Saturday, November 3, 2012

RANDOM SHOT - Obama urges voters to take "Revenge," Jeeps In China, Voting Machines Fixed For Obama, and More!


Obama urges voters to take "Revenge" on Election Day

When I was in High School, I had a teacher who hated President Richard Nixon. That teacher would call Nixon a crook every chance he had, and one day he explained to us why he absolutely loathed the president.

He told us that Nixon had an "Enemies List" and was extremely vindictive. He said that a man in a position of power as high as the president should not be vindictive.

He said Nixon was out to get those who did not support him. I remember thinking that he was exaggerating how the president does things.

I reasoned that a man so weak and shallow, so ill tempered and disillusioned, so power hungry, could never be President of the United States of America.

Could we ever have a President of the United States who would be so vindictive as to seek, or support, revenge against those who don't support him or his policies?

Napoleon sure, Stalin sure, Mussolini sure, Hitler absolutely, but these were not American presidents. These were tyrants filled with sick ambitions to rule and enslave their people.

Sure they would have a strong, almost sick, desire for revenge one way or another. Heck, that's how they held power. But an American president? An American president wanting or supporting "revenge"?

It couldn't happen here. Or could it?

And revenge over what? Over not supporting a candidate because we don't like his policies? It would be sort of nuts to think it possible!

Granted over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of chatter from Obama's supporters wanting to kill Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. And yes, they have used the word "assassinate" when describing what they want to do to Romney and Ryan.

Well, believe it or not, President Obama suggested on Friday that his supporters take "revenge" by voting against the Republican nominee. He actually used the word "revenge".

During a speech in Springfield, Ohio, Obama worked up his crowd of supporters with his normal let's beat up on the rich stump speech. Then he mentioned Mitt Romney's name, and of course that drew boos from the crowd.

The president's reaction is one that had to surprise everyone there if they realize what they heard, but maybe not. Because when his audience started booing, the president said, "No, no, no -- don't boo, vote! Vote. Voting is the best revenge!"

Days ago when I first read about the death threats against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, I remember thinking how President Obama could sound so non-partisan - so Presidential - if he would address those who have threaten to kill Romney and Ryan.

I thought, here is his chance to right America and tell those who he has filled with hate to stand down and get a hold of themselves.

Today, the Romney camp claimed Obama's remarks draw a clear distinction between the two men, just four days before Election Day.

"I think it's a terrible message to be sending," Romney senior adviser Kevin Madden said. "The contrast could not be more stark. Governor Romney is out campaigning on a positive message of change while the president is talking about revenge."

The Obama campaign lashed back. No apology, just more attacks.

President Obama is supposedly so intelligent yet he doesn't understand that words have power. And yes, a word like "revenge" coming from his mouth to his supporters should alarm many out there.

I believe the Mitt Romney will be elected President this coming Tuesday. I'm ashamed to say that I think there will be racial riots in the streets of the inner-cities. I'm also ashamed to say that I really believe that Barack Obama has fueled the fire of hatred that some use as an excuse to riot, loot and destroy.

And please, please don't say that what is said in a campaign does not translate into violence.

I was only a kid, a teenager if I remember right, when Robert Kennedy was shot dead during his campaign. I remember it on television as if it were yesterday.

Robert Kennedy's campaign for the presidency was in full gear, and he was the front-running candidate of the Democratic Party.

In the California presidential primary on June 4, Kennedy defeated Eugene McCarthy. And there at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, following a brief victory speech delivered just past midnight on June 5th, Kennedy was shot by an Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan, who hated Kennedy because he in a campaign speech he had promised jet fighters to Israel. 

Hate motivated the man to kill Robert F. Kennedy. It is the same sort of hate that the Obama campaign has been fueling. Hate based on the lies that the Obama campaign has been pushing for months now.

I know someone out there will write me to say that the hate that Sirhan Sirhan had for Robert Kennedy is much different than the hate that's being drummed up by the Obama campaign. But are you sure?

During this election, both Obama's campaign and his surrogates have fueled the flames of hatred by promoting the ideas of class warfare, a return to racial segregation, a repeal of women's rights, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, ending programs that feed the poor and keep our air clean, all if Mitt Romney is elected.

All while knowing full well that Mitt Romney has no such plans.

It is supposed to gin up votes, but it also feeds the hatred and incites violence. Words like "revenge" incite those who want an excuse to commit violence.

As I stated in my October 20th, Random Shots article, Obama Supporters Threaten To Kill Romney If He Wins Election:

Threats to assassinate President Obama would be dealt with immediately, with Mitt Romney proving just as threatened on the social network - I'm hoping someone takes this serious and doesn't treat it as they did the threats against George W. Bush.

Twitchy first reported on the death threats last Sunday but a deluge of new ones have flooded in since, including the following;

“I swear if Mitt Romney becomes president, I’m gonna be the one to assassinate his ass!!!”

“im telling you if romney gets elected somebody gon have to take a L and A. assassinate romney and ryan or B. obliterate the WH w/ them in it.”

“If Romney becomes president , hella people gonna try to assassinate him.”

“Soo Romney said black folks are free loaders n basically tryna get us back to slavery…..I will personally Assassinate dat mf.”

“If Romney Get Elected Somebody Gotta Assassinate Him” Me Duh Nigha ??”

“If Romney Get Elected Somebody Gotta Assassinate Him.”

“F*ck Romney ima assassinate.”

It is important again to stress that these are not newly created fake accounts, they are owned by people who have made thousands of previous tweets.

While some Twitter users later backed away from their threats, others seemed genuinely serious.
President Obama, his administration, and the liberal media, have needlessly fanned the flames of racial division in American. When it became apparent that economics would not work, the Obama administration has tried to break America along racial, gender and class lines.

Now is the time for the ominous to be addressed. Obama and other Democrat leaders, and yes the culpable mainstream liberal press, should step forward and denounce these threats of violence right now.

If they have any decency at all, they would do so immediately.

So yesterday, when the Romney campaign addressed President Obama's use of the word "revenge" and claimed that Obama's remarks draw a clear distinction between the two men.

President Obama's campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said, "We'll take a lecture from the Romney campaign on positive campaigning when they stop scaring auto workers, pull their cynical Jeep ad off the air and apologize for falsely claiming that Chrysler is moving Jeep production to China. That's their closing argument and there's nothing positive about scare tactics and dishonesty."

Scare tactics and dishonesty? Really! Not hardly!

Please, read on to find out why I say that.


So let's talk about Jeep production to China, was Mitt Romney wrong?

On October 25th, 2012, the Washington Examiner ran the story: 

Jeep, an Obama favorite, looks to shift production to China

In another potential blow for the president's Ohio reelection campaign, Jeep, the rugged brand President Obama once said symbolized American freedom, is considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China.

Such a move would crash the economy in towns like Toledo, Ohio, where Jeeps are made and supplied, and rob the community of the economic security they thought Obama's auto bailout assured them.

Obama is such a fan of Jeep that he included a picture of himself speaking at the Toledo plant in his newly released second term agenda binder.

In his address to the plant in 2011, Obama said, "I just took a short tour of the plant and watched some of you putting the finishing touches on the Wrangler. Now, as somebody reminded, I need to call it the 'iconic' Wrangler. And that's appropriate because when you think about what Wrangler has always symbolized. It symbolized freedom, adventure, hitting the open road, never looking back."

Well it appears that the taxpayer bailed-out Chrysler is looking back and now considering cutting costs by shifting production of all Jeeps to China, which has a strong desire for Jeeps.

In a Bloomberg interview, Jeep's president said the automaker plans to restore Jeep production in China, suspended in 2009, and is considering making all Jeeps in China. "Fiat SpA, majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers' operations in the region," reported the business wire service.

Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia and president of the Jeep brand, told Bloomberg, "We're reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity" as well as "should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio" to China.

Chrysler builds Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley said the firm is in talks with China's Guangzhou Automobile Group Co.

--- end article of October 25th.

Then on October 30th, Chrysler Group LLC Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne came out to say that Jeep sport-utility vehicle production will stay in the U.S. after presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested output may move to China.

"Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China," Marchionne wrote in a letter to Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler’s employees. "Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different."

It wasn't Romney who got it wrong, talk to Bloomberg News!

Bloomberg News reported on Oct. 22 that Chrysler’s majority owner Fiat SpA (F) planned to resume Jeep output in China and may eventually make all of the brand’s models there. The report stated that potential production in China would be in addition to output at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio.

Chrysler hasn’t built Jeeps in China, the world’s largest auto market, since before Turin, Italy-based Fiat took control of the U.S. automaker in 2009 after a U.S.-backed bankruptcy.

Production in China would allow Fiat and Chrysler to sell Jeeps that avoid Chinese government tariffs on imported vehicles.

