Liberal Journalists Would Not Stand For It!

And for the Liberal Journalist out there, the one who wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment, how would they like it if their First Amendment Rights were treated the same way as they want to treat our Second Amendment Rights?

How about having to jump through hoops before publishing their columns?

They call for the eradication of gun rights, but how about their rights under the First Amendment? Would Liberal Journalists do all of the following to exercise their First Amendment Rights?

What if ...

• the government advised them that certain topics, subjects, and/or interests, were banned from publication for political reasons just like the government wants to ban certain guns for political reason;
• the government required that they get a special license to write about a certain topic and that they may censor their article or column at any given moment without just cause;
• the government required them to undergo a Federal and State background check to see if they are mentally fit to write a column;
• the government required them to undergo a Federal and State background check to see if they have had a misdemeanor (as in the case of a domestic violence charge) in the past that would make them ineligible to exercise their First Amendment rights;
• the government required them to fill out and sign a Form 4473, a sample of which would look like the form below which would be a legal sworn affidavit - before being allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights;
• the government required them to wait for five days to “cool down” before being able to publish anything;
• the government required them to have the serial number of their column recorded with the author's name and address by local, state, and federal authorities;
• the government required the author to get fingerprinted by your local police as done in some states;
• the government required the author to take a mandatory 16-hour Journalism Safety Course to learn writing safety measures so that they learn not to offend or unintentionally injure others with their publication; 
• the government made their name and personal home address available to the public and published it in the local newspapers or on-line because they applied for a permit to exercise their First Amendment Rights;
• the government required them to furnish personal information about your "private" life including any "unlawful" drug use before an author would be granted permission to publish an article;
• the government required an author to keep your published columns locked in a cabinet when not in use, and out of the reach of children who might find and read one of their columns which the government has deemed dangerous;
• the government limited an author, a writer, a blogger, a journalist, to only one publication every 30 days?

And yes, how would you the Liberal Journalist like to fill out the form below every time you decide to publish a new column - all just so that the government can keep track of what you are publishing for political reasons?

How many Liberal Journalists would be able to publish anything if they had to answer the questions on the form? How many would qualify to do so?

And yes, the bigger question, how would you feel if all it took was one "wrong" answer to make you ineligible to exercise your First Amendment Rights? 

Would Liberal Journalists answer any of the above questions honestly and correctly? I don't think they would. I think they'd cheat knowing that needed to so - just so that they could exercise their First Amendment Rights. I think they'd lie and cheat.

But more realistically, Liberal Journalists would not stand for it!

They would not put up with it for any reason because they see any infringement on their First Amendment rights as a violation of the Constitution. That's right, even if it meant them wanting to publish a how-to column on killing Americans.

To Liberal Journalists, there should be no limitations as to what they can publish - whether it be books, Internet, or videos.

Sure, liberals have been slowed down from publishing Child Porn.

And please remember, while Child Porn may be banned from publication, the subject of Child Porn can be written about and published.

Can you imagine the uproar if there were government restrictions on Liberals Journalist being forbidden from publishing say one of there infamous hate pieces on George W. Bush? 

Case and point, Liberals produced and made public a "how-to video" on how-to kill George W. Bush during his term as president. They found nothing wrong with that.

Can you imagine the anger coming from the Left if there really were topics and subjects and interests which were arbitrarily banned from being published because of political pressure?

They would call it government intrusion and a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Yes, if the government tried to place limitations on them in the same way as the government does to us, they would not stand for it! 

But since it's not them that a gun ban or a federal gun ownership registration would effect, Liberals who thinks they know what's better for others truly believes that any sort of restriction on our Second Amendment rights are just fine.

They sit in judgement of others while never having to walk a day in another's shoes. They are an arrogant bunch! 

Story by Tom Correa

Banning Assault Weapons More Like Banning Mark Twain, Not Child Porn

Diane Feinstein likened banning guns to prohibiting Child Porn in an effort to combat a question from Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz.

And yes, it was a question which I thought I'd never see a U.S. Senator put to another Senator - especially one like California's Diane Feinstein who has attacked the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over the years.

Though the Senate Judiciary Committee passed Feinstein's gun-grabbing bill that bans over 150 different types of guns, it didn't pass without a fight from Republicans.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz grilled ultra-liberal California Democrat Senator Feinstein on the Constitutionality of her gun ban, reminding her that the same "right of the people" applies equally to the Second Amendment as it does to the First and Fourth Amendments.

