him at that time. I saw them on the comer of Allen and Fourth Streets about five or ten minutes before that. I can't say whether Holliday was armed at that time. Morgan Earp was.

(Q) At the time spoken of, when you were in Hafford's Saloon, did you have a shotgun or rifle?

(A) I had a shotgun and six-shooter.

(Q) When and where did you get that shotgun?

(A) [Verbatim as in original document] Got it in the Express Office of Wells Fargo, on Allen Street, at the time they were down at the gun shop. It had been at my service for six months. No one handed it to me at the time. I got it myself.

(Q) What did you do with it?

(A) When I called Morgan Earp, Wyatt Earp, and Doc Holliday to go and help me disarm the McLaurys and Clantons, Holliday had a large overcoat on, and I told him to let me have his cane, and he take the shotgun, that I did not want to create any excitement going down the street with a shotgun in .my hand. When we made the exchange, I said, "Come along," and we all went along.

(Q) You speak of a committee that called on you when you were in front of the gun shop. Who composed that committee?

(A) I don't know their names. They were miners, I should judge.

(Q) At the time when Behan met you on Fremont Street and said, "For God's sake, don't go down there or they will murder you!" where were Wyatt and Morgan Earp?

(A) They were right behind me.

(Q) Where was Holliday?

(A) We were all in a bunch. I think he was also right behind me.

(Q) You say at the commencement of the affray, two shots went off close together, and that Billy Clanton's was one of them. Who fired the other shot?

(A) Well, I'm inclined to think it was Wyatt Earp that fired it.

(Q) How many shots did you fire, and at whom?

(A) I fired four shots. One at Frank McLaury, and I believe the other three were at Billy Clanton. I am pretty positive one was at Frank McLaury and three at Billy Clanton.

(Q) What is Lynch's first name, and place of residence?

(A) I don't know his first name. After the fight he was put on the police force.

-- end of testimony. 

I hope you've found this as interesting as I did, especially since it is Virgil Earp's first hand account of what he saw take place. The thing that sticks out is how he was in the lead the whole time. 

It appears there was a great deal going on and it was not as simple as some like to portray what took place. To me, it appears that he was keeping his cool and trying to defuse a bad situation while upholding a city ordinance. All in all, while dealing with a lot of hearsay and gossip, pot stirring and some angry individuals including in his own posse, he had a full plate to say the least.  

  Tom Correa

Gunfight At The OK Corral - Preliminary Hearing - H. F. Sills

Testimony of H. F. Sills

in the Preliminary Hearing in the Earp-Holliday Case,

Heard before Judge Wells Spicer

November 22-23, 1881

On this 22nd day of November, 1881, on the hearing of the above entitled cause, on the examination of Wyatt Earp and J. H. Ho­liday; H. F. Sills, a witness of lawful age, being produced and sworn deposes and says as follows:

H. F. Sills, of Las Vegas, Nevada, a locomotive engineer for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad. On furlough and visiting in Tombstone.

(Q) Was asked about any threats he may have heard on October 26, 1881.

[Objection by Prosecution. Question withdrawn.]

(Q) [Question rephrased.]

(A) I saw four or five men standing in front of the O.K. Corral, talking of some trouble they had had with Virgil Earp, and they made threats at the time, that on meeting him they would kill him on sight.

Someone of the party spoke up at the time and said that they would kill the whole party of the Earps when they met them.

I then walked up the street and made enquiries to know who Virgil Earp and the Earps were. A man on the street pointed out Virgil Earp to me and told me that he was the city marshal.

I went over and called him to one side and told him the threats I had overheard this party make. One of the men has a bandage around his head at the time, and the day of the funeral he was pointed out to me as Isaac Clanton. I recognized him as one of the party.

(Q) Questioned on the shooting.

(A) A few minutes after I had spoken to the marshal, I saw a party start down Fourth Street. I followed them down as far as the Post Office.

Then I got sight of the party I had heard making those threats. I thought there would be trouble and I crossed the street.

I saw the marshal and party go up and speak to the other party. I wasn't close enough to hear their conversation, but saw them pull out their revolvers immediately.