When Mitt Romney told a crowd in Ohio last week that he had read a report saying Jeep was "thinking of moving all production to China," there is a defensible explanation for what he said.

A Bloomberg story published the previous Monday had stated that Fiat, which owns Chrysler, "plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country."

A line was added to the Bloomberg story after it was published stating that Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia, was referring to "adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China."

After finding out the correction, the Romney campaign made a good  point when they said, "if Chrysler adds jobs in China, that amounts to jobs the automaker is not creating here at home in the United States.

Now as for why this story struck home with me?

Well, just as a matter of full disclosure, I bought brand new CJ-5 Jeep back in 1979 during the "Other Great Depression" when Jimmy Carter was president.  
Ah, the days the Democrats want to forget! The days of the Carter Administration and the last time the economy was really in the toilet.

Think I'm kidding? How about double-digit unemployment as in 16% nationally, double-digit inflation rate as in 14%, and yes let's not forget the double-digit Interest Rates.

Yup, I remember going into the American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep lot and finding one that I wanted.  I then sat down with the Dealer and got a great Interest Rate for those days, I got 17%!

Yes, even though my credit rating was excellent, that's what I got - and that was great.

You see, Democrats bet on you and I not having a very good memories. They don't want you to remember that Interest Rates under that last President to use the same economic policies as Obama - was actually Jimmy Carter. And yes, that was truly America's last Depression!

Under Carter, the Interest Rate was 21%!

My CJ-5 Jeep was made before AMC partnered with France's Renault to help finance their manufacturing operations - all to obtain much-needed capital and a source for sub-compact vehicles.

Just a few years later in 1983, Renault had a controlling interest in AMC. Production was discontinued for all AMC cars except the all-wheel-drive Eagles.

In 1987, Renault sold AMC to Chrysler. The AMC and Renault brands were then discontinued in America. The Jeep/Eagle division of Chrysler Corporation was formed from the remains of AMC after Chrysler's 1987 buyout. The Jeep was marketed primarily by former AMC dealers for a long time.

Of course, that was around the time that those yo-yos at 60Minutes nearly killed Jeep because of a fictional story they ran about the odds of Jeeps rolling over. Fact is that 60 Minutes put a lot of people out of work because their story - a story where they fudged the figures - almost halted production of Jeep altogether.

And of course, that's when Chrysler bought out AMC in 1987, shortly after the Jeep CJ-7 was replaced with the AMC-designed Jeep Wrangler (or the YJ) - a wider wheelbase Jeep. 

Then Chrysler merged with Daimler-Benz in 1998 to form DaimlerChrysler. DaimlerChrysler eventually sold most of their interest in Chrysler to a private equity company in 2007. Chrysler and the Jeep division now operate under the name Chrysler Group LLC.

Jeeps have been built under licence by various manufacturers around the world including Mahindra in India, EBRO in Spain, and several in South America. Mitsubishi built more than 30 different Jeep models in Japan between 1953 and 1998. Most of them were based on the CJ-3B model of the original Willys-Kaiser design.

Toledo, Ohio has been the headquarters of the Jeep marque since its inception, and the city has always been proud of this heritage. Although no longer produced in the same Toledo Complex as the World War II originals, two streets in the vicinity of the old plant are named Willys Parkway and Jeep Parkway.

So are Jeeps being produced in China? Well, yes they are!

American Motors Corporation set up the first automobile-manufacturing joint venture in the People's Republic of China back in January  of 1984.

The result was Beijing Jeep Corporation, Ltd., in partnership with Beijing Automobile Industry Corporation, to produce the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) in Beijing.

And yes, manufacturing of Jeeps in China has continued after Chrysler's buyout of AMC back in 1987.

This joint venture is now part of Daimler-Chrysler and Daimler-Chrysler China Invest Corporation. The original 1984 XJ model was updated and called the "Jeep 2500" toward the end of its production that ended after 2005.

As for my 1979 CJ-5 Jeep? Well, it was my primary vehicle for 30 years. Then about 4 years ago, I gave it to my nephew with the stipulation that he cannot sell it.

He agreed. And yes, today he climbs rocks and crosses rivers with her just as I did back when!

Lies and Half-Truths from the Obama Campaign

On Fox News website, writer Liz Peek who is a Fox News.com contributor and a a financial columnist who also writes for The Fiscal Times, wrote a really good article about the myths of the Obama campaign.

She asks if we "remember when the Supreme Court decision allowing corporate political spending was going to undermine Democrats, uh, that is, democracy? Or how Republican super PACs would give Governor Romney an insurmountable spending advantage?"

She refreshes our memory that as it turns out, the "Obama campaign has raised more money than the GOP candidate – a staggering amount of almost $1 billion dollars – even while as recently as August Obama was e-mailing supporters warning them that Romney was outspending Democrats."

The Obama campaign doesn't want to mention how Obama has run 20,000 more campaign ads than Romney. And friends, 20,000 campaign ads just to attack your opponent and never say what you really going to do in the next four years if your re-elected takes a lot of money.

But wait, that's not the only myth that Liz Peek wants to remind us of. She states that another myth key to Barack Obama’s campaign is that Mitt Romney wants to go back to the “policies that got us into trouble in the first place.”

And since Liz Peek is a financial columnist, it is important for folks to listen when she asks "what are those injurious Republican policies?"

Her answer, "Presumably the president refers to the deregulation of financial institutions that liberals blame for the recession. But, it was Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, which undid that long-standing law, passed the Senate 90-8, with Vice President Biden among the many Democrats supporting the measure. By contrast, George Bush was a regulation nut. It was during his administration that the country adopted the oppressive Sarbanes-Oxley legislation."

And thought those are facts, she knows that some will still believe the Obama lie and not the truth of what took place.

The truth, as Liz Peek puts it, is that "the financial crisis did not stem from deregulation. Instead, it was caused by the government encouraging too much money to slosh into real estate and into subprime mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie, on the misguided notion that home ownership created upward mobility."

The excess investment into property blew prices sky-high and encouraged speculation. The ensuing bubble was fed by the emergence of securitization, which made available unprecedented amounts of money. Many rungs led up this rickety ladder – poor credit analysis, incompetent ratings agencies, undisciplined mortgage brokers – but allowing banks and securities firms to invade each others’ turf was not among them."

Of course the Democrats, especially the Obama campaign, doesn't want you to remember that even the ultra-liberal New York Times had to admit that George W. Bush went to the Democrats who controlled Congress on 17 different occasions to address the impending crisis.

In her article, I give Liz Peek a great big thank you for telling folks that "another Obama myth is that the president 'saved' GM while Romney wanted to let the auto companies go bankrupt."

She points out the fact that, "People forget that GM did go bankrupt, and that taxpayers are still on the hook for $42 billion in monies funneled to GM and its financial arm Ally Capital – more than half the TARP funds that are still outstanding.

Obama upended traditional (and legal) bankruptcy proceedings in order to rig the outcome heavily in favor of the UAW – payback for the $400 million in contributions from organized labor that fueled his 2008 campaign.

For the UAW, each one percent ownership interest in GM cost $629 million; taxpayers paid $834 million and secured bondholders, the top of the credit chain, paid $2.7 billion for one percent of the company."

She also asks a great question, "Romney’s push was for a legal and legitimate sorting out of the company’s debts, a restructuring that would ensure the company’s competitiveness going forward, more harmonious labor relations and investment in energy-saving and innovative technology. Does that sound like a prescription for killing the autos?"

Liz Peek states the Obama campaign's latest bit is to spread more of the same, just more bullshit. And yes, save your letters to her, she calls it myths - "bullshit" is my opinion of what the Obama campaign has been trying to pass for the truth.

She writes about Obama campaign's myths, which I call his campaign lies because that's what they are, saying, "President Obama’s newest campaign ad is stuffed with myths, including how he fostered 'American-made energy'.

Even fourth-graders know that Obama’s every impulse has been to squash the use of fossil fuels. He stifled investment in oil and gas by slowing lease sales on federal lands, proposed cap and trade regulations (which thankfully went nowhere) that would crimp hydrocarbon development, pushed to eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas producers that are meant to stimulate drilling, and adopted regulations that virtually prohibit construction of new coal-fired power plants.

He is convinced that high-cost green energy is the future and that fossil fuels are relics of an unhealthy and permissive past. For a campaign supposedly looking Forward!, energy policy has been remarkably embedded in past (and discredited notions) of how we are running out of oil."

And though she didn't say it, I will, what about his trying to kill the Keystone XL oil pipeline to suck up to his Environmentalist big money donors. It killed the prospect of 500,000 jobs, oil Independence, and lower prices at the pumps - all which Foreign Oil rich Islamic countries don't want us to have!