He asked her if she thought it within the purview of the federal government to ban certain books because it didn’t like them as say in violation of the First Amendment or claim that certain citizens are not protected against unlawful searches and seizures as in say violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Cruz contended that this is what she and her Democrat friends are doing with the 2nd Amendment and semi-automatic weapons.

Liberals have simply deemed those firearms “assault weapons" and have arbitrarily decided, all for political reasons, that they can be legally banned.

But no, Feinstein didn't like being asked about how she viewed the Constitution saying, ”I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war — and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

After her rant, she strongly objected to Senator Cruz’s use of the term “prohibited.” She said that nothing is being prohibited because there are 2,271 exemptions.

Imagine that, I guess those other guns don't count as being prohibited for some reason? But who knows why? Who can really gauge how Liberals think, they are such devious cowards.

She said, “Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so.”

Since she didn’t answer Senator Ted Cruz’s question, he asked it again, to which Feinstein reluctantly responded, “No.”

Later, she backpedaled when other Democrat members of the committee chimed in to remind her of child pornography.

She then changed her answer and said that child porn books can be legally banned because they are not protected under the 1st Amendment.

As a side note: The USA Department of Justice coordinates programs to track and prosecute child pornography offenders across all jurisdictions, from local police departments to federal investigations, and international cooperation with other governments.

Efforts by the Department to combat child pornography includes the National Child Victim Identification Program, the world's largest database of child pornography, maintained by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the United States Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for the purpose of identifying victims of child abuse. 

Police agencies have deployed trained staff to track child pornography files and the computers used to share them as they are distributed on the Internet, and they freely share identifying information for the computers and users internationally.

So though they were right in coaching her to say that the government does have the authority to ban certain books and publications like child porn, the government does not have a right to violation the First Amendment by banning books for political reasons.

You see, Feinstein equates so-called assault weapons with child porn. Not with say banning Mark Twain, which is a more appropriate comparison to what she and other Democrats are trying to do.

Her fellow Democrats failed to mention that besides Child Porn, which is justifiably banned, the works of 19th Century American Writer Mark Twain is unjustifiably banned in schools around the country.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, (1835 to 1910), is better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. And yes, America's greatest writer.

He is most noted for his novel The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel."

Twain was a master at rendering colloquial speech and helped to create and popularize a distinctive American literature built on American themes and language. Many of Twain's works have been suppressed at times for various reasons.

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been repeatedly restricted in American high schools for its frequent use of the word "Nigger" which was in common usage in the pre-Civil War period in which the novel was set.

If we use Child Porn as an example of what should be banned, than we can say that banning Child Porn is the same thing in severity as banning air-to-air anti-aircraft Stinger missiles or hand-grenades for example.

Using Mark Twain as an example of what we should not ban is extremely appropriate because someone has made the Political decision that his 19th Century language is offensive because he uses the 19th Century colloquialism "nigger" in the way they did back when he was alive.

Imagine that for a moment, writers who actually use the same vernacular language as those around them? Wow! What a concept!

Liberals who keep Mark Twain out of schools for political reasons are violating the First Amendment. It is the exact same thing as trying to ban so-called assault weapons just because of political reasons.

They use the gun's appearance and mechanical features to say that they are more dangerous than other firearms, yet FBI crime statistics don't agree with what they are trying to sell the American people. 

It is not surprising that Democrats would use Child Porn as an example of how they see so-called assault-weapons. It is an extreme, it is their way of doing things. It is the very same way how Obama said the world would end after March 1st 2013 because of Sequestration.

Throughout history, various people and groups have banned  books like Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because they contain information, ideas, or language that conflicts with their own values and beliefs.

The same with guns in the respect that guns conflict with how liberals see the world. It offends them to think that Americans would be stronger than the government and of course more independent from needing government protections if they had guns.

Huckleberry Finn remains one of the most controversial novels in classrooms and on school library shelves; the main criticism is Twain's treatment of the theme of race and his use of so-called "racial slurs" in reference to African Americans, Native Americans, and poor white Americans.

So-called "racial slurs" today was common language before the Political Correctness Police rear their ugly heads and stifled free speech.

Although the novel is written in the vernacular of its historical setting and the time period in which it was written, people today find this language offensive.

Some people have falsely claimed that Twain's novels condone and promote racism. Though that is not true and in fact Twain was an ardent abolishionist, they lie to get Twain off the shelves. It is their way of getting political support to ban them.

