George W Bush and the Ft. Hood Terrorist Attack

Dear Readers,

A reader sent me this story. She was sent this and didn't know who to give the credit for writing it.

I checked out the information and found it to be true. It is a story that I feel is worth reading. It will warm your heart.

Here's the story that was sent to me:

A doctor had his TV on in his office when the news of the military base shootings at Ft. Hood , Texas, came on.

The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay."

Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse, "I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan , Alabama, and drove all night to Ft. Hood.

When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had two visitors there to comfort him.

He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side. The nurse took this picture:



What? No news crews and cameras?

This is how people with class respond and pay respect to those in uniform.

What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood.

He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.

Former President Bush only asks for directions to the hospital then drove on.

The gate guard called that "The President is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital."

The base went bananas looking for Obama.

When they found it was Bush, they immediately offered him an escort. Bush simply told them it was okay and to let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead.

He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours, and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.

My friends, I believe that there are those who understand the concept of living life in the right way no matter what happens to you.

While the pessimist will say, "No good deed goes unpunished, there are others who believe that life is more than that."

Stephen Grellet is attributed with the passage:

"I expect to pass through this life but once. If, therefore there can be any kindness I can show or any good thing I can do for any fellow being let me do it now. Let me not defer it, or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again."

Though George W. Bush was maligned by the liberal mainstream media at every turn, and was experienced open hatred not seen since Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860.

We sometimes forget that Lincoln was hated so much by half the nation that his election alone ignited the succession of states from the Union.

Frankly, looking at Bush's record in an objective and not subjective manner, being honest, at what took place during his terms in Office, I believe he stayed true to doing the right thing even if it meant reaping slings and arrows from friend and foe alike.

Never did he bemoan the pains and unfairness, the double standards, or the ridicule. Never did he compromise this nation knowing what would have the worse effect on us.

I think Bush knew that he was in a no win situation while in office. His enemies were too powerful, too wealthy, and too many.

Instead, I believe, he acknowledged that the alternative to doing right would be worse to live with. I believe that he did what was right and good knowing what he could and could not accept within his own heart.

These days right and wrong seem to be archaic notions. These days the rules have changed, what was seen as steadfast laws of standard behavior of right versus wrong are seen as very old fashion ideals with no place in today's world. 

Today, we have government agencies which operate under the assumption of anything goes - that they have the power and they can use it as they wish. 

Today, we have President Obama who pitched a program for over a 5 year span and openly lied to the entire country, even his own supporters, all just to gain support for his agenda. 

Once found out to be a liar, now Obama's spokesmen openly admit to him being stupid instead.

Yes, that's what we have today - a president who is either a Liar or Stupid!  

Yes, I miss George W. Bush. 

I look at politicians this way, it's like being married, if we can get along and I can approve of what my wife is doing 95% of the time than that is a great marriage. If we can get along and I can approve of what she is doing 75% of the time, that's still a great marriage to many.

I approved of what President George W. Bush did while in office at least 90% of the time. In contrast, I have not been able to find anything of which to agree on with President Barack Obama - simply because I can't trust him.

What he says and what he does are two completely different things.  

He reminds me of my friend's first husband. He is a liar, a con man, a user of people, and a cheat - he's never loved America, he's only wanted money and power, and he uses his position to get both while pushing his agenda of anti-Christian anti-Americanism.   

And for the record:

President Barack Hussein Obama flew in ten days later and held a "photo opportunity" session in the base gym at Ft. Hood.

Obama did not bother to go to the hospital and see the wounded.

And even though all of the evidence pointed to what it was, a pre-planned Muslim terrorist attack, instead Obama downplayed it and called it "work place violence."

And yes, he, his administration, and the liberal media working in consert with the Obama White House covered up the fact that it was in fact a Muslim Terrorist Attack.

It was carried out by a Muslim who justified the killing of unarmed innocent Americans by saying his bloodthirsty religion ordered him to do it in the name of Allah.

Even after the trial of the Muslim terrorist who admitted it was what it was, Obama refuses to admit that those Soldiers who were killed were not victims of "work place violence" but were in fact casualties in the war against terrorism.

They deserve to be awarded what any Soldier on the battlefield would be awarded in an attack by enemy insurgents. But sadly, they won't - and the Obama administration will make sure of that.

For those who wanted "change" at any price. With Obama, you certainly got it.

Tom Correa

Fed Judge Rules Chicago Ban On Gun Sales Is Unconstitutional

Dear Readers,

January 6th, 2014, will go down as a victory for Americans who live in the corrupt ultra-violent city of Chicago.

I was talking with a friend who is a just retired Police Officer. He was telling me about a study that shows how the United States comes in in the top 5 of countries with high murder rates.

He said that that same study also shows that if you took out Chicago and Detroit from the equation, than the United States drops to the bottom 5 among nations in so far as murder rates go. 

The mounting homicide rate in President Obama's real hometown, and no I don't mean Nairobi Kenya, is certainly giving ammunition to political cops and anti-2nd Amendment bullies in the crocked political machine in Chicago's City Hall.

But, it is also pointing out the city's laughable excuses to stop citizens from defending themselves in that war zone called Chicago.

While Chicago and Detroit might be the armpits of the United States, Chicago at least suffered its deadliest January in more than a decade. 

But Monday, January 6th, 2014, might be a day to celebrate emancipation from the Slave Owners in Chicago's City Hall who don't want Americans armed.