My respect for Liz Peek goes far because she is reminding Americans of the truth while others in the media aren't.

Here's what she had to say about trade, "Mr. Obama also touts his success in promoting exports. Sales of goods and services overseas have indeed increased, as reliably as the temperature climbs on a sunny day. Global growth is being driven by rising consumption in emerging economies like China and Brazil; we, as the world’s second largest exporter, have benefited."

It is interesting to note, however, that while exports increased 72% during George W. Bush’s eight years in office, despite a recession early in his term that drove exports slightly lower, the amount of goods and services we ship outside our boundaries has advanced only 20% in the four years Mr. Obama has been president.

We assume that export growth in the final months of this year will hum along at 5%, as it did earlier in 2012; they most recently turned down. Mr. Obama’s tenure began with a slump, to be sure. But he has not moved the needle here.

The Obama campaign teeters on many myths and distractions. Unhappily, there is no excuse for Mr. Obama’s failure to lead this country, his inability to work across the aisle, his refusal to tackle our fiscal challenges or his disdain for private enterprise. There are no heroes here."

Reading what Liz Peek has to say is wonderful because we need to know that there are financial experts out there who validate what we all see happening around us.

And no, I'm not saying that we need this validation - but instead that it is just good to have. It sort of like having a friend near by when you know damn well that some con man is trying to shaft you but he's making the deal sound so good. Even though you know he's a con man, there is that thought in your head that says, "You think I could be wrong about him?"

Here our friend, like Liz Peek, saying, "Nope, it's all a myth. He really is a con man. And yes, he's trying his best to make you believe lies and half-truths to buy what he's selling."

What Obama is selling is the very same thing that he got away with selling in 2008, just bullshit all to just get elected!
We don't need Masters, nor Slaves!

Abraham Lincoln said, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy."

Too bad Obama does not believe the same.

Our government should work for us eye to eye as a service to we the people. Not as our slave, but more as our hired hand. It should not even attempt to think itself our master.


Claims increase of machines switching votes from Romney to Obama!

Imagine going to vote for your presidential candidate and pushing the button on a touch-screen voting machine -- but the "X" marks his opponent instead.

That is what some voters in Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio have reported.

Fox News received several complaints from voters who say they voted on touch-screen voting machines -- only when they tried to select Mitt Romney, the machine indicated they had chosen President Obama.

The voters in question realized the error and were able to cast ballots for their actual choice.

"I don't know if it happened to anybody else or not, but this is the first time in all the years that we voted that this has ever happened to me," said Marion, Ohio, voter Joan Stevens.

Stevens said that when she voted, it took her three tries before the machine accepted her choice to vote for Romney.

"I went to vote and I got right in the middle of Romney's name," Stevens told Fox News, saying that she was certain to put her finger directly on her choice for the White House.

She said that the first time she pushed "Romney," the machine marked "Obama."

So she pushed Romney again. Obama came up again. Then it happened a third time.

"Maybe you make a mistake once, but not three times," she told Fox News.

Marion County Board of Elections Director Sophie Rogers, though, said: "My personal opinion is that she hit it too hard."

"We've noticed people just punch on them. She might not have hit the square that she wanted," Rogers said.

Rogers insists there are no problems with the touch-screen machines in Marion County and that after learning of Stevens' complaint she took the machine out of circulation and had it reexamined and recalibrated. She says there was nothing wrong with the machine to begin with.

But in response to the growing number of complaints, the Republican National Committee has sent a letter to election officials in six states -- Ohio, Nevada, Kansas, North Carolina, Missouri and Colorado -- demanding tighter controls on touch-screen machines.

The RNC wants the machines to be re-tested, more technicians added to fix any problems, and verbal reminders given by election workers telling voters to double check their ballots.

Multiple voters from several states wrote Fox News to report problems similar to what Stevens reported.

One voter asked: "I wonder how many voters just hit the 'Cast Ballot' without reading the machine?"

"How can we be sure our votes are not being stolen electronically?" asked another.

One expert warns it can happen.

"Vote jumping complaints have arisen in every election that uses touch-screen voting machines, with the complaints going both ways," said Barbara Simons, author of the new book "Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count?"

Simons, an expert on electronic voting who is on the Board of Advisors of the U.S. Election Commission, said there is good reason for people not to trust the older touch-screen machines.

She said, "This phenomenon can occur when a machine goes out of calibration. The need to re-calibrate frequently is an important reason for discarding these aging, unreliable, and inaccurate machines and replacing them with paper ballots."

Frequently recalibrating the machines is one of the RNC demands.

But election officials insist that the machines are practically foolproof. They say any problems are due to human error, and that tinkering with machines is almost impossible.

"It is nearly technically impossible to pre-program the voting machines in Nevada to vote for a specified candidate," said Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, in a statement to Fox News.

He said machines are tested by each of the state's 17 counties individually.

"While it is possible for a voter to inadvertently select a candidate, it is not possible for the machine to automatically select a candidate."

Miller notes that similar allegations were investigated in his state during the 2010 election, with the assistance of the FBI. Authorities found that claims that machines "were pre-programmed, malfunctioning or in any way preventing any voter from casting a ballot for the candidate of their choice were without merit."

Miller, a Democrat, brands the Republican demand to election officials as "based upon rumor, hearsay, or unconfirmed media reports," as well as "irresponsible" and "unfortunate."

He said his office has "not received any direct, first-hand complaints from voters."

In Ohio, touch-screen machines, for example, are being used in Lorain County with no reported "switched votes" or operational issues.

"We haven't had any problems with the touch screens this year and everything is going well," Lorain County Board of Elections Director Paul Adams told Fox News.

His county has used touch-screen machines since 2005.

Adams, a veteran election official, said that in his county, machines are not electronically designed to be able to change choices, and there is no way for anybody to rig a machine or pre-program its choices for one candidate or a slate.

"We have heard of these issues in some of the other counties. We had sporadic issues a few years ago, and since then we have upgraded our software and our board has replaced most of our touch-screen unit screens if there were any problems with them. And since we've done that about a year and a half ago, we haven't had any major issues."

Lorain County did replace 400 of its 1,200 touch screen machines last year.

Adams also notes that there is what is called "a paper trial," like a receipt, where voters can see their choices printed out. He also says that anybody who has a problem voting should immediately tell elections officials.

While Fox News spent the day at the County Board of Elections, where early voting was taking place, election workers were doing just that.

One woman's long fingernails blocked her selection, until she moved the angle of her fingers to get it right.

An elderly man did not realize that he did not cast a vote for president, so a worker did exactly what Adam advises. She walked the voter through the process.

"I pushed the button!" the man declared.

"You might have accidentally hit it twice. Just lightly tap it, real light," advised the worker.

She also showed the voter the paper evidence of his votes to confirm them.

"Are you satisfied?"

"Yes, thank you very much," the voter replied.

Nevertheless, Joan, who said she finally was able to cast a correct vote after three attempts, advises fellow voters to confirm their choices.

"Be very careful when you vote. I don't care who you vote for, just double-check."



Bloomberg blasted for going forward with NYC Marathon plans as city reels from Sandy

Mayor Michael Bloomberg came under fire Friday for pressing ahead with this weekend's New York Marathon in a city still reeling from Superstorm Sandy, with some New Yorkers saying that holding the race would be insensitive and divert police, generators and other resources when many are still suffering.

Joan Wacks, whose Staten Island waterfront condo was swamped with 4 feet of water, predicted authorities will still be recovering bodies when the estimated 40,000 runners from around the world hit the streets for the 26.2-mile race Sunday, and she called the mayor "tone deaf."

"He is clueless without a paddle to the reality of what everyone else is dealing with," she said. "If there are any resources being put toward the marathon, that's wrong. I'm sorry, that's wrong."

At a news conference, Bloomberg defended his decision as a way to raise money for the stricken city and boost morale less than a week after Sandy flooded neighborhoods, knocked out power to hundreds of thousands homes and businesses and killed at least 39 people.

Bloomberg said New York "has to show that we are here and we are going to recover" and "give people something to cheer about in what has been a very dismal week for a lot of people."

"You have to keep going and doing things," he said. "You can grieve and you can cry and you can laugh, and that's what human beings are good at."

He noted that his predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, went ahead with the New York Marathon two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"If you go back to 9/11, Rudy made the right decision in those days to run the marathon and pull people together," Bloomberg said.

One of the world's pre-eminent road races, the New York Marathon generates an estimated $340 million into the city. This time, the marathon's sponsors and organizers have dubbed it the "Race to Recover" and intend to use the event to raise money for the city to deal with the crisis. New York Road Runners, the race organizer, will donate $1 million and said sponsors have pledged more than $1.5 million.