The marshal had a cane in his right hand at the time. He threw up his hand and spoke. I didn't hear the words, though. By that time, Billy Clanton and Wyatt Earp had fired their guns off and the marshal changed the cane from one hand to the other and pulled his revolver out.

He seemed to be hit at that time and fell down. He got up immediately and went to shooting. The shooting became general at that time and [I] stepped back into the hallway along the side of the court house.

(Q) How did you know it was Billy Clanton?

(A) I saw him after he was dead, and recognized him as the one who fired at Wyatt Earp.

CROSS EXAMINATION

(Q) When did you come to Tombstone?

(A) I came here on the 25th of the month.

(Q) How did you come?

(A) I came in a bullion wagon of Wells Fargo, in company with another passenger and the driver. I knew one man was a driver, and one was a passenger. I could not recognize them on the street.

(Q) Where have you been since?

(A) In Tombstone. The first few days I was in town I stopped at a lodging house below Wells Fargo and Company's stage barn. I cannot [give the name of the lodging house.] I stayed there 10 nights and then went to the hospital. I remained there until today. I am stopped there now. I walked there now. I walked here from the hospital.

[Doesn't remember or know who the man was he asked regarding Virgil Earp, after hearing the threats at the O.K. Corral. Says, "I don't know, just a man I met on the street. I don't think I would [recognize him], as there were a great many men on the street at that time."]

(Q) About the threats he said he heard.

(A) I merely told him [Virgil Earp] it was a party of armed men I met on the street. I didn't know the men at the time. There were four men in the party.

I can't say they were all armed because I could not see the arms of all the party. Of two, the pistols were in plain sight. I was within four or five steps of them.

(Q) Was there anybody else around there?

(A) There were men standing back in the corral, and some were walking by and some were 15 or 20 steps back in the corral.

(Q) Describe the men you saw with arms on them.

(A) One of the men I saw with arms was a youngish looking man about nineteen or twenty years old. I don't just remember what kind of clothes he had on. I did not pay much attention to him. I don't know what kind of hair he had.

He seemed to [be] red in the face, not very light or very dark. He had no beard or moustache. I don't know whether he was clean shaved or not. I don't know what kind of a hat he had on; did not notice his clothes.

The other man looked to be about 30 years old. He had a moustache. His hair was dark. I cannot be certain, but I think his face was shaved, except his moustache. I did not notice his clothes particularly; don't know what kind they were.

(Q) Which was the taller of the two men, the first one described, or the last one?

(A) The first one, to the best of my knowledge.

(Q) You say one of them had a bandage around his head. Were there not two of them with bandages around their heads?

(A) No sir, not that I saw. I only saw one. I did not notice the color of it. I only saw it hanging down under his hat. I could hardly say [as to his complexion] because he had his back to me.

(Q) You did not see his face then?

(A) No sir, not at that time.

(Q) When did you first see his face?

(A) On the day of the funeral.

(Q) Can you positively swear that the man you saw at the funeral was the same man that you saw with the bandage around his head in front of the O.K. Corral?

(A) Yes sir I can, by his appearance and by hearing him talk.

(Q) You recognized him by his appearance and by his voice as being the same man?

(A) I recognized him by his appearance and by hearing him talk with this party in front of the O.K. Corral and with other parties at the funeral.

(Q) You state that his back was toward you and you didn't see his face; it was by the appearance of his back and his voice then, that you re­cognized him

(A) I took it to be the same man because he had a bandage on his head the day of the funeral and by his voice.

[COURT ADJOURNED TO MEET AT 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. NOVEMBER 23, 1881]

[WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1881, COURT CONVENED AT 9:00 A.M.]

[CROSS-EXAMINATION OF H.F. SILLS RESUMED]

In answer to obvious questions:

(A) I am 36 years old. I was born in Kingston, Canada. I lived there until I was 20 years old. I went from there to Calinlle, Canada. I lived there about 3 years. I then went to Omaha, Nebraska. I lived [illegible] served my time in the Union Pacific shops.

I was in Omaha and on the line of the road between eight and nine years. I was [in that time] an apprentice in the machine shop, a locomotive fireman, and on the road as locomotive engineer.