On Monday, a Federal Judge overturned Chicago's ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city's ordinances supposedly aimed at reducing gun violence are Unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it's also obligated to protect their Constitutional Rights - which includes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-defense.

While Judge Chang showed sense in this matter in as far as allowing citizens to the God given right to defend one's self - the Judge blew it when he said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling.

That means the Chicago's ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.

The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's long-standing gun ban.

And last year, Illinois legislators were forced by a federal appeals court to adopt a law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons in Illinois - the only state in the entire that still banned the practice.

The resulting state law largely stripped city and officials of surrounding Cook County of their authority to regulate guns, which especially irked officials in Chicago, where residents had to apply for concealed-carry permits through the police chief.

Judge Chang, who was appointed by President Obama, ruling in favor of the Second Amendment and our Constitutional Rights shows just how out of step and controlling that Chicago's City Hall really is.

Judge Chang's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers and three Chicago residents.

The judge noted Chicago's ban covers not only federally licensed firearms dealers, but also gifts among family members, all in the name of reducing gun violence.

Chang wrote that the nation's third-largest city "goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve."

Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation. And yes, last year, Pentagon officials came out with statistics that it is safer to be a soldier or Marine fighting in Afghanistan than it is to live in Chicago.

City officials have long acknowledged the ban on gun sales has been weakened due to the legal sale of guns in some surrounding suburbs and states. Imagine that!

Chicago gun collector Kenneth Pacholski, one of the plaintiffs, said he has no interest in selling guns and buys only antique guns that he intends to keep. But he said Chicago's ban was unreasonable.

"All the people I know who own guns legally are really careful," said Pacholski, whose wife, also was a plaintiff. "I'm a collector; my guns are not going anywhere unless I know where they're going because I don't want to be responsible for someone's death."

Illinois Council Against Hand Gun Violence campaign coordinator Mark Walsh said he wasn't surprised by the ruling, based on the court's recent rulings on Chicago's gun control measures.

"I'm not sure what the city's plan is (in reacting to ruling), but I think obviously there is a need to make sure gun dealers coming into the city are aware of those who have restrictions on gun ownership and don't sell to them," he said.

Yes, Walsh is typical of people who don't want to face facts:

Criminals do not get their guns LAWFULLY, they get them ILLEGALLY.

Maybe when folks like Walsh over at Illinois Council Against Hand Gun Violence, the ACLU, and of course Chicago City Hall understand that simple fact of life, they will better understand the other fact when it comes to gun ownership and crime:

When citizens have the means to defend themselves with a firearm and not just a 911 Operator on the line, crime goes down because the criminals think twice about committing those crimes.

What proof? Well, here's a tidbit of History:

During the Reconstruction Period in the South after the Civil War, Freed Black Slaves were being hunted and killed.

The newly formed National Rifle Association saw it their duty to arm those freed from Slavery. Since they became American citizens, they had the right to Keep and Bear Arms and Self-Defense.

Once those Freed Blacks were armed by the NRA, the murder rate on those Americans started to drop.

Across the country today, the same thing is taking place. Americans are defending themselves and crime - especially homicides - is at a all time low everywhere where Americans can exercise their Constitutional Rights.

Those facts are inconvenient to uneducated liberals and others who think the Constitution is out of date and should be scraped.

For us, America's educated citizens, we know the fact that our rights make us stronger. And yes, those who stop us from exercising our rights are criminals.


by Tom Correa

Homicides Down & Cops Killed by Gunfire Lowest Since 1887

Dear Readers,

In 1887, just 18 years earlier, the Civil War had ended.

In 1887, President Cleveland ordered Civil War booty of the Union Army consisting of captured Confederate flags to be returned to the South.

That same year, Great Britain celebrated the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria at home and around the world in every common wealth.

It was the year that President Abraham Lincoln was re-buried with his wife in Springfield Illinois; Rowell Hodge patented Barbed Wire; Jake Kilrain & Jem Smith fought a 106 round bare knuckle prizefight to a draw; and the United States received rights to Pearl Harbor on Oahu, Hawaii.

In 1887, San Francisco's famed Cliff House was damaged when the schooner Parallel exploded nearby. It's cargo was gun powder.

It was the year that John Henry "Doc" Holliday dies of tuberculosis, Joseph Issac "Ike" Clanton was shot dead, and Clay Allison died in an accidental death while working on his ranch wagon.

In Eufaula. Indian Territory, that same year, Deputy Marshal William Kelly and possemen Mark Kuykendall and Henry Smith were shot and killed during a prisoner escape.

What does 1887 have to do with 2013?

Historians say, the national rate of homicides has greatly decreased over the years.

It was recently reported that the number of cops killed by gunfire in 2013 dips to 33, the lowest since 1887.

It's true, the number of law enforcement authorities killed by gunfire dipped to 33 in 2013, the lowest total since the Old West days of 1887.

The number of police officers killed by bullets in the United States has been trending downward in recent years, as reported by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.  And yes, it was welcome news for the nation's peacekeepers.

Experts also noted that overall line-of-duty deaths of federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers dropped to 111, the lowest total since 1959.

The annual report from NLEOMF credited an increased culture of safety among law enforcement agencies, including increased use of bulletproof vests, that followed a spike in deaths in 2011.

Since that time, officer fatalities across all categories have decreased by 34 percent, and gun deaths have fallen by 54 percent.