"It's hard in these moments to know what's best to do," NYRR president Mary Wittenberg said. "The city believes this is best to do right now."

The course runs from the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge on hard-hit Staten Island to Central Park, sending runners through all five boroughs. The course will not be changed, since there was little damage along the route.

Earlier this week, the mayor gave assurances the race wouldn't siphon off resources from the storm recovery, noting electricity is expected to be restored to all of Manhattan by race day, freeing up "an enormous number of police."

New Yorker Michael Sofronas used to run the marathon and has been a race volunteer for four years, serving as an interpreter for foreign runners. But he said he won't volunteer this year.

"I'm also really very aghast at the fact that we've just gone through the Sandy hurricane and I believe that the people should not be diverted to the marathon. They should focus on the people in need," he said. "It's all about money, money from everybody. The sponsors, the runners."

A Swede who arrived in New York this week to run in the marathon sided with the mayor.

"It doesn't feel good, coming to New York," said Maria Eriksson, 27. "But the marathon has been planned for such a long time. And besides, it brings so much money to the city. That should help. What help would it be to cancel?"

But John Esposito, a Staten Islander helping his elderly parents clean out their flooded home, said: "They brought giant generators to power the marathon tents while we've got thousands of people without power. ... How about putting one of these generators here? Have some compassion."

But wait, the story doesn't end quite yet!

Angry New Yorkers Win And The Marathon Is Canceled

In wake of Anger over Mayor's initial decision to hold it

The New York City Marathon was canceled on Friday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg after mounting criticism that this was not the time for a race while the region is still recovering from Superstorm Sandy.

With people in storm-ravaged areas still shivering without electricity and the death toll in New York City at more than 40, many residents recoiled at the prospect of police officers being assigned to protect Sunday's race.

An estimated 40,000 runners from around the world had been expected to take part in the 26.2-mile event. The race had been scheduled to start in Staten Island, one of the hardest-hit areas by this week's storm.

A few hours after Bloomberg insisted the race would be held, he reversed his decision when top city officials lined up against him.

"We would not want a cloud to hang over the race or its participants, and so we have decided to cancel it," the mayor said in a statement. "We cannot allow a controversy over an athletic event -- even one as meaningful as this -- to distract attention away from all the critically important work that is being done to recover from the storm and get our city back on track."

The nationally televised race that winds through the city's five boroughs and ends in Central Park has been held annually since 1970 -- it was held in 2001, about two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The cancellation means there won't be another NYC Marathon until next year.

Bloomberg called the marathon an "integral part of New York City's life for 40 years" and "an event tens of thousands of New Yorkers participate in and millions more watch."

He still insisted that holding the race would not require diverting resources from the recovery effort, but understood the level of friction.

"It is clear it that it has become the source of controversy and division," Bloomberg said. "The marathon has always brought our city together and inspired us with stories of courage and determination."

Mary Wittenberg, president of the organizing New York Road Runners, said it was the right move.

"It's clear today the best thing for New York and the best thing for the marathon for the future is unfortunately to move on, and this isn't the year or the time to run it," she said in a statement.

"It's crushing and it's really difficult. It's one of the toughest decisions we ever made, but we really believe it's the right thing for New York," she said.

For her to say that "It's one of the toughest decisions we ever made," shows how truly out of touch the big wheels at the Mayor's office are with what's going on in his own city.

Canceling the New York City Marathon that would have diverted needed resources from victims and those in crisis is a no brainer.

How could any of those Bozos in the Mayor's office sleep at night knowing that they have needed equipment and manpower being used in crowd control when your city is still digging out of the biggest disaster to hit New York since 9/11/2001?

Ignorant, apathetic, out of touch, or maybe just dumb as a box of rocks? Any way you look at it, new management is needed at City Hall!

And yes, in the meanwhile, my heart goes out to those poor folks effected by Hurricane Sandy and the foolishness that they have for leadership.


Story by Tom Correa

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

A Halloween Tale: The Legend of the Sluice Box Gho...

THE AMERICAN COWBOY CHRONICLES: A Halloween Tale: The Legend of the Sluice Box Gho...: It was an extremely cold night in late October of 1875. The wind whipped through the small valley with a chill that went right to the bone....

Story by Tom Correa

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Does the New York Times work for Obama & Democrat Party?

Here's an article that says in essence it does!

New York Times' Sunday Review goes wall-to-wall for Obama's reelection

By Clay Waters

October 30, 2012

The New York Times has endorsed President Obama’s re-election and the paper is doing its best to help out any way it can. The latest move just reinforced the fact that the Times is so institutionally Democratic that it hasn’t endorsed a GOP presidential candidate during Obama’s lifetime.

That support plays out in the paper itself. New York Times Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal's Sunday Review was wall-to-wall for Obama this past week, with two left-wing op-eds on Obama on the front page, a full-page endorsement of Obama for re-election, and three liberal columnists simultaneously obsessed with abortion, including the paper's foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman. (Right-of-center Ross Douthat also covered women's issues, but questioned Obama's "weirdly paternalistic form of social liberalism.")

Over the fold on page 1 was "The Price of a Black President" by Frederick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University, who praised blacks for voting for Obama before going on to criticize Obama from the left.

“When African-Americans go to the polls next week, they are likely to support Barack Obama at a level approaching the 95 percent share of the black vote he received in 2008. As well they should, given the symbolic exceptionalism of his presidency and the modern Republican Party’s utter disregard for economic justice, civil rights and the social safety net,” he wrote.

Also on the front was Soros buddy Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist and moral scold, writing on inequality. He was just as subtle, Stiglitz busting “economic myths,” including: “America is a land of opportunity. ... Trickle-down economics works.”

“Mitt Romney has been explicit: inequality should be talked about only in quiet voices behind closed doors. But with the normally conservative magazine The Economist publishing a special series showing the extremes to which American inequality has grown -- joining a growing chorus (of which my book ‘The Price of Inequality’ is an example) arguing that the extremes of American inequality, its nature and origins, are adversely affecting our economy -- it is an issue that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice,” he wrote.

With about a week left in the election, who knows what else the Times could cook up to ensure President Obama’s victory on Election Day.

Columnist Maureen Dowd offered her usual measured take on women's issues and abortion in "Of Mad Men, Mad Women and Meat Loaf." “Our mom, a strict Catholic, taught us that it was immoral for a woman to be expected to carry a rapist’s baby for nine months. (Don’t even mention that rapists can assert parental rights in 31 states.)”

She then continued the liberal attack linking the GOP to rape. “But compassion is scant among the Puritan tribe of Republicans running now. As The Huffington Post reports, at least a dozen G.O.P. Senate candidates oppose abortion for rape victims. The party platform calls for a constitutional amendment with no exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s life,” she continued.

Dowd predictably bashed two Republican election seekers, Rep. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, for controversial comments related to abortion and rape, then went into full condescension mode to explain why women may vote for the Republican ticket anyway: “Republicans are geniuses at getting people to vote against their own self-interest. Hispanics, however, do not seem inclined to vote against their self-interest on immigration laws, and Obama is counting on that to buoy him,” Dowd added.

Columnist Nicholas Kristof also raised the arcane rape statistic in his column on the same page, “Want a Real Reason to Be Outraged?”

Even foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman got into the act, under the sarcastic headline "Why I Am Pro-Life." Of course he's not actually against abortion, he's just making the tired government argument that "pro-life" also means things like more money for the EPA and Head Start. He also details the Akin and Mourdock controversies. (Are Obama supporters highlighting anything else at this point?)

Sunday also offered the official full-page endorsement of President Obama for reelection. (No surprise: The last Republican the paper endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.) Principled liberals might like to know that the long editorial offered not one word on drone attacks or the other war on terror issues Obama has embraced.

The paper warned: "An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans’ rights are cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged.”

That was all in a day’s work at the Times. With about a week left in the election, who knows what else the paper could cook up to ensure Obama’s victory.



Editor's Note:

Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, a Media Research Center project that tracks The New York Times.

As the Editor of The American Cowboy Chronicles, I am very happy to post Clay Waters' article here. He makes a real good point, at the minimum we simply can't trust the New York Times.

As for me, my opinion is that I can't understand why anyone would want to read the New York Times.

I believe it's a rag not fit to line a birdcage or cat box; It's a liberal newspaper that reeks with unbridled bias against Republicans; It's filled with hate speech for anyone who is in the least bit conservative; It's part of the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party - no less than the ultra-left folks at MSNBC and CNN.

In the case of what took place in Libya, for example, the New York Times will do everything in its power to divert the attention of the public to lesser issues - evading the subject all together until after the election.

I believe they will do this as a concerted effort to hide anything that my bring any sort of negative light on President Obama.