Some of the persons who had charge of the machine shop were: Mr. Congdon, General Master Mechanic, and Mr. McConnel was foreman. I was in the shops three years.

For about a year and a half I boarded at the Pacific Hotel and about a year and a half my mother kept house for me. A man, I think by the name of Jordan, kept the house where I boarded.

I ran, as fireman and as engineer, about six trains. I run the train to Grand Island and Omaha. I run between Cheyenne and Laramie and between Laramie and Rolling Springs.

(Q) Who were the conductors of those trains? [Prosecution objects as being too remote. Overruled.]

(A) It would be hard for me to tell. I remember one man named Frank Fuller, another man by the name of Kelly, I think. I run on engine 75 about two and a half years.

Q) Did you ever know on that road, A. A. Bean?

(A) The name is familiar. I think there was a Division Superintendent under or over Mr. Clark; it was out of my department.

(Q) Did you know General Kimbell, the General Superintendent of the U. P. Railroad?

(A) I knew of the man, but was not personally acquainted with him.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) When I left that road I went to Las Vegas, New Mexico. I have lived in Las Vegas since last March. I left the Union Pacific road last January.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I am still in the employ of that road. I left the line of that road on the nineteenth of last month. I went from there to Tucson. I had no business there. Am going back to take up my employment on the tenth [of] next month. I got four cents a mile on the A. T. & S. F. road; the division is 100 miles long.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I came here on the 26th of last month. I came on the Wells, Fargo express wagon with the driver and a passenger.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I did not ask the driver his name and don't know who he was. He was a middle aged man with whiskers on his face. I did not pay any particular attention to him.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I think there was a white horse and one bob-tailed horse in the team between Benson and Charleston.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I would not know the man I came with. I sat right behind him.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I am so positive that I came here on the 25th of October last on the bullion wagon, as I am of anything else I have testified to here. I stayed in Benson about half an hour, I do not think I would know the driver again, who drove the wagon I came in on, although I have seen him here on the street and spoke to him.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I had no conversation with the lodging house where I stayed nine or ten days, about the difficulty testified to here. On the night of October 25th I stayed at this lodging house I speak of.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) No I did not see anything in the hands of Virgil Earp when I went up and spoke to him on the street.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I saw him on the comer of Fourth and Allen Streets, on the further comer of Fourth Street. I should judge it was about half an hour before the difficulty.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) There were four or five men standing [near the O.K. Corral] together. I think there were four. I saw no horses with those men. I was four or five steps from them. I stayed there probably three or four minutes.

(Q) Did you see any other parties as near the party as you were yourself?

(A) There was men walked right by them on the street. [Correct, same as original] I did not know the parties at that time.

(Q) Where did you next see the same parties?

(A) I saw them on Fremont Street between third and fourth, near the comer of Third, standing in the vacant lot. There were five men in the party when I first saw them on Fremont Street and one of them left and walked off.

I saw the Earps and Doc Holliday when they went down Fremont Street. I was right behind them. I went down behind them as far as the Post Office. I then crossed the street in front of what I believe is the courthouse. That is [as] near as I was to the scene of the difficulty during its occurrence.

(Q) Where are you working now, and for whom?

(A) At the present time I am on a lay-off from the A. T. & S. F. road. I am not working at all.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I am at present in the hospital. I went there on the sixth or seventh of this month.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I haven't told anybody direct what I know of this difficulty. The first word I spoke of it to anybody was to Jim Earp I believe. I have not told any person at the hospital what I know of this transaction.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I first knew I would be wanted here as a witness sometime last week, about Thursday or Friday.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) I did not see any person on the side of the street I was on when the shooting was going on. I was standing close to the building and then stepped back into the hall when the shooting became general.

(Q) [Question not given.]

(A) The Earps and Holliday started from the corner of Fourth and Allen Streets. I did not see the other party at that time. I saw the marshal pick up a shotgun when they started from alongside of the building and hand it to Doc Holliday. Doc put it under his coat and the marshal took his cane.

(Q) During the time you were working in the machine shops and running on the U. P. or A. T. & S. F. roads, had you a nickname?