Among the 105 total line-of-duty deaths tallied by the website last year, 13 occurred in Texas, followed by 10 in California and 7 in Mississippi. Nine were federal law enforcement officers whose deaths occurred in various locations.

The overwhelming majority died in traffic accidents.

In 2012, 47 of the 123 line-of-duty fatalities were classified as death by gunfire, with an additional two accidental fatalities.

What about comparing these deaths another way?

In 1887, a total of 44 law enforcement officers were killed, 30 of whom succumbed to gunfire. Another two officers were killed by accidental gunfire.

So now, you may find this pretty remarkable in that we are actually at a 150 year low for deaths of law enforcement officers - but think about this for a moment:

The population of the United States in 1890 was about 63,000,000.

Last year, the U.S. Census put our population at 316,364,000.

Yes, the population is now almost 6 times larger - and yet the same amount of law
enforcement officers were killed by gun shots.

That fact in itself shows that we now live in a safer society.

How about the Murder Rate in what seems like all the murders today?

Besides low law enforcement deaths, the national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — that is less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II.

The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics.

In 2011, the homicide rate was the lowest of any year since 1963 when the rate was 4.6, according to the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Historians and Criminologists say the nation’s homicides, a little more than 14,000 last year, are a separate beast from these types of slayings in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado.

The vast number of homicides arise from arguments, fights, drug deals and domestic disputes, most often among people who know one another.

Becky Block, vice president of the American Society of Criminology and an analyst at the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, has studied a data set of 22,000 killings in Chicago from 1965 through 2000.

“My perspective is that there’s no such thing as just homicide,” she says. “What you have is a lot of different kinds of violence — robberies, child abuse, barroom brawls, intimate-partner disputes, gangs — and some of these end in homicide and some don’t.”

Mass killings, by contrast, almost always stem from one man’s pre-suicidal outburst, often directed at strangers. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly white middle-class males, who otherwise have a fairly low rate of homicide, according to federal crime statistics.

A low Homicide Rate Compared to the 1800s?

Yes, The highest murder rate in our Nation's history was between 1846 and 1887.

Not including Civil War deaths, during the Reconstruction Era there were counties in Louisiana where you had 200 people per 100,000 residents killed. In counties in Texas with 10,000 people and 500 people killed. In Los Angeles in the 1840s, one in every 46 people were murdered.

Compare that to 2011 when our Nation's homicide rate is 5 people per 100,000 citizens.

So even as images of violence on television and the movies and the news have proliferated our everyday life, and even as the number of high-profile mass killings like the ones in Newtown and Aurora has risen -- no matter what the anti-gun Liberal politicians say about Gun Control, the homicide rate has been near stagnant or fallen for 21 consecutive years.

And yes, it is certainly down since the days of Reconstruction in the South when it was the highest in our nation's history.

Yes, amid the bloodbaths like Newtown and Aurora which make the news and are talked about relentlessly, it should come as a real surprise that we are in fact not killing each other as often as we have in the past.

by Tom Correa
 

The Amazing Benefits of Beer

One regular reader has written to ask about the benefits of beer? Yes, beer! And since she has brought it to my attention, let's talk about how great beer is for us.

Earlier this year, scientists suggest beer after a workout is the way to go for a healthy body. It's true, The Washington Times reported that researchers at Granada University in Spain have found that beer can help the body re-hydrate better after a workout than water or even Gatorade.

Professor Manuel Garzon also claimed the carbonation in beer helps to quench the thirst and that its carbohydrate content can help replace lost calories.

The study involved a group of students who were asked to work out until their body temperature reached 104 degrees. Researchers then gave beer to half of the students and water to the other half. Professor Garzon announced the results at a press conference in Granada, saying the hydration effect in those who drank beer was "slightly better."

A cardiologist with the Real Madrid football team, Dr. Juan Antonio Corbalan, told the paper he has recommended barley drinks to professional sportsmen after exhausting activities for a very long time. This study is just one more in a long line of research touting the benefits of your favorite brew.

Yes, your beer of choice may be healthier than you think. Most folks already know that that red wine can help protect against heart disease and a few more maladies, but most don't know that recent research shows that beer can also be good for what ails you.

It's true, from reducing risk for broken bones to helping warding off diabetes, and even helping to stave off mental decline -- beer can increase longevity. Here are 10 healthy reasons to cheer about your next beer:

Stronger Bones

Yes, beer is good for strong bones. In fact, beer contains high levels of silicon which is linked to bone health. In a 2009 study at Tufts University and other centers, older men and women who swigged one or two drinks daily had higher bone density, with the greatest benefits found in those who favored beer or wine.

For the best bone-building benefits, reach for pale ale, since a 2010 study of 100 types of beer from around the word identified these brews as richest in silicon. Light lagers and non-alcoholic beers contained the least.

A Stronger Heart

A 2011 analysis of 16 earlier studies involving more than 200,000 people, conducted by researchers at Italy’s Fondazion di Ricerca e Cura, found a 31% reduced risk of heart disease in those who drank about a pint of beer daily.

More than 100 studies also show that moderate drinking trims risk of heart attacks and dying from cardiovascular disease by 25 to 40 percent, this from a Harvard report. A beer or two a day can help raise levels of HDL, the “good” cholesterol that helps keep arteries from getting clogged.