In essence, this means the New York Times is working for the Obama White House in the exact same way that Pravda, which was the official news agency of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, spread the "truth" as the old Soviet Communist Party saw it.

Pravda, which ironically meand "truth" in Russian, is a Russian political newspaper associated with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The newspaper was started by the Russian Revolutionaries during pre-World War I days and emerged as a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution.

The newspaper also served as a central organ of the Central Committee of the RSDLP and the CPSU between 1912 and 1991.


After the dissolution of the USSR, Pravda was closed down by the then Russian President Boris Yeltsin. As

After restructuring, the Communist Party of Russian Federation acquired the newspaper in 1997 and established it as its principal mouthpiece.

Pravda is still functioning from the same headquarters on Pravda Street in Moscow where it was published in the Soviet days, but has only a small circulation.

During the Cold War, Pravda was well known in the West for its pronouncements as the official voice of Soviet Communism.

Stories behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War all had to be approved by the Soviet Union's Communist Party bosses before they could be published.   I can't help but wonder if there's someone at the Obama White House tasked with keeping the famed New York Times in tow. I can't help but wonder if the New York Times is Obama's Pravda!
My friends, today there is a great deal of work being done on the side of the liberal ilk in America to make sure that we Americans remember that our Founding Fathers were concerned about the government setting up a State Religion like there was in England.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

We all understand that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Yes, America, though the vast majority is Christian, doesn't want a State Religion. We treasure our freedom to worship according to our own desires.

But at the same time, the government or any branch of government should not be allowed to establish a State Run Propaganda Agency.

I truly wish that those same liberals, whose rally cry is always "Separation of Church and State" when it comes to Christianity in America, would show half the concern about a "Separation between News Agencies and the State."

It is essential to protect Americans from State Run Propaganda agencies - who like The New York Times are apparently working for the Obama administration and the Democrat Party.

We here at The American Cowboy Chronicles want everyone to vote to save America!

While we know that we cannot regulate the bias of the New York Times, their working directly with the Obama Campaign is just one more reason why we need to vote to stop this out of control White House.

Tom Correa
Editor




Monday, October 29, 2012

RANDOM SHOTS - Republicans Must Vote, Madonna and Kelly Clarkson Should Shut Up, and Much More!


FIRST SHOT!

Number One Reason To Vote: Liberals Are Voting In Huge Numbers

Democrats Have Early Voting Lead in More States Than Republicans.

If you need a reason to get out the vote for Mitt Romney, this is the best that I've heard in a while now. Liberal Obama supporters already have a lead in the race through early voting.

Don't let them steal the election for four more years of Obama, please tell your Conservative friends to vote!

Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus said on CNN yesterday that Obama is ahead in early voting.

“What they’re not telling you is that they are a fraction of where they were in 2008,” he said. “We’re far ahead of where we were in 2008.”

Democrats say they have an early vote lead in many of the swing states and that shows the president’s supporters are motivated.

“Mitt Romney says he has momentum, but it’s simply not showing up where it counts, at the polls,” said Adam Fetcher, an Obama re-election spokesman. “We’re outperforming our early vote margins in key states compared to 2008.”
In two of the most competitive states in the U.S. presidential race - Iowa and Nevada - Democrats are building a significant advantage in early voting.

Who has the edge is more muddled in the bigger swing states of Ohio and Florida, while Republicans have a narrow lead in Colorado.

Early, in-person voting started in Florida over the weekend and dozens of Democrats in Tallahassee yesterday marched five blocks from a church to an early-voting site chanting, “Vote early.”

Almost 14 million people have already cast ballots nationwide, according to the United States Elections Project at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. Both

If current trends for ballots requested and ballots returned remain unchanged through this week, then Obama’s advantage could become almost insurmountable for Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

In Colorado, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina, Obama banked so many early votes in 2008 that he won those states even though he lost the Election Day votes there, according to voting data compiled by the Associated Press.

As for Nevada balloting? So far in Nevada, where an even larger proportion of the vote has been cast than in Iowa when compared to the 2008 vote, Democrats have accounted for 45.4 percent, according to the Nevada secretary of state’s office.

Republicans have only accounted for 37.2 percent and independent voters for 17.4 percent.

Heavily Democratic Clark County, Nevada’s most populous and where Las Vegas is located, has seen people registered with the president’s party cast 121,298 early and absentee ballots, compared to 81,512 for Republicans, through Oct. 27.

As for the East Coast?

Well, although Hurricane Sandy’s path toward the East Coast already has altered the final days of candidate travel in the presidential race, it should have minimal impact on early voting.

Predictions are that other than Florida and North Carolina, which aren’t directly in the storm’s path, the swing states with the greatest tradition and activity for early voting aren’t along the East Coast.

Among swing states with early voting and party-affiliation voter registration, Democrats have their biggest advantage in North Carolina, where the party held its national convention and people can register and vote in one stop at various locations.

The popularity of early voting is growing nationally, so Republicans and Democrats alike are seeing increased activity from four years ago. Both parties are working to bank as many votes as possible so they can focus on late-deciders and others in the final week.

Republicans hope that low-propensity voters less likely to show up on Election Day, do show up and vote for Mitt Romney.
I hope so as well! We have to defeat Obama at the ballot box.
If not, we will only have more of the last four years of a rotten economy, increased racial tension, soaring food and gas prices, increase in home foreclosures, an increased terrorist threat, more out of control spending, more unqualified liberal judges put on the Supreme Court, lies and hate and division. 
  
Yes, we need to get Obama out of office. We need to get out the vote!

SECOND SHOT!

North Carolina residents for Romney say machine gave their vote to Obama

THIRD SHOT!

Chicago Homicides Twice The Number Of Those Killed In Afghanistan and Iraq This Year

So when someone says they live in a war-zone, don't think Afghanistan or Iraq - think Chicago!

At least four people were shot and killed, and three others wounded over the last 24 hours. Among the victims, a 68-year-old man shot to death in his home on South LaSalle Street.

This is Chicago’s 435th homicide of the year. That equals the city’s entire death toll from 2011.

It happened in the 9400 block of South LaSalle. Chicago police haven’t publicly identified the victim yet.

Chicago ties homicide total from last year with fatal home invasion STORY: Chicago ties homicide total from last year with fatal home invasion

The Chicago Tribune reports the man put up a fence around the home, to keep local drug dealers from using his property.

No word whether the fence had anything to do with the shooting, but either way Chicago is still more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan combined!

No kidding folks, Chicago has had almost twice the number of deaths versus the number of troops that have been killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq combined in 2012.


FOURTH SHOT!

Madonna booed after touting Obama in New Orleans concert


During Saturday night's performance, the old singer thought she was pretty hip with she asked, "Who's registered to vote?"

Then she added, "I don't care who you vote for as long as you vote for Obama."

That drew boos and fans walking out of her concert! No kidding!

Her touting Obama over Republican Mitt Romney drew such a surprised reaction to Madonna that she quickly followed her endorsement with, "Seriously, I don't care who you vote for ... Do not take this privilege for granted. Go vote."

Madonna is often outspoken. Some Colorado fans, mindful of a mass shooting there, complained she used a fake gun to shoot a masked gunman in a recent concert act in Denver. Madonna's concert in Paris in July drew ire when a video showed a swastika on a politician's forehead.

Don't you just love it when Hollywood types tell folks how to act and think, especially politically, and it kicks them in the ass in return. I do.

FIFTH SHOT!

Is Singer Kelly Clarkson another Dixie Chick?

Famed Singer Kelly Clarkson Switches Vote to Obama… Because He’s a ‘Great Guy’

Famed Singer Kelly Clarkson Switches Vote From Libertarian Ron Paul to Obama Because Hes a Great Guy
Singer Kelly Clarkson says she plans to vote for President Barack Obama in November partly because he is a “great guy,” making a seemingly drastic swing after originally supporting the very Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) for president.

For some strange reason she calls herself a "Republican at heart," but the singer and native Texan told the Daily Star that she has been "reading online about the debates" and what she has discovered has apparently made her an Obama supporter.

"I’m probably going to vote for Obama again…I can’t support Romney’s policies as I have a lot of gay friends and I don’t think it’s fair they can’t get married," Clarkson said.

In addition to her support for gay marriage, Clarkson also bought into the Obama campaign's narrative that Romney is waging a "war on women," saying  "I’m not a hardcore feminist but we can’t be going back to the ’50s."

As if anyone wants to!

She later added, "Obama is a great guy. I’ve met him and I’m a fan of Michelle, too."

In December 2011, Clarkson somehow ignited controversy by simply voicing her support for Paul.
“I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote. Too bad he probably won’t,” Clarkson said on Twitter.

Some of the pop singer’s followers accused Paul of being racist and homophobic, referencing newsletters that were sent out using his name in 1980s.