(A) Yes sir, it was Curley.

(Q) Where do you layoff at, and at whose place do you stop in New Mexico?

(A) I layoff at Las Vegas, and stop at my own house.

RANDOM SHOTS - Atheist Attacks, ObamaCare Goes To Court Again, and More!

Supreme Court Orders Review Of Liberty University's ObamaCare Challenge

This week the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a Federal Appeals Court to reconsider Liberty University’s legal argument that the ObamaCare law violates the school’s religious freedom.

The case will be returned to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

"Today’s ruling breathes new life into our challenge to ObamaCare," said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which filed the suit on behalf of the school. "Our fight against ObamaCare is far from over."

A federal judge in 2010 rejected Liberty’s claim, and the Appeals Court later ruled the lawsuit was premature and failed to address the substance of the school's arguments.

The Supreme Court upheld Obama's health care law in June 2012.

In the high court’s 5-4 decision, the justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty's.

The school is challenging the constitutionality of the part of the law that mandates employers provide insurance and whether forcing insurers to pay for birth control is unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause.

The appeals court ruled last year the Anti-Injunction Act barred it from addressing the merits in the case.

The act blocks any challenge to a "tax" before a taxpayer pays it - in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling stated the act did not serve as a barrier to lawsuits challenging the health care law. On that basis, Liberty University immediately petitioned the court to allow it to renew its original case.

Monday's Supreme Court order for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to study the constitutionality of Obamacare’s employer requirements for health care as well its mandatory coverage of contraceptives is a chance that the program will be ruled unconstitutional.

Atheist Practice Religious Persecution Of Christians

Near to this small place we call Glencoe, I know that Christmas and Christians are doing well.

I know that the American Legion Calaveras Post 376 will be having a Christmas Celebration for kids and families in this rural area on December 21st at 6pm. There will be snacks and even Santa will show up for the kids.

Columbia State Historic Park is decorated for the Christmas season with traditional boughs and wreaths, and docents will be decked out in their old-time finery. If you're there, I hope you have a camera for a picture with Father Christmas at the Tibbits House.

Children and others will be singing Christmas carols. Free carriage rides will be offered on Main Street and gingerbread houses will be on display at the Columbia House Restaurant.

The Merry Merchants event is hosted by the Columbia Chamber of Commerce and is fun for all ages.

Friends of Rail Road Flat will host a holiday benefit concert from 3 to 5 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 15, at the Mokelumne Hill Town Hall on Main Street.

All proceeds will go to Mokelumne Hill, Rail Road Flat and West Point Elementary schools.

Valley Springs Craft Faire and Parade begins at 10 a.m. at California and Chestnut streets. Santa Claus will be present.

Angels Camp Holiday Festival and Christmas Parade – the Festival goes from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. and the Christmas Parade begins at 2 p.m. at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church.

There will be live music, hay rides, children’s art and food will be available. Tree lighting will occur at 5 p.m. A variety of events will be held downtown throughout the day.

Hospice of Calaveras and Amador Tree of Lights – Tree lighting at 5 p.m. at the Hospice Calaveras Thrift Store, 570 N. Main St. Santa, music, candle lighting and refreshments will be available.

So while other places are being invaded by leftist and Atheist who are on a mission to destroy Christmas and have it repealed as a Federal Holiday, we here in this part of Calaveras County and the Gold Country can Thank God that we don't live in places where cities are bending to the demands a few inherently cold hearted individuals.

And yes, Atheist are extremely evil people. Evil because they practice something that goes to the heart of America's founding. Atheist fervently practice religious persecution.

Atheist in America today endorse and participate in the systematic mistreatment of Christians as a response to their lack of religious beliefs. Its as if they don't want others to have beliefs and morality if they don't.


Yes, Americans understand that there is a separation between church and state. The reason that this was established was so that the state doesn't establish a national religion. Americans understand this because they are smart enough to know that that would have lead to the persecution of others who wanted to worship in their own ways.

But, Americans also know that there is nothing in the United States Constitution that says the government, or agents of the government can attack or impede Americans from practicing their religions. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

A report by two U.S.-based religious freedom groups says anti-Christian persecution is on the rise in America.