Healthier Kidneys

Of course, a study in Finland was of great interest to me since I have fought kidney problems for more than 30 years. The study in Finland singled out beer among other alcoholic drinks, finding that each bottle of beer men drank daily lowered their risk of developing kidney stones by 40 percent. It’s possible that the hops in beer help curb leeching of calcium from bones. The theory is that the less lose of calcium means that that calcium won't end up in the kidneys as stones. Another theory as to beer being good for kidneys come from the idea of hydration. Beer’s high water content helps keep kidneys working since dehydration increases kidney stone risk.

To go along with the Finland study, according to an article in the Winter 2011 issue of ADA Times, beer may reduce your risk of developing kidney stones. Researchers found that beer lowered the risk of kidney stones in men compared to other alcoholic beverages, possibly due to its high water content and diuretic effect. Compounds in hops may also slow the release of calcium from bone that is implicated in kidney stones

So yes, beer has been shown to help slow the development of stones. But, as I can attest to, when passing a stone - my doctor says, beer is not a good idea.

Boosting Brain Health

A beer a day may help keep Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia at bay, researchers say. A beer of two a day may help you remember that a 2005 study tracking the health of 11,000 older women showed that moderate drinkers - those who consumed about one to two drinks a day - lowered their risk of mental decline by as much as 20%. This is compared to non-drinkers.

And in addition, older women who drank a drink a day scored as about the same level as women 18 months “younger” on average on tests of mental skills than the non-drinkers.

Reduced Cancer Risk

In an extensive Portuguese study, it was found that marinating steak in beer eliminates almost 70% of the carcinogens, called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) produced when the meat is pan-fried. Researchers theorize that beer’s sugars help block HCAs from forming.

Scientists also have found that beer and wine contain about the same levels of antioxidants, but the antioxidants are different because the flavonoids found in hops and grapes are different.

Boosting Vitamin Levels

In Ernest Hemingway’s A Farewell To Arms, which takes place in 1929, Catherine’s doctor recommends she drink beer while pregnant. Well, believe it or not, it is a fact that Doctors back then did that. They recommended beer to patients.

Beer has been known as a source of B vitamins like niacin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid, vitamins B6 and B12, and folate. Now scientists agree that beer can help guard against birth defects of the brain and spine. In fact, a single bottle of beer (12 oz.) provides up to 12.5 percent of the recommended requirement of vitamin B6, which is known to be generally helpful on a cellular level and also heart-healthy.

A Dutch study, performed at the TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, found that beer-drinking participants had 30% higher levels of vitamin B6 levels in their blood than their non-drinking counterparts, and twice as much as wine drinkers. Fact is, that cold one is a source of B vitamins such as folate, niacin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid, and vitamins B6 and B12.

One 12-ounce beer supplies 3 percent of the B12 and 12.5 percent of the vitamin B6 you need in a day. These two nutrients keep your heart healthy by lowering levels of homocysteine, an amino acid that may damage your arteries and encourage blood clots to form.

Guarding Against Stroke

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health found that moderate amounts of alcohol, including beer, help prevent blood clots that block blood flow to the heart, neck and brain—the clots that cause ischemic stroke, the most common type.

Experts believe alcohol improves heart health by making blood less sticky so it's less likely to clot by increasing levels of "good" HDL cholesterol while lowering unhealthy LDL cholesterol.

Reduced Risk for Diabetes

A 2011 Harvard study of about 38,000 middle-aged men found that when those who only drank occasionally raised their alcohol intake to one to two beers or other drinks daily, their risk of developing type 2 diabetes dropped by 25 percent.

The researchers found no benefit to drinking more than two drinks. The researchers found that alcohol increases insulin sensitivity, thus helping protect against diabetes.

Lower Blood Pressure

Wine is fine for your heart, but beer may be even better according to Harvard University. You have to love those Harvard boozers!

Another Harvard study of 70,000 women ages 25 to 40 found that moderate beer drinkers were less likely to develop high blood pressure - which of course is a major risk factor for heart attack - than women who sipped wine or spirits. So yes, that picture of a woman drinking a beer depicts someone doing more for her body than one showing some gal sipping wine or a Margarita!

Longer Life

In a 2005 review of 50 studies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that moderate drinkers live longer. The USDA also estimates that moderate drinking prevents about 26,000 deaths a year, due to lower rates of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. These benefits appear to apply in other countries as well, with an earlier study reporting that, "if European beer drinkers stopped imbibing, there would be a decrease in life expectancy of two years—and much unhappiness."

"A cold beer is the perfect way to relax at the end of the day, it tastes great and, in moderation, it can even be good for you," says Ethan A. Bergman, PhD, RD, CD, FADA, past president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. So yes, while milk is good for stronger bones and healthier teeth, the key to tapping into beer’s benefits is moderation. And believe it or not, the recommendation is just one 12-ounce beer per day for women and two for men.

Like everything else, no matter if it's chocolate or red wine, moderation is the key. For that reason, there is a word of caution that should be mentioned here:

Downing more than a moderate amount of beer has been linked to increased risk for problems - especially if you fall down stairs or attempt to ride a bull because you suddenly think you can.

So what does beer have to do with cowboys, the Old West, American History, or other subjects we cover on this blog?

Well, beer has everything to do with the Old West, Americans settling and civilizing the West, and living to reap the desserts of their hard work. The water in many areas was so bad that pioneers did what their ancestors did and brewed beer. 