She later felt obligated to address the backlash and tweeted the following message:

“I am really sorry if I have offended anyone. Obviously that was not my intent. I do not support racism. I support gay rights, straight rights, women’s rights, men’s rights, white/black/purple/orange rights. I like Ron Paul because he believes in less government and letting the people (all of us) make the decisions and mold our country. That is all. Out of all of the Republican nominees, he’s my favorite.”

Yup, that's right, we have another wannabe celebrity out there supporting Obama because she's swallowed all the hype that the Obama campaign has been putting out about wanting to get rid of women's rights, bringing back segregation, enslaving the poor and poisoning your water.

If someone really believe any of that, then they should certainly vote for Obama. It'll only natural that the ignorant would vote for the Obama! It goes right to the heart of who supports Obama! 

LAST SHOT!

Memorial Honoring Confederate General, a member of Ku Klux Klan, prompts Lawsuit

A Virginia company has filed suit after its construction of a monument in Alabama honoring a noted Confederate general, who also was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was halted.

According to the Selma Times-Journal, the federal suit, filed by KTK Mining of Richmond, says the company got the necessary permits to do the work on the monument in Old Live Oak Cemetery honoring Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest.

But now the City of Selma, Alabama, has suspended the permits when the project drew protests.

The KTK Mining company's suit says the suspension was done without prior notice to KTK Mining.

The city has filed a response saying its actions were reasonable and it has legal immunity.

So since when is there "legal immunity" after you issued the proper permits to do the job? If the City of Selma pulled them afterwards because of political pressure then that's their problem!

KTK Mining has also filed claims with the city of Selma, seeking a total of $600,000.

And yes, the City of Selma ought to pay up!

They are not immune to a lawsuit just because they say they are. They have a legal responsibility to reimburse the KTK Mining company for their loses - especially since their work was halted because of politics.

Story by Tom Correa

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Gunfight At The OK Corral - Coroner's Inquest - Ike Clanton & Others

Daily Nugget, CORONER'S INQUEST, Oct. 30, 1881

Further Testimony Regarding The Late Tragedy.

The coroner's jury. Summoned for the purpose of inquiring into the causes of the death of William Clanton and Thomas and Frank McLowry (sic), met at 10 o'clock yesterday and continued the examination by taking the testimony of the following witnesses;

Testimony from B.H. Fellehy:

I heard some stranger ask Ike Clanton what is the trouble; he said there would be no trouble; then Ike Clanton went over to Dolan's saloon; I then looked over and saw the Marshal standing at Hafford's doorway; Then saw the Sheriff going over to where the Marshal and Sheriff were talking; the Sheriff says, "What's the trouble," the Marshal says, "Those men have made their threats; I will not arrest them but will kill them on sight;" Virgil Earp said this; the Sheriff asked the Marshal in to take a drink; did not see them afterward as I crossed over the street to the other side; when I got over there I saw one of the Earp brothers, the youngest one, talking to Doc Holliday; looked across the street; saw the Marshal again; some one came up to him and called him aside; when this gentleman got through talking wit the Earps; saw three of the Earps and Holliday go down the street together; they kept on the left of the street on Fourth; I was on the right side; when I got to the corner of Fremont and Fourth I started to go across to the southwest corner of Fremont; when I got midway between in the street I saw the firing had commenced; I kept my eye on the Earps and Holliday until the shooting commenced; I saw Doc Holliday in the middle of the street; the youngest of the Earps brothers was about three feet from the sidewalk; he was firing at a man behind a horse; Doc Holliday also fired at the man behind the horse, and firing at a man who ran by him on the opposite side of the street; then I saw the man who had the horse let go, and was staggering all the time until he fell; he had his pistol still when he fell; I never saw the two elder Earps; I did not know where they were situated; I then went to the yound man (Editor's note---Frank McLaury) lying on the sidewalk and offered to pick him up; he never spoke except the movement of the lips; I picked up a revolver lying five feet from him; then I saw Doc Holliday running towards where the young man was lying, still having a revolver in his hand, making the remark, 'the s--- of a b--- has shot me and I mean to kill him;' could not say who fired the first shots; I didn't see a shotgun go off; I didn't see a shotgun after I walked down the street; I didn't see any one with their hands up, I was too far away to see that."

Testimony from Ike Clanton:

"Am a cattle dealer; was present on the 26th of the month, and am a brother of William Clanton who was killed on that day, saw the whole transaction, the killing; well, the night before the killing went into the Occidental lunch saloon for a lunch; while in there Doc Holliday came in and raised a row with me; was abusing me; he had his hand on his pistol; called me a s--- of a b---; he told me to get my gun out; I told him I had no gun; I looked around and saw Morgan Earp behind him, they began to abuse me, when I turned and got out doors; Virgil Earp, Wyatt and Morgan were all up there, Morg Earp told me if I wanted to fight to turn myself loose; they all had their hands; I told them again that I was not armed; Doc Holliday said, 'You s--- of a b---, go and arm yourself; I did then go and arm myself; I went back, saw V. Earp and T. McLowry; Virg Earp was playing poker with his pistol in his lap; we were playing poker, we quit at daylight; I followed him and said, 'I was abused the night before, and was still in town,' he said he was going to bed; the reason I followed him up was I saw him take his pistol out of his lap and stick it in his pants; I came back and passed in my chips; staid around until about 8 or 9 o'clock;

I STAID TO MEET DOC HOLLIDAY;

The next thing they, Virg and Morg Earp, slipped up and disarmed me; shortly after I met my brother; he asked me to go out of town; just then I met the man that had our team; I told him to harness up; then I went to get something left by my brother. We then went to where our team was; met the sheriff there; he told us that he would have to arrest us and take our arms off. I told him that we were just going to leave town; that I had no arms on me; he then told Billy, my brother, to take his arms up to his office, Billy told him he was just leaving the town; the sheriff then told Frank and Tom McLowry to take their arms off. Tom McLowry then opened his coat and said, 'Johnny, I have nothing.' Frank said that he was leaving town, and that he would disarm if the Earps would; that he had business that he would like to do before he left town. Just at that time Doc Holliday and the Earps appeared on the sidewalk; the sheriff stepped out to meet them; he told them that he had this party in charge; they walked right by him. I stepped out nd met Wyatt Earp; he stuck his - six shooter at me and said, 'Throw up your hands!' The marshal also told the other boys to throw up their hands; Frank McLowry and Billy Clanton threw up; Tom McLowry threw open his coat and said he had nothing; they said you's s--- of b---s came here to make a fight; at the same instant Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp shot; Morgan shot Billy Clanton, and I don't know which of the boys he shot; I saw Virg shooting at the same time; I grabbed Wyatt Earp and pushed him around the corner and then ran throught the photograph gallery; at the same time I saw Billy Clanton fall; when I got away.

ALL OF US THREW UP OUR HANDS.

Except Tom McLowry, who threw open his coat saying that he had nothing. There was some trouble between myself and the Earps prior to this; there was nothing between the other boys and the Earps; Doc Holliday said I had used his name; I said I hadn't; I never had trouble with the Earps; they don't like me; we once had a transaction, myself and the Earps; I know of no threats made by the Clantons and McLowrys that day; I made no threats, only as I formerly said; they, the Earps, met Billy Clanton 15 minutes before they killed him and shook hands with him and said they were glad to meet him; Billy Clanton and McLowry were only a half an hour in town; I might have made threats as said, as I felt that way; I made no worse threats at them than they did with me; I didn't expect Wyatt, I expected

MORGAN AND DOC HOLLIDAY TO ATTACK ME.

Our crowd did not expect an attack until some one told us; at the time they made the attack I had no arms; the Earp brothers had my arms [Editor's note: The arms had been left earlier that day at the Fountain Saloon, in the Grand Hotel, by Virgil Earp.]; Virg Earp had them; it was a six shooter; It was two days prior since I saw Billy or Frank McLowry until that morning; had never had a word of conversation with either of them in my life; I don't know whether the party had a shotgun; Virgil Earp was about six feet from me; they were three or four feet distant when, they fired; I did not see my brother or either of the McLowrys fire a shot. There were four or five shots fired before I left the ground; at the time the Sheriff was talking to us; Billy Clanton and Billy Claiborne were standing together; the McLowrys and myself were standing five or six feet to the left; the Clantons came up from Antelope Springs for a load of freight, that is, the McLowrys; I don't know how near Claiborne was to me at the time of the shooting; I don't know whether Morgan Earp or Doc Holliday fired first; It was a nickel-plated pistol by one of them; their weapons were down when they came up; the Sheriff, after he had orderred us to give up our srms I did not think we were under arrest; he said it was all right if we left town; Behan had a conversation with Frank McLowry; I know where the Sheriff's office is, we could not have gone up to the Sheriff's office after he left us before the Earps came up; the Sheriff told us to stay where we were until he came back; I would not have staid there had I not orders from the Sheriff; after I saw the Earps armed; the Sheriff was with us about four, five or six minutes.