Democrats like Feinstein want to ban so-called assault weapons because of how she and other liberals see them. Liberals have set themselves up as would-be censors fto decide what is OK and not, what should be legal and not. Yet, no one asked them to!

And really, since anyone who has read my blog knows, I believe in common sense regulations but not government power hungry over-regulation.

Feinstein's attempt to ban a type of gun that is not a primary concern to law enforcement in America is an attempt at impose government control and over-regulation through political theater.

And yes, beings next year is an election year, it may all be for her liberal constituents in California.

Story by Tom Correa

The Beef Industry Is Getting Screwed Again!

Beef cattle production represents the largest single segment of American agriculture.

In fact, the U.S. beef industry is made up of more than 1 million businesses, farms and ranches. And yes, there are more than 800,000 ranchers and cattle producers in the United States.

In 2007, the production of meat animals was responsible for $66 billion in added value to the U.S. economy.

According the Economic Research Service, farming is a family affair. It found that 98% of U.S. farms in 2007 were still family farms. The typical herd size averages 40 head of cattle, but herds with more than 100 head of cattle produce most beef in the United States.

Yes, it is a fact that in 2007, there were 97 million cattle in the United States. That is why total beef production in 2007 was 26.4 billion pounds of beef.

Beef production per cow has increased from about 400 pounds in the mid-1960s to 585 pounds in 2005 meaning more business opportunities for producers and cost savings for consumers.

America’s farming and ranching families love the land and what they do. They're committed to honesty, integrity and hard work as they make sure the the beef you eat is high quality top choice beef.

From pastures to your plate, it is their job to raise the best cattle for you.

The farmers and ranchers who raise cattle for beef face many of the same, if not more, unpredictable and forceful influences that affect most businesses.

From changing product demand, rising input costs and market fluctuation to weather patterns and even consumer nutrition and lifestyle trends, farmers and ranchers must balance a long list of variables in order to be successful.

Simply put, by raising cattle for beef, cattlemen transform grass and grain into a nutritious product that meets consumer demand.

“We create both food and economic activity by sustainably harvesting those resources,” says Gregg Doud, chief economist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

The U.S. beef supply chain is a complex partnership among a variety of independent and mostly family-owned businesses.

It begins with seed-stock operators selling breeding stock to cow-calf operations where calves are born and weaned.

All beef cattle spend their lives grazing on pasture before heading to a feedyard, also known as a feedlot, to be “finished” on a balanced, grain- and forage-based diet.

Cattle farmers and ranchers may be involved in one or several steps of this process, depending on their individual business model.

To reach the consumer in the form of a steak, roast or other beef cut, beef is processed at packing plants and distributed from those facilities through supermarket and restaurant channels or may be exported to other countries.

Increasing Costs of Raising Beef

The 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Census found that beef cattle farms and
ranches spent an average of $79,752 per operation to raise beef cattle during 2007, an increase of $21,000 or 37 percent, from 2002.

1 The five largest expenses for cattle farmers and ranchers were purchases of livestock, feed, suppliers and repairs, labor and interest expenses.

The steepest cost increases were for feed (up 45 percent) and livestock (up 31 percent).

Total production expenses on all cattle farms increased between 2002 to 2007.

A closer look at these factors demonstrates how farmers and ranchers manage and respond to the many challenges involved with running any business, as well as some that are unique to the beef industry.

Cattle producers, farmers and ranchers, who are they:

•  97 percent of all beef cattle operations are family-owned.
•  54 percent of U.S. cattle farms and ranches have been in the same family for three generations or more.
•  Raising cattle for beef is the largest single segment of American agriculture.
•  USDA estimates there were 742,000 beef cattle operations in 2010.
•  There are more than 93 million head of beef cattle of various breeds in the united states.
•  The average age of a U.S. cattle farmer or rancher is 61 years old.
•  More than 10 percent of cattle farmers and ranchers in the united states are women.

The Beef Industry's Problems Comes From Government Over-Regulation

On March 12th, 2013, a report on Fox News (website), "Cattle (Industry) Producers: USDA meat-labeling rules stir backlash" demonstrated the battle that Beef Producers face.

It was reported that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is facing a backlash from small livestock producers and others over its move to tighten meat-labeling regulations, which would force them to separate animals based on where they were born, raised and slaughtered.

The step is being billed as a way to bring the U.S. into compliance with World Trade Organization agreements, but there are a growing number in the industry who argue it will alienate the country’s trading partners and force small American meat farms out of business.