Brewing local beer was an age-old healthy alternative to drinking water and possibly getting sick or dying. No, using beer as an alternative was nothing new. Fact is, Americans have had a tradition of brewing beer and using it as a healthy substitute since the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower.

In the Old West, there were certain challenges. Since the shelf life of beer is short and the cost of transporting at the time was prohibitive, American settlers built local breweries. Old West saloons charged 10 cents for a glass of beer. That would be equal to $1.75 for a glass of beer today.

In warmer climates, beer was served a little warm - usually at 55 to 65 degrees. Though the beer had a head, it wasn't sudsy as beer is today. There was also another drawback, as one had to drink up in a hurry before it got too warm or go flat. So like the English tradition of drinking warm beer, American became accustomed to the European tradition of beer served at room temperature.

Some parts of the West had cold beer due to cold winters. The reason? Well, until ice plants began cropping up in Western towns around 1870s, folks cut ice from frozen rivers in the winter and stored it underground during the summer.

In the 1880s, Adolphus Busch introduced artificial refrigeration and pasteurization to the U.S. brewing process, launching Budweiser as a national brand. Before then, most folks in the Old West didn’t expect their beer to be cold unless it was winter.

Beer was not bottled widely until pasteurization came in 1873. So though up to then it was mostly kept in wooden kegs, beer is partly responsible for helped keep Americans healthy in the Old West.

Have a Happy New Year!

Tom Correa

Obama should follow the Marine Corps' Leadership Traits

Dear Readers,

Here are 14 leadership traits as prescribed by the United States Marine Corps.

These traits are qualities of thought and action, which if demonstrated in daily activities will help Marines earn the respect, confidence, and loyal cooperation of other Marines.

Today, businesses across the country are looking for these same traits in the leaders who understand and can demonstrait these simple qualities.

And yes, our politicians in government, from city hall to the White House, should understand and practice these on a daily basis. If so, then they we receive the respect and loyalty of others. It is just that simple.   

For Marines, it is extremely important that they understand the meaning of each leadership trait and how to develop it.

For good reason, if they want to know what goals to set as they work to become good leaders and good followers, leadership is stressed in the Marine Corps.

THE 14 LEADERSHIP TRAITS:

JUSTICE

Definition: Justice is defined as the practice of being fair and consistent. A just person gives consideration to each side of a situation and bases rewards or punishments on merit.

Suggestions for Improvement: Be honest with yourself about why you make a particular decision. Avoid favoritism. Try to be fair at all times and treat all things and people in an equal manner.

JUDGMENT

Definition: Judgment is your ability to think about things clearly, calmly, and in an orderly fashion so that you can make good decisions.

Suggestions for Improvement: You can improve your judgment if you avoid making rash decisions. Approach problems with a common sense attitude.

DEPENDABILITY

Definition: Dependability means that you can be relied upon to perform your duties properly. It means that you can be trusted to complete a job. It is the willing and voluntary support of the policies and orders of the chain of command. Dependability also means consistently putting forth your best effort in an attempt to achieve the highest standards of performance.

Suggestions for Improvement: You can increase your dependability by forming the habit of being where you're supposed to be on time, by not making excuses and by carrying out every task to the best of your ability regardless of whether you like it or agree with it.

INITIATIVE

Definition: Initiative is taking action even though you haven't been given orders. It means meeting new and unexpected situations with prompt action. It includes using resourcefulness to get something done without the normal material or methods being available to you.

Suggestions for Improvement: To improve your initiative, work on staying mentally and physically alert. Be aware of things that need to be done and then to do them without having to be told.

DECISIVENESS

Definition: Decisiveness means that you are able to make good decisions without delay. Get all the facts and weight them against each other. By acting calmly and quickly, you should arrive at a sound decision. You announce your decisions in a clear, firm, professional manner.

Suggestions for Improvement: Practice being positive in your actions instead of acting half-hearted or changing your mind on an issue.

TACT

Definition: Tact means that you can deal with people in a manner that will maintain good relations and avoid problems. It means that you are polite, calm, and firm.

Suggestions for Improvement: Begin to develop your tact by trying to be courteous and cheerful at all times. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

INTEGRITY

Definition: Integrity means that you are honest and truthful in what you say or do. You put honesty, sense of duty, and sound moral principles above all else.

Suggestions for Improvement: Be absolutely honest and truthful at all times. Stand up for what you believe to be right.

ENTHUSIASM

Definition: Enthusiasm is defined as a sincere interest and exuberance in the performance of your duties. If you are enthusiastic, you are optimistic, cheerful, and willing to accept the challenges.

Suggestions for Improvement: Understanding and belief in your mission will add to your enthusiasm for your job. Try to understand why even uninteresting jobs must be done.

BEARING

Definition: Bearing is the way you conduct and carry yourself. Your manner should reflect alertness, competence, confidence, and control.

Suggestions for Improvement: To develop bearing, you should hold yourself to the highest standards of personal conduct. Never be content with meeting only the minimum requirements.

UNSELFISHNESS

Definition: Unselfishness means that you avoid making yourself comfortable at the expense of others. Be considerate of others. Give credit to those who deserve it.

Suggestions for Improvement: Avoid using your position or rank for personal gain, safety, or pleasure at the expensive of others. Be considerate of others.

COURAGE

Definition: Courage is what allows you to remain calm while recognizing fear. Moral courage means having the inner strength to stand up for what is right and to accept blame when something is your fault. Physical courage means that you can continue to function effectively when there is physical danger present.