Testimony from Mrs. M.J. King:

Reside at Tombstone; occupation house keeping; I was coming from my home to the meat market, Mr. Beuer's to get some meat for dinner; I saw quite a group of men standing on the sidewalk with two horses, near the market; I passed into the shop; the parties inside seemed quite excited; did not seem to wait on me; I inquired what was the matter, and they said there was going to be a fuss between the Earp boys and cowboys; then I stepped to the door; I heard some talking then; but did not understand at first what was said, then three parties seemed to separate, and the man with the horse seemed to be leading, as the man that was talking with them turned from them; one of them said, "If you wish to find us, you will find us down here;" then the man went up town toward the post office; he was, I think, a tall man; then I stepped into the market; the butcher was in the act of cutting the meat, when some one said, "There they come;" then I stepped to the door and looked up the sidewalk, when I saw four men coming down the street; I saw and know one of the party; it was Doc Holliday; there were three others of the party which were pointed out to me as the Earp brothers; Mr. Holliday was next to the building on the inside; he had a gun under his coat; I stood in the door till these men passed; till they got to the second door; what frightened me and made me run back? I heard the man on the outside kind of stop or looked at Holliday. And said, "Let them have it." Holliday said "all right." Then I thought there would be shooting; from what these parties said, and ran for the back of the shop, but before I reached the middle of the shop I heard shots, and don't know what happened afterwards.

Testimony from R.J. Coleman:

"I saw the arrest of Ike Clanton the morning before the shooting took place; Marshal Earp went up behind him and grabbed his gun, then there was a scuffle and Clanton fell; didn't see Earp hit him, but saw Earp have a six shooter, but don't know whether he had taken it from Clanton or not; Clanton was taken to the police station. And after the trial was over Marshal Earp offered him his rifle, but Clanton would not take it, they had some words, during which I heard Clanton say, "All I want if four feet of ground;" soon after I was standing in front of the O.K. Corral and saw the two Clantons and McLowrys standing and talking in a stall in Dunbar's corral; in a few minutes they came out and crossed the street into the O.K. Corral; Billy Clanton was riding his horse and Frank McLowry was leading his; as they passed, Billy Clanton said to me, 'Where is the West End corral.' I told him where it was and they passed on into the corral and I went on up Allen street; when opposite the Headquarters saloon I met Sheriff Behan; told him he should go and disarm the men, that I thought they meant mischief; I soon after met Marshal Earp and told him the same thing, I then walked down Allen street again and passed through the O.K. Corral; where I saw the Clantons and the McLowrys talking with Cheriff Behan, and heard one of them say, 'You need not be afraid of us Johnny, we will not make any trouble.' Billy Clanton had his horse with him; I then turned and went up Fremont street; when I got as far as Bauer's butcher shop, I net Wyatt, Morgan and Virgil Earp and Doc Holliday walking down the center of the street; Sheriff Behan walked up to them and said, 'I don't want you to go any further.; I don't think they made any reply, but passed on down the street until they came opposite the Clanton party. The Earp party addressed them; I heard s--- of b---'s but don't know which party spoke. Some one in the Earp party then said;

'THROW UP YOUR HANDS'

or 'Give up your arms,' I thought I was too close, and as I turned around I heard two shots, then the firing became general. After a few shots, Ike Clanton ran up the street and through Fly's gallery; think there were two shots fired; fired at him; after the first two Tom McLowry ran down Fremont street and fell; Billy Clanton stood in the same position as when I first saw him; saw him fire two or three shots in a crouched position; one of them hit Morgan Earp, who stumbled or fell, he jumped up again and commenced shooting; about that time, Frank McLowry came out in the street toward Holliday, some words passed between them; Frank said, "I've got you now," firing a shot at the same time, which struck Holliday on the hip or his scabbard; I hollered to Holliday, saying, "You've got it now;" he answered, "Yes, I'm shot right through." Frank then passed across the street and fell; I think Billy Clanton must have been struck, but was down in a crouching position, and using the pistol across his knee and fired two shots, one of which hit Marshal Earp; Wyatt and Morgan were still firing at him, when he raised himself up and then fell, still holding his pistol in his hand; after the shooting saw Sheriff Behan and Wyatt Earp talking; Behan said, "I ought to arrest you." Wyatt said, "I won't be arrested; you deceived me Johnny when you said they were not armed," and repeated again, "I won't be arrested, but am here to answer for what I have done; I am not going to leave town." Couldn't tell where I was whether they threw up their hands or not, except Billy Clanton, he had his hand on his pistol, which was in the scabbard, his right hand on his left hip; this was after the first two shots; can't swear how many of the Clantons were armed; Don't think Ike was; can't say that I saw a shotgun; don't think Billy Clanton was shot until after the first two shots; don't think he was hit until after he shot; did not see Tom McLowry have a pistol; my impression is that he started to run to get away from the shooting; I didn't see Behan or hear him say anything.

At the conclusion of the evidence given by the witness, the jury decided that no further testimony was necessary, and a few minutes after retiring, returned with the following verdict:

Tombstone, Territory of Arizona, }

County of Cochise October 29, 1881. }

We the undersigned, a jury of inquest, summoned by the coroner of the court of Cochise to determine whose the body is submitted to our inspection; when, where, and under what circumstances the person came to his death.

After viewing the body and hearing such testimony as had been submitted to us, find that the person was Frank McLowry, 29 years of age (Editor's note: Records show his birth date as March 3m 1848, which made him 33 not 29.) and a native of Mississippi (Editor's note: Records show his place of birth as Kortright, New York.), and that he came to his death in the town of Tombstone in said county, and on the 26th day of October, 1881, from the effects of pistol and gunshot wounds inflicted by Virgil Earp, Morgan Earp, Wyatt Earp and one Holliday, commonly called Doc Holliday.

Thomas Moses; R.F. Hafford, D. Calisher, T.F. Hudson, M. Garrett, S.B. Comstock (Editor's note: Not listed in Document 48, Coromer's Inquest, J.W. Cowell (Editor's note: Not listed in Document 48, Coroner's Inquest.), J.C. Davis, Harry Walker, C.D. Reppy, G.H. Haskell (Editor's note: Spelled Haskill in Document 48.) And W.S. Goodrich (Editor's note: Listed as B.S. Goodrich in Document 48.)

The verdict in the case of Wm. Clanton and Thomas McLowry was the same as the above, excepting as to their names and ages, which werre inserted in the body of the document. After the jury adjourned sine die.


Tom McLaury, Frank McLaury, and Billy Clanton
After the Gunfight at the OK Corral

Gunfight At The OK Corral - Coroner's Inquest - John H. Behan

Tombstone Epitaph, CORONER'S INQUEST, Oct. 29, 1881

Investigation into the Cause of the Recent Killing

Following is a verbatim copy of the testimony given before the Coroner's Jury in relation to the killing of the McLowry brothers and Clanton, up to the time of adjournment, last evening. At the rate of progress made yesterday, the investigation is liable to last for a week.

The Coroner's Jury was composed of the following: T.P. Hudson, D. Calisher, M. Garrett, S.B. Comstock, J.C. Davis, Thomas Moses, C.D. Reppy, F. Hafford, George H. Haskell, M. S. Goodrich.

Testimony from John H. Behan

"John H. Behan, being sworn says; I am Sheriff, and reside in Tombstone, Cochise County, Arizona; I know the defendants Wyatt Earp, and John H. Holliday; I know Virg and Morg Earp; I knew Thomas McLaury, Frank McLaury, and William Clanton; I was in Tombstone October 26, when a difficulty, or shooting affray took place between the parties named.

The first I knew that there was likely to be any trouble, I was sitting in a chair getting shaved in a barber shop; it was about half past one or two, it may have been later, but not much; saw a crowd gathering on the corner of Fourth and Allen Streets; someone in the shop said there was liable to be trouble between Clantons and the Earps; there was considerable said about it in the shop and I asked the barber to hurry up and get through, as I intended to go out and disarm and arrest the parties; after I had finished in the barber shop I crossed over to Hafford's corner; saw Marshal Earp standing there and asked what was the excitement; Marshal Earp is Virgil Earp; he said there (were) a lot of s---s of b---s in town looking for a fight; he did not mention any names; I said to Earp you had better disarm the crowd; he said he would not, he would give them a chance to make the fight; I said to him: It is your duty as a Peace Officer to disarm them rather than encourage the fight; don't remember what reply he gave me, but I said I was going down

TO DISARM THE BOYS.