The joint report by Texas-based Liberty Institute and Washington-based Family Research Council says groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and other Atheist groups aren’t the only culprits. The report says government agencies around the U.S. are trying to push Christian expression out the door.

Liberty Institute Founder Kelly Shackleford, of the recent hike in reported incidents of persecution. “I have been doing these types of cases for almost 25 years now. I have never seen the levels of attacks like these and how quickly they are now proliferating.”

Shackleford says government, from schools to social programs, is the ringleader.

"There are children being prohibited from writing Merry Christmas to the soldiers, senior citizens being banned from praying over their meals in the Senior Center, the VA banning the mention of God in military funerals, numerous attempts to have veterans memorials torn down if they have any religious symbols such as a cross, and I could go on and on," Shackleford said.

In August 2011, the Houston, Texas, veterans’ cemetery director issued an order banning the word "God" from being said at military or veteran funerals at the facility.

A pastor and family members of deceased veterans had to eventually file a Federal lawsuit alleging that the Houston National VA Cemetery is discriminating against their religious freedoms.

The suit alleged that cemetery administrator Arleen Ocasio required pastor Scott Rainey to edit a Memorial Day prayer so that the prayer was "general, and its fundamental purpose [was] nondenominational in nature."

Christian civil rights organization ACLJ senior counsel David French says the exact rate of increase is hard to determine, but many of the new cases come from colleges.

"Our knowledge of incidents is only as good as the reporting," French says. "However, it’s clear that – particularly on college and university campuses – we have seen a significant rise in attempts to silence Christian organizations by the misapplication of nondiscrimination laws."

Mr French adds that many public facilities are also covering over Christianity.

"One of the most strident examples: the misuse of the Establishment Clause to attempt to ban any mention of God from historical markers, monuments or even museum exhibits. This represents an effort to whitewash God from American history and change our national identity."

It was reported in February of this year that the City of New York was attempting to cancel the leases of all church and religious groups renting city facilities.

"Our view is that public school buildings, which are funded by taxpayers’ dollars, should not be used as houses of worship," said Marge Feinberg, spokeswoman for New York City’s Department of Education. "Public school space cannot and should not be used for worship services, especially because school space is not equally available to all faiths."

When I first read this, I was amazed that they were trying to do this considering that a church renting a city building is no different than any other private citizen or organization renting the building.

What are they going to do, ask everyone who wants to rent a hall from the City of New York their religious preference - and only allow those who have no religion to rent from the city? It's stupidity like that that makes me wonder where is the sanity!

Shackleford says the attacks are becoming violent, too.

“The recent attacks on the faith-based Family Research Council and the attack on the Sikhs are recent examples alone,” Shackleford says.

He also cites an example of a city trying to push out its Jewish residents.

"In one case I was involved in, a city literally tried to zone out Orthodox Jews from the city. An official city meeting perpetrated this. Some said, ‘Hitler should have finished the job.’”

Among the violations listed in the joint report:
•A federal judge threatened “incarceration” to a high school valedictorian unless she removed references to Jesus from her graduation speech.

•City officials prohibited senior citizens from praying over their meals, listening to religious messages or singing gospel songs at a senior activities center.

•A public school official physically lifted an elementary school student from his seat and reprimanded him in front of his classmates for praying over his lunch.

•Following U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ policies, a federal government official sought to censor a pastor’s prayer, eliminating references to Jesus, during a Memorial Day ceremony honoring veterans at a national cemetery.

•Public school officials prohibited students from handing out gifts because they contained religious messages.

•A public school official prevented a student from handing out fliers inviting her classmates to an event at her church.

•A public university’s law school banned a Christian organization because it required its officers to adhere to a statement of faith that the university disagreed with.

•The U.S. Department of Justice argued before the Supreme Court that the federal government can tell churches and synagogues which pastors and rabbis it can hire and fire.

•The State of Texas sought to approve and regulate what religious seminaries can teach.

•Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, the federal government is forcing religious organizations to provide insurance for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in direct violation of their religious beliefs.