Suggestions for Improvement: You can begin to control fear by practicing self-discipline and calmness. If you fear doing certain things required in your daily life, force yourself to do them until you can control your reaction.

KNOWLEDGE

Definition: Knowledge is the understanding of a science or art. Knowledge means that you have acquired information and that you understand people. Your knowledge should be broad, and in addition to knowing your job, you should know your unit's policies and keep up with current events.

Suggestions for Improvement: Suggestions for Improvement: Increase your knowledge by remaining alert. Listen, observe, and find out about things you don't understand. Study field manuals and other military literature.

LOYALTY

Definition: Loyalty means that you are devoted to your country, the Corps, and to your seniors, peers, and subordinates.

The motto of our Corps is Semper Fidelis!, (Always Faithful). You owe unwavering loyalty up and down the chain of command, to seniors, subordinates, and peers.

Suggestions for Improvement: To improve your loyalty you should show your loyalty by never discussing the problems of the Marine Corps or your unit with outsiders.

Never talk about seniors unfavorably in front of your subordinates. Once a decision is made and the order is given to execute it, carry out that order willingly as if it were your own.

ENDURANCE

Definition: Endurance is the mental and physical stamina that is measured by your ability to withstand pain, fatigue, stress, and hardship. For example, enduring pain during a conditioning march in order to improve stamina is crucial in the development of leadership.

Suggestions for Improvement: Develop your endurance by engaging in physical training that will strengthen your body.

Finish every task to the best of your ability by forcing yourself to continue when you are physically tired and your mind is sluggish.

So now you might ask why am I writing about this?

Well, a few of you folks have written to ask what I feel President Obama needs to do to be successful in the White House? Or, how can he be a good leader?

This is what he needs to do, of course that all depends on whether or not he actually has the desire to be a good leader. 

But realistically, I believe Obama could care less and will simply perform in the same unsatisfactory manner as he has all his life -  just one con job at a time.

That's just how I see it.

Tom Correa

Federal Judge OKs Wolf Derby in National Forest outside Salmon, Idaho.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) – A federal judge Friday has allowed a wolf- and coyote-shooting derby to proceed on public land outside Salmon, Idaho, this weekend.

The judge ruled that the organizers aren’t required to get a special permit from the U.S. Forest Service.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale issued the ruling in Boise hours after a morning hearing.

WildEarth Guardians and other environmental groups had sought to stop the derby, arguing the Forest Service was ignoring its own rules that require permits for competitive events.

The agency, meanwhile, countered no permit was needed, concluding while hunting would take place in the forest on Saturday and Sunday, the competitive portion of the event – where judges determine the $1,000 prize winner for the biggest wolf killed – would take place on private land.

Dale decided derby promoters were encouraging use of the forest for a lawful activity.

“The derby hunt is not like a foot race or ski race, where organizers would require the use of a loop or track for all participants to race upon,” she wrote, of events that might require such permits. “Rather, hunters will be dispersed throughout the forest, hunting at their own pace and in their own preferred territory, and not in a prescribed location within a designated perimeter.”

Steve Alder, an organizer of Idaho’s derby, said dozens of people had already arrived in Salmon to participate. He was elated after the decision.

“We won,” Alder said. “You’ve got a lot of people who have driven from far distances to Salmon, today. A lot of motels have a lot of occupants; a lot of money has been expended for this event. It’s good for Salmon, but I don’t want to send them packing home.”

Every year, predator derbies are staged across the West and much of the rest of the country, where hunters compete to bag the most coyote, fox and other animals.

But wolves – and the notion that hundreds of armed sportsmen might head to the hills to shoot at them for cash – captured the passions of wildlife advocates on a landscape scale after they learned of the Idaho derby.

It’s been just two years since Endangered Species Act protections were lifted, and WildEarth Guardians executive director John Hornung said many people believe the big carnivores still face existential threats that are compounded when they’re hunted for prizes.

“To go from that position a mere two years ago, to contest hunts, is just incredibly dissonant to groups like ours and, I think, a lot of the public. It just doesn’t make sense,” Hornung said from his office in Santa Fe, N.M., adding he believes contest hunts are “all about a scorched earth approach to these native carnivores.”

In Friday’s telephone hearing, WildEarth Guardians’ attorney told Dale that a wolf derby taking place on Forest Service land that surrounds Salmon should be required to get the same kind of special permit as any other competitive gathering, including running races or snowmobile events.

“People are trying to kill as many animals as they can in two days in order to win the prize,” Sarah McMillan told the judge.

Meanwhile, attorneys for the U.S. Forest Service countered that no permit was needed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Hurwit also said hunters could be in the woods and fields near Salmon this weekend shooting wolves and coyotes – regardless of whether their excursions were associated with a contest.

“There’s nothing to stop people who intended to participate in the derby, from going forward and taking the same action, killing coyotes and wolves, and just not participating in the derby,” Hurwit told Dale.

“The derby doesn’t change hunting, hunting will happen throughout the season regardless of this lawsuit. The derby hunters will have to comply with state regulations.”

Wolves became big-game animals in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming after federal Endangered Species Act protections were lifted starting in 2011. There are annual hunting and trapping seasons.

After reintroduction in the state in the mid-1990s, Idaho has about 680 wolves, according to 2012 estimates.