"I meant any parties connected with the cowboys who had arms; Marshal Earp at that time was standing in Hafford's door; several people were around him; I don't know who; Morgan Earp and Doc Holliday were then standing out near the middle of the street, at or near the intersection of Allen and Fourth Streets; I saw none other of the defendants there; Virgil Earp had a shotgun; with the muzzle touching the door-sill, down at his side; I did not see arms on the others at the time; I then went down Fourth Street to the corner of Fremont, and I met there Frank McLaury holding a horse and talking to somebody; I greeted him; I said to him: (defendants here objected to any conversation between witness and Frank McLaury, court overruled the objection at this time) I told McLaury that I would have to disarm him, as there was likely to be trouble in town and I propose to disarm everybody in town that had arms.

He said he would not give up his arms as he did not intend to have trouble; I told him that he would have to give up his pistol, all the same; I may have said gun, as gun and pistol are synonymous terms; about that time I saw Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury down the street below Fly's Photography Gallery; I said to Frank, 'Come with me;' we went down to where Ike Clanton and Tom were standing; I said to the boys, 'You must give up your arms!' Billy Clanton and Will Claiborne; I said to them, 'Boys you have got to give up your arms.' Frank McLaury demurred; I don't know exact language; he did not seem inclined, at first, to give up his arms. Ike told me he

DID NOT HAVE ANY ARMS.

"I put my arm around his waist to see if he was armed, and found he was not; Tom McLaury showed me by pulling his coat open, that he was not armed, I saw five standing there and asked them how many there were of them; they said four of us; this young man, Claiborne said he was not one of the party; he wanted them to leave town; I said boys you must go up to the Sheriff's office and take off your arms and stay there until I get back; I told them I was going to disarm the other party; at that time I saw Earps and Holliday coming down the sidewalk, on the south side of Fremont Street; they were a little below the post office; Virgil, Morgan and Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday were the ones; I said to the Clantons wait there for awhile, I see them coming down, I will go and stop them; I walked up the street twenty-two or twenty-three steps and met them at Bauer's Butcher Shop, under the awning, in front, and told them not to go any farther, that I was down there for the purpose of arresting and disarming the McLaury's and Clantons; they did not heed me and I threw up my hands and said go back, I'm the Sheriff of this county and am not going to allow any trouble if I can help it; they brushed past me and I turned and went with them, or followed them two steps or so in the rear as they went down the street, expostulating with them all the time; when they arrived within a very few feet of the Clantons and McLaurys I heard one of them say

I THINK IT WAS WYATT EARP

"You s---s of b---s you have been looking for a fight and now you can have it,' about that time I heard a voice say 'Throw up your hands;' during this time I saw a nickel-plated pistol pointed at one of the Clanton party - I think Billy - My impression at the time was that Doc Holliday had nickel-plated pistol; I will not say for certain that Holliday had it; these pistols I speak of were in the hands of the Earp party; when the order was given, 'Throw up your hands,' I heard Billy Clanton say, 'Don't shoot me, I don't want to fight,' Tom McLaury at the same time threw open his coat and said, 'I have nothing,' or 'I am not armed;' he made the same remark and the same gesture that he made to me when he first told me he was not armed; I can't tell the position of Billy Clanton's hands at the time he said, ' I don't want to fight,' my attention was directed just at that moment to the nickel-plated pistol; the nickel-plated pistol was the first to fire, and another followed instantly; these two shots were not from the same pistol, they were too nearly instantaneous to be fired from the same pistol; the nickel-plated pistol was fired by the second man from the right; the second shot came from the third man from the right. The fight became general.

"Two of the three fired shots were very rapid after the first shop; by whom I Do not Know; the first two shots fired by the Earp party; I could not say by whom; the next three shots I thought at the time came from the Earp party; this was my impression at the time from being on the ground and seeing them; after the party said, 'Throw up your hands;' the nickel-plated pistol went off immediately; I think V.W. Earp said, 'Throw up your hands;' there was a good deal of fighting and shouting going on. I saw Frank McLaury staggering on the street with one hand on his belly and his pistol in his right; I saw him shoot at Morgan Earp, and from the direction of his pistol should judge that the shot went in the ground; he shot twice there in towards Fly's Building at Morgan Earp, and he started across the street; heard a couple of shots from that direction; did not see him after he got about half way across the street; then heard a couple of shots from his direction; looked and saw McLaury running and a shot was fired and he fell on his head; heard Morg say, 'I got him;' there might have been a couple of shots afterwards; but that was about the end of the fight; I can't say I knew the effect of the first two shots; the only parties I saw fall were Morg Earp and Frank McLaury.

My impression was that the nickel-plated pistol was pointed at Billy Clanton; the first man that I was certain that was hit was Frank McLauryk, as I saw him staggering and bewildered and knew he was hit; this shortly after the first five shots; I never saw any arms in the hands of any of the McLaury party except Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton; saw Frank McLaury on the sidewalk, within a very few feet of the inside line of the street; did not see a pistol in the hands of any of the McLaury party until 8 or 10 shots had been fired; Frank was the first of the party in whose hands I saw a pistol; Ike Clanton broke and ran after the first few shots were fired; Ike, I think, went through Fly's Building; the last I saw of him he was running through the back of Fly's Building towards Allen Street."

At the conclusion of the above testimony the court adjourned until 9 o'clock this morning.


John H. Behan


Gunfight At The OK Corral - Coroner's Inquest - C.H. Light

Inquest on the body of William Clanton, Frank McLaury and Thomas McLaury, deceased.

Testimony from C.H. Light

After saying he was in town the day of the affray and that he witnessed a part of it, and knew or knows in one degree or another, the Earps, Ike Clanton, and Holliday; of being in a barber shop saying there was likely to be trouble between the Earps and the cowboys and that the Earps had just passed down the street with arms; that he passed from there to his house (Aztec Rooming House) at the corner of Fremont and Third Streets and was in there when the shooting commenced.

STATEMENT

I heard two shots as quick as I could count, "One, Two," I jumped to the window on Third Street, looked up Fremont Street, I saw several men in the act of shooting. At the instant I saw a man reel and fall on the corner of Fremont and Third Streets on the South side, right directly on the corner of the house (Tom McLaury). I do not know who that man was.

I looked up the street again (and) I saw three men standing at an angle about 10 or 15 feet apart (Wyatt and Virgil Earp and Doc Holliday), about the center of the street, facing Fly's gallery and the house below (Harwood house). I saw another man standing, leaning, against a building joining the vacant lot (Billy Clanton).

There appeared to be two men firing at the man standing beside the house (Wyatt and Virgil Earp). That man appeared to be struck from the motions he made. Then he fired one shot at the lower man, at the northwesterly man, which I afterwards understood was Holliday. The shot appeared to take effect, which was fired by the man with the horse, for the other man turned partly around. I then looked at the man against the house expecting every moment to see some on of them fall, and he was in the act of sliding down on the ground, apparently wounded.

At that instant the horse vanished. I do not know where he went to. This lower man was firing apparently up the street. He fired one or two shots. I then saw the man who slid down the side of the house lying with his head and shoulders against the house, place a pistol on his leg and fired two shots. He tried to fire a third shot but he apparently was too weak.

The shot went into the air. At the same time there was a tall man with gray clothes (Doc Holliday) and a broad hat standing about the middle of the street, (who) fired two (shots) apparently in the direction of the man who had been leaning against the house. Then there appeared to be one party in the middle of the street firing down the street.

This man who laid on the ground near the corner of the house never fired but three shots. He appeared to be disabled. Then there was a few more shots fired by parties on the north side of the street (who) had passed from my view and I was not able to see them.

The next thing I observed was two men standing beside the man that slid down on the south side of the street near the corner of the building. A tall man dressed in black appeared on the scene with a rifle in his hand and said, "Take that pistol away from that man (meaning the man who was wounded) or he will kill him!" At this time the shooting was all over, and I do not think the whole of it occupied over 10 or 15 seconds. The tall man dressed in black was not a participant in the affray.

There seemed to be six parties firing, four in the middle of the street and one on the south side of the street, and the one with the horse. Afterwards, I recognized the man with the gray clothes to be Doc Holliday. I think there were about 25 or 30 shots fired altogether.

I did not see any of the parties have a shotgun. The fight occurred about 130 or 140 feet away from where I was. I think, from the report, that the first two were pistol shots. I think that there was one report from a shotgun.

I saw the man who fell at the corner of the street lying there all the time of the fight, I did not see him shoot. He seemed to me to be the first man shot. There was not time enough for a man to draw a pistol to fire a shot, between the first two shots.

They must have been from two pistols. The man who fired the second shot must have been prepared to fire when the first shot was fired. These two shots I heard were fired before I went to the window, but it did not take me a second to get there.

End of statement.