“Only the government could take a costly, cumbersome rule like mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) and make it worse even as it claims to ‘fix it,’’ said American Meat Institute President J. Patrick Boyle.

Boyle believes the proposed rule will make the current requirements even more expensive, onerous and disruptive.

The Department of Agriculture recently proposed the new rule for labeling muscle cuts of meat. That means beef, veal, lamb, pork, goat and chicken -- which are now labeled as simply a product of one country or more -- will have to include additional details including where each animal was born, raised and slaughtered.

The new labeling regulations would force thousands of meat processors and retailers to change the way they label products. The USDA estimates the initial cost would range between $17 million and $48 million.

The USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service began working on a rule change after the U.S. partially lost a WTO appeal in 2012.

“The USDA expects that these changes will improve the overall operation of the program and also bring the current mandatory (country of origin labeling) requirements into compliance with the U.S. international trade obligations," USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.

Of course, to no one's surprise, The National Farmers Union praised the rule change as an “excellent response.”

“By requiring further clarity in labels and stronger record-keeping, the set of rules released are a win-win for farmers, ranchers and consumers,” NFU President Roger Johnson said.

But not everyone agrees, including officials on the northern side of the border with whom the U.S. does considerable business.

“The proposed changes will increase the discrimination against exports of cattle and hogs from Canada and increase damages to Canadian industry,” Canada’s Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a statement.

Many U.S. meat-packing plants, especially those near the U.S.-Canada border, have stopped accepting Canadian livestock or bought less due to the increased costs of segregating animals by domestic and foreign origin.

U.S. companies that have been big buyers of Canadian animals and would be the most affected by the rule change are Tyson Foods, Cargill Inc. and Smithfield Foods.

The United States has until May 23 to redesign its country-of-origin rules to satisfy the WTO ruling.

The USDA is encouraging public feedback and has a section of their site dedicated to hearing what the public says. After the comment period for the proposed rule closes on April 11, the USDA will review all comments before proceeding with a final rule.

I'm going on there and asking why do we Americans even allow the WTO to dictate their "rulings" to us.

I understand agreements, but since at present Americans don't have a White House that will fight for American interests or on-behalf of Cattle Producers, why are we even respecting the wishes of the WTO when the effects of such demands may adversely effect American farming and ranching families?

Both Canada and Mexico successfully argued the 2008 labeling law discriminated against their livestock and meat exports.

But as I said, Americans have no one who will argue our case. Proof of this - the Obama administration said it would comply with the trade ruling.

In a statement late Friday, Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said his government was "extremely disappointed" with the U.S. proposal.

"We do not believe that the proposed changes will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations," Ritz said.

Country of origin labels, referred to as COOL, became mandatory in March 2009 after years of debate.

Liberal farm and consumer groups said the labels would help shoppers make informed decisions, but meat packers and livestock producers termed the labels a costly paperwork headache.

A cost that may end generations of family businesses.


Story by Tom Correa

My Blog, A Class Project?

I receive all sorts of emails, some good and some awful. This was one piece of email that I wanted to share with my readers.

A young lady wrote saying that she is a Journalist student at a University. She had come across my blog when she was searching for a website for an upcoming project for a class. She asked if she could ask a few questions about my blog and use my answers for her class. I was both surprised and flattered.

Below are the questions she sent, and my answers:

1) When did you start blogging?

My first post was in late December 2010.

2) Why blog?

I initially started it because I thought I could pass along a good story or two. I spent a lot of time in the Marine Corps, in Security, working horses and cattle while holding various jobs. I've traveled overseas and throughout the United States. I've seen most of the country and met a lot of interesting people, so I thought I'd pass along some of what I found - the people, the places, and the pulse of America.

Besides passing on a good story or two, I became interested in writing about factual history because it seemed to me that there are people -- some of who are my close friends -- who simply accept Hollywood's version as the truth when it isn't even close most times.

After a while, I found that something else started happening. After a few posts, I found myself defending America and our values, our heritage and traditions, and even our system of government. Since I'm not a Political Science expert, I think I look at politics more cleanly and unobstructed. I don't deal with theory, just right and wrong.

I look at politics from the point of few of a man who has been a blue-collar worker, a man who knows how it feels to have to budget and stretch a dollar, lie to collection agencies, and knows how it feels to be out of work and worried about how to make ends meet. I think my opinion on politics is closer to how regular Americans look at politics.

3) What is The American Cowboy Chronicles all about?