Story from Associated Press

Slavery In America - Trivia You Won't Believe - Part One

Today's students hear a great deal about Black History. But how about the little known, or to put it more appropriately - not talked about Black History.

America’s First Slave Owner was a Black Man.

• According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.
• Prior to 1655, there were no legal slaves in the American colonies. Believe it or not, they only "indentured servants" prior to that date.
• All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. And yes, 7 years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held.
• Upon their release, they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.
• Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to "the America's" to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622, Johnson was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. Of the people on that farm, 52 out of 57 people were killed in the attack. Johnson married a female black servant while working on the farm. When Anthony was released as an "indentured servant," he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651, Johnson had 250 acres and five black "indentured servants" of his own under his care. In 1654, it was time for Johnson to release John Casor who was one of his black indentured servants. But, instead of letting him go, Anthony instead told Casor that he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker. Anthony Johnson took legal action and sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 to retrieve his "property." In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Because of that, John Casor became the first permanent slave in America, and Anthony Johnson became the First Slave Owner. Both men were Black.
• Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.
• By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” And yes, the colony of Virginia ordered the repatriation of freed blacks "Back to Africa" -- during a "Back to Africa" Movement.
• Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go back to Africa.
• This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

Black Slave Owners In America?

Yes, Anthony Johnson was just the First of many. It is true that many slave holders were indeed Black, or had some Black ancestry. And yes, Black Slave Owners continued to thrive in the United States for quite a while after the Revolution. In fact, in 1830, there were 3,775 such Black Slave Owners living in the South who owned 12,760 Black and White slaves

By 1860, there were about 3,000 Black slaves owned by Black households in the city of New Orleans alone. It should be noted, contrary to some historians who write about Black Slave Owners who bought their own relatives to give them better lives, the majority of black slaveholders appeared to hold slaves as a commercial decision.

The First Slaves In Large Numbers In The Americas Were Not Black - They Were Irish?

Slavery in America is said to have began when the first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco. But that might not be completely accurate.

The Irish slave trade began when British King James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid-1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat was Irish slaves. Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500 thousand (500,000) Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population is said to have fallen from about 1.5 Million to less than half that at 600,000 in just one single decade.

Families were said to have been ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish husbands to take their wives, and subsequently fathers were stripped from their children, as they sent across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

One writer said that many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves - yet that's what they truly were: Slaves. 

They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle. As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts. Then again, you probably won't hear that during Black History Month.

How About Slavery Among Native Americans?

Native American tribes have been taking captives and making slaves out of their opposition for centuries before Europeans ever go to "The New World, The Americas". And no, it was not just confined to the Lower 48, the Haida and Tlingit Indians who lived along southeast Alaska's coast were traditionally known as fierce warriors and slave-traders, raiding as far as California. 

Slavery was hereditary after slaves were taken as prisoners of war. Among some Pacific Northwest tribes, about a quarter of the population was slaves. Other slave-owning tribes of North America were, for example, the Comanche, the Credo, the Pawnee, the Kiowa, and so on and on. Most tribes held slaves. In fact, many Indian Tribes who made the journey on the Trail of Tears brought their slaves with them - including black and white slaves. It's true! After 1800, the Cherokees and the other "civilized" tribes started buying and using Black slaves from the whites - a practice they continued after being relocated to Indian Territory in the 1830s.

The Five Civilized Tribes adopted some practices which they saw as beneficial; they were working to get along with the Americans and to keep their territory. The Cherokee was the tribe that held the most slaves. In 1809, they held nearly 600 enslaved blacks. This number increased to almost 1,600 in 1835, and to around 4,000 by 1860, after they had removed to Indian Territory. Cherokee populations for these dates are: 12,400 in 1809;, 16,400 in 1835; and 21,000 in 1860. Of the Cherokee who owned slaves, 83 percent held fewer than 10 slaves. The nature of slavery in Cherokee society often mirrored that of white slave-owning society.

For example, they had laws that barred the intermarriage of Cherokees and enslaved African Americans. Cherokees who aided slaves were punished with one hundred lashes on the back. In fact, it is interesting to note that in the Cherokee society, those with African-American descent were barred from holding office. And yes, that was true even if they were a mixed blood Cherokee, someone who could bear arms, and owned property.

And as for captives? Man or woman did not matter to the tribes if you were from another tribe. They saw their opposition as lower than them. And example of this is the story about a Ute woman who was captured by the Arapaho and later sold to a Cheyenne as a slave.  The Ute woman was used as a prostitute while she lived in slavery until about 1880 when she died of a hemorrhage resulting from "excessive sexual intercourse". A Ute man or woman had no worth to a Cheyenne.

While slavery for European America was officially established in Virginia in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, who was himself Black Man, convinced a court that his black indentured servant John Casor was his property for life, Native Americans had been practicing slavery for thousands of years before that.

So How Many People Actually Owned Slaves In America?

So, in 1830, there were 3,775 such Black Slave Owners living in the South who owned 12,760 Black and White slaves? Wow!

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus 1897

Merry Christmas Readers,

By now, you've probably noticed that I do Christmas in December. I try to immerse myself in the things that I love and miss about the season. This time of year, I try to help in any small way that I can to bring back the spirit of Christmas to friend and stranger. From donning a red suit and beard, to volunteering to do what I can for others, I try to help make wonderful memories while helping others remember.