•The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs banned the mention of God from veterans’ funerals, overriding the wishes of the deceased’s families.

•A federal judge held that prayers before a state House of Representatives could be to Allah but not to Jesus.

 Where a person's religion often determines to a significant extent his or her morality and personal identity, Atheist believe in nothing and subsequently have no basis for standards of morality.   Yes, that is the reason that Atheist persecute Christians at every turn. They attack without guilt or reason just like those who persecuted the Jews in Germany during the 1930s and 40s. 
Like Hitler's Nazi persecution of Jews and Catholics, Atheists are the new Nazis with a zeal to kill off any trace of Christianity in America.

Religious persecution is religious bigotry. It is the denigration of the Christian practitioner because he or she does not believe as the hate filled Atheist activist does.

Atheist view Christians as a threat to their interests in the very same way that Nazis under Hitler viewed Jews as a threat to Germany. Their constant attacks on anything representative of the Christian belief in America is religious persecution.

Just as other forms of racism and bigotry should not be tolerated and are cconsidered human rights issues, so should the Atheist well funded attacks on Christians - and any symbol of Christianity like Christmas

Arizona Declines to Set up State-based Health Insurance Exchange

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, an ardent critic of President Barack Obama's push to overhaul the U.S. health care system, said on Wednesday she was rejecting a new federal mandate to set up a state-based health insurance exchange under the U.S. Affordable Care Act - aka ObamaCare.

Citing lingering unanswered questions about the exchanges and concerns about high costs she said would be passed on to Arizona families and small businesses, Brewer, a Republican, said her state would opt instead for a federally run exchange.

Such networks are designed to function as online insurance markets where consumers can shop for private coverage at federally subsidized rates, and are an integral provision of the act, a centerpiece of Obama's first term in office.

Under a newly extended deadline, states have until December 14th to notify the U.S. Health and Human Services Department whether they intend to comply with the insurance exchange mandate or leave it to the federal government to set up and operate exchanges for them.

About 17 states have told the Obama administration they plan to move ahead on their own exchanges, while at least nine Republican governors in recent days have rejected the plan outright, as Brewer has, or opted to cooperate with Washington in setting up a hybrid federal-state network.

"My opposition to the Affordable Care Act is unwavering, as is my belief that it should be repealed and replaced," Brewer said in a statement announcing her decision.

Two Sentenced in Fast and Furious Federal Gun-Running Case

No it wasn't Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder as many people hope, but two people have been sentenced to a few years behind bars for their roles in the Federal gun smuggling ring that was part of the Obama administration's failed Operation Fast and Furious.

The U.S. Justice Department says Jacob Anthony Montelongo was sentenced Monday in Phoenix to nearly 3 1/2 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy and dealing guns without a license. Sean Christopher Steward received a nine-year sentence for conspiracy and lying.

During the Fast and Furious operation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents hoped to track illegally obtained weapons to high-level arms traffickers, but authorities lost track of more than 2,700 guns.

Many are right now being used to kill innocent civilians on both sides of the border. Just something else that Obama doesn't seem to care about.

So far, the operation led to congressional inquiries and little else.

It was exposed after two of the illegally obtained weapons were found at the scene of the 2010 fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Western Senators ask Justice Department to Oil Companies

Six Pacific state senators are asking the Justice Department to investigate whether oil refineries manipulated the price of gasoline when it hit near-record prices in the region from May through October.

The price was more than $4 a gallon during that period and broke the $5 mark last month in California, even though the price of crude oil has been declining.

Analysts have said the near-record prices were the result of refinery problems. But the senators point to a review of California refinery emissions data showing inconsistencies between the time refineries were producing petroleum products and when maintenance shutdowns were publicly reported.

The politicians said misleading reports of shutdowns could have created a perceived shortage of gasoline.

I wonder if those liberal senators will acknowledge out of control federal and state taxation on a gallon is the reason that gas is so high and not some sort of oil refinery manipulation of the price of gasoline?

Probably not. Remember, as far as liberals are concerned - oil companies are an easy scapegoat for Democrats who want to get the focus off the increased taxes put on the public at the pumps.


Story by Tom Correa