The American Cowboy Chronicles has sort of evolved since I first started it. As I said, I wanted to pass on a few stories. Since then, I've written 390 posts. And in an effort to be accurate, some are way too long.

My blog, The American Cowboy Chronicles, is about American virtues, values, pride in our nation, respect for our heritage, and understanding of how we got here. It is about what one cowboy has learned in his life. Without sounding too pretentious, that "cowboy" is me.

It is about dispelling the myth that America is evil and that those who blame all of the world's ills on us are justified when they are not. It is about knowing who the real villains are in history, who are the real heroes of the Old West, and who was phony baloney. It's about those who have and are helping our nation and deserve respect and praise, and who are hurting their own nation and should be condemned.

It is about spreading the news, giving commentary, and passing along good clean facts and information that empower us all. Whether it's about "rural America," how to select a horse, fire a gun safely, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the importance of the rights we share, America's First Principles, about our need to drill for oil in America and the 6,000 produces we use daily that is made from oil, or about the reason that things are the way they are, who should be held accountable for their actions, or about what really happened in the Old West, I'm trying to provide information that people can use.

4)  Motivations to continue blogging?

Right after the election, I felt empty and used up. I had done so much research on the candidates, all the while trying to put party affiliations aside. I couldn't understand how anyone could vote for Barack Obama since he has been such an utter failure. He's been completely inept. And frankly, his pitting race against race, and other methods of divisiveness at every turn, are all hurting our nation.

For a moment, I was going to give up producing articles on politics and what's in the news. But then, Obama became arrogant and demeaning. His whole "screw you" attitude bothered me. He sounds more like a bully and a punk these days. He embraced those who were in favor of violence against others. I found lie after lie while he seemed to only represent only those who voted for him.

And lately, instead of putting the concerns of our nation ahead of those of others, like never before he has revealed a contempt for our nation and our way of life that I've never seen in a President nevertheless a politician. His disdain for Americans is ever-present.

So now, I continue to write about politics. And no, not only because I enjoy writing, but also because I have readers who want to hear a voice that calls it like it is -- and read something interesting. 

5)  Do you earn money from your blog?

No, I don't. I've been part of an Advertising Program but that hasn't paid off at all. I'm probably going to end my association with them because of that.

I do support certain organizations with ads and back-links to help them out because I believe in their cause -- like the Marine Corps, Saint Judes Hospital, the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, Stolen Horse International, and others.

As for me, I am hoping to get donations here and there, and maybe a sponsor or two somewhere down the road. It would certainly help with the horse rescue that my wife and I are doing these days. But if I don't, that's fine.

6)  How do you manage your blog?

I manage my blog like a blind man with a shotgun. I hear a noise and fire! And yes, I'm afraid that that's more true than not.

What I mean by that is that I read a lot of different news agencies. I scan Fox News, The Washington Times, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The DailyMail out of the U.K, the US Farm Report, and many others for what's going on out there.

My philosophy is this: I don't want my blog to sound like everyone else. While some stories can't be neglected -- if everyone is doing articles on them then I'm only part of the choir. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being part of the choir, but it would be nice if I can do a bit more research on a subject before my blog sounds just like everyone else.

Of course, then there are those stories that others aren't talked about that get my goat. And yes, that's when I fire away! Of course, my pleasure is writing about my favorite subjects such as American history, especially Old West with a focus on Vigilante Groups and the period we know as "The Great Depression," guns in general, horses, the cowboy lifestyle, living in rural America, and of course Civics and Conservative politics.

Now as for managing my blog posts? Well, I find that I get a fairly good response when I'm doing current events, news, and politics during the week. I find that my articles on the Old West, horses, and guns, do better on the weekends.

7) Strengths of your blog?

Wow! That really is a loaded question. I really don't know what the strengths of my blog are. Actually, I don't know what weaknesses I have other than the fact that my articles are way too long.

8) Target audience?

I don't know if I really have a target audience as of right now. As of right now, I'm putting out a lot of different articles on a lot of different subjects while trying not to let politics consume me.

I want to put my blog out there. I have different subjects for my readers to choose from. I really don't want to make my blog into a purely political Conservative voice and just be that. I really want this to be more "Cowboy" or "Western lifestyle" related than anything else. Some enjoy reading about guns and the Old West, others horses and cattle, and some like reading my 9/11 articles to keep in mind what took place just 12 years ago.