That includes myself. From remembering those Christmases past when the world was simpler, to those tough Christmases when I was far from home, broke, and had very little, to those years when the smallest things brought me more joy than I could have possibly imagined, Christmas is a time for me to remember those whose smiles and laughter I miss so much. It breaks my heart that they are not here, yet it warms my soul remembering them.

As for finding the spirit of Christmas? I've always believed that it's in our heart. It feels warm and good. It's something that can't be bought or borrowed or bartered for. It's all about our believing in the Lord. And of course, believing in the essence of Santa Claus.

In 1897, that essence was explained to a little girl who wrote to the editor of New York's The Sun newspaper. Her small question and his reply made history for all of the right reasons.

Eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of The Sun, and the quick response was printed as an unsigned editorial Sept. 21, 1897. 

The work of veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church has since become history's most reprinted newspaper editorial. Appearing in part or whole in dozens of languages in books, movies, and other editorials, and on posters and stamps, it really is the most read editorial in history.

So grab a cup of coffee, kick back for a few minutes, and enjoy the timeless heartfelt thoughts expressed here. You most certainly will come away feeling pretty good knowing that not much has changed.

The Letter from Virginia O'Hanlon:

DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.

Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.

Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'

Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

VIRGINIA O'HANLON.

115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET.

The Editorial response printed in THE SUN:

"VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds.

All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus.

He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.

Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove?

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.

Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart.

Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real?

Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood."

Francis Pharcellus Church
September, 21st, 1897

-- end of 1897 editorial.

And with that, I pray you have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
May God bless you and yours!

Tom Correa

Why Christmas Day Is December 25th?

Merry Christmas Readers!

Yes, Merry Christmas!

These days, those two words which constitute our Christian greeting have all sorts of political implications.  But for this article, I don't want to address how that phrase, that small blessing, irks the Left and those who would deny us our freedom of religion simply because we are Christians.

I want to talk about the origin of Christmas Day, December 25th, and how it has come to be that date.

Before starting, lets make something clear, I'm no scholar - not by a long shot, especially when it comes to God.

The idea for this article came about after talking to a friend's wife on the phone about celebrating Christmas.  She is a Jehovah's Witness and subsequently does not celebrate Christmas.

For me, since I was born and bred a Roman Catholic, Christmas means a great deal as I was taught from a young age to celebrate the birth of Jesus - the Christ child, our savior. 

The conversation with my friend's wife started innocently enough, but than moved to the realities that the actual date itself is not spelt out in clear and concise language that some need to have done so that they will not argue the point.

And yes, while I know very little about the Jehovah's Witness religion, it seems to me that that they may have a great deal in common with Contract Lawyers and Politicians than a Religious group.

Why would I say that? It's because of their dogged determination to exclude faith, history, and archeology, and instead focus only what is written in the Bible.

Like a group of Contract Attorneys, they are emphatic about only following the written word. Nothing else matter except what the Bible says - not taking into consideration what the Bible does not say.

No where in the Bible does it mention how a wheel was first created, yet we know that it was and works.  

In the same way that Contract Attorneys disregard something called "the Spirit of the Law," it appears to me that there may be some in the Jehovah's Witnesses who completely disregard what a friend once called "the Spirit of the Bible" - the spirit of its teachings, and our ability to reason, and subsequently gain what might not be so defined that it would please a Contract Attorney.

Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrate Christmas? I don't know exactly, so I looked it up.

According to a Jehovah's Witness website, they make quote after quote cherry picking what they want to site and what they do not as to why they do not celebrate the birth of Christ. 

Their website stated the following:

1) Jesus’ apostles and early disciples did not celebrate Christmas.

2) There is no proof that Jesus was born on December 25; his birth date is not recorded in the Bible.

3) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christmas is not approved by God because it is rooted in pagan customs and rites. - they list 2 Corinthians 6:17 verse pertaining to idolatry as proof of that.

As for 2 Corinthians 6:17, I gather that some want to take it to be a sort of message to the Catholic Church regarding receiving Holy Communion.

Others like myself were once taught that it was a warning for believers to keep a distance between themselves and wicked and immoral people whose company and conversation are dishonorable, ensnaring, and defiling, - those people are "the unclean."

The Jehovah's website goes on to state:

"Many still celebrate Christmas despite knowing about its pagan roots and lack of support from the Bible."

While I respect that they do not choose to celebrate Christmas, the same as the Puritans who did not celebrate Christmas or as far as that goes any Holiday (Holy Day), and they say they do in fact respect each person’s right to decide for himself in this matter and not interfere in the Christmas celebrations of others, I don't like that they show disrespect to Catholics and other Christians by spreading the myth that Christmas is some sort of pagan holiday.

Christmas Is Not A Pagan Holiday!

According to scholars and professors of Biblical Archaeology, such as Andrew McGowan who published an essay entitled "How December 25 Became Christmas" (2012), it did not start out with pagan trappings at all.

McGowen wrote:

"It’s not until the 12th century that we find the first suggestion that Jesus’ birth celebration was deliberately set at the time of pagan feasts.

A marginal note on a manuscript of the writings of the Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi states that in ancient times the Christmas holiday was actually shifted from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus holiday.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible scholars spurred on by the new study of comparative religions latched on to this idea - and they subsequently claimed that because the early Christians didn’t know when Jesus was born and that it was simply assimilated into the pagan solstice festival for their own purposes. They claimed it as the time of the Messiah’s birth and celebrating it accordingly."

Like many tradition which are borrowed