There are articles on my blog for Cowboys, Farmers, Ranchers, Gun enthusiasts, history buffs, Veterans, Conservatives, as well as students and others interested in reading about things in the news these days. And yes, there are things on here that don't make the front pages. But seriously, I kind of like knowing that it's all here for folks.

With that, I'd say my target audience in the future will probably be determined by what attracts people and what they request more of. Right now, my audience for my Old West articles is growing. I really hope that there's a time when I can do primarily Old West history or American history in general. I believe there is an audience looking for that. Besides, there is so much that we can all learn from our history. 

9) Statistics (i.e profile views from other people, followers)

As for my profile views, I have no idea. As for followers, I think I have a few right now. As for "hits" a day, I'm averaging between 300 and 400 visits a day these days --which is great for me. Just prior to the election last November, I was getting around 900 visits a day. After the election, things dropped off and I attribute that to the depression folks are feeling over Obama being reelected.

Now I see my numbers raising again because people are angry at what's going on in Washington DC. So who knows where the numbers will go.

Another thing is that there is a difference between the weekdays when I do Conservative politics, current events, and that sort of thing, versus the Old West articles that I put on on the weekends. The numbers for the weekday traffic are not really growing while weekend traffic is steadily growing. This is encouraging me to open up my old travel journals and relate to my readers what I found in my looking at historical people and events.

I find what I have learned during my travels to be very interesting. I've also found that what I've learned during my travels and looking at historic events and people, especially those in the Old West, didn't always agree with the so-called "Historians" who wrote this or that book. It's true, after seeing things for myself, I came to the conclusion that some of those guys really didn't know what they were talking about at all. 

That takes me to my pet peeve of providing sources. Some so-called "Historians" provide sources using the research of others. That's a pet peeve of mine. I've read a lot of so-called "Historians" who provide tons of sources at the ends of their books. 

Most don't mind quoting the books authored by others. They use the work and research of others to justify their findings -- but they usually provide very little explanation about what they themselves found. So really, most seem to simply be regurgitating what someone else has found or said -- even if they are wrong.

In the Inspection Industry, which I worked in for quite a few years, that would be considered fraud. As an Inspector/Technician doing industrial inspections, it would have been considered criminal for me to base my findings on what some other Inspector found during his examination. It would not matter one bit how respected that person was who did the previous inspection, I couldn't base my findings of an inspection on the findings of someone years before. Because that's my background, I prefer to do my own research, read archived newspapers, wade through the court records, and try not to let someone else's finding sway what I'm looking at. 

10) Advice to other bloggers.

I really don't know if I qualify as someone who can give advice to other writers. I read a number of blogs, most of which I don't have listed on my site, and I admire other writers a great deal. Most have a way with words that I have never had. They are brief and to the point like a good swordsman. For me, I flounder around writing and rewriting and rewriting and on and on into the wee hours of the morning. I admire people who don't have to do that and can still tell a good accurate story.

Yes, I really do have a great deal of admiration for other bloggers, especially if they are Conservatives who may feel outnumbered and swimming upstream all the time. Of course, I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that I do find that my disappointment over things going on in the Obama administration helps me write. It's probably out of a sense of frustration and disappointment with him.

Maybe there's something to the notion of writing more when you're unhappy with things around you? If so, then maybe that's the answer to why there are so many Conservative Blogs popping up. Seems there are a lot of unhappy folks these days. Especially when one looks at how Obama keeps increasing the number of rules and regulations that Americans have to live by now.

You asked who I am?

Well, I am now retired. My wife and I live in Glencoe, California, with a population of 189. I spend most of my time caring for rescued horses, volunteering, and researching newspaper archives, old court records, journals, and such. I'm a big believer in hard work, integrity, commitment, duty, respect, and treating others as I would like to be treated.

Though I live in California, a person can leave the doors unlocked here, make an agreement with a handshake, and care for the land and people a lot better than the government can. There isn't any hustle and bustle or pushing and shoving here like there is in the cities.

The only drawback as to what's happening in this part of "rural America" is that as more and more people move up here from the cities in Bay Area, the drivers are getting rude and everyone in the nearby big town of Jackson (17 miles away) are all starting to act like they do in the city. More seem to be in a hurry while going nowhere. Even though that's the case and things are changing, all in all, I wouldn't trade my country lifestyle for all the tea in China.

These questions are not something that I've really thought about. It was sort of fun examining what my blog is all about. I hope she does well. In fact, if you're reading this, I wish you Good Luck!

Tom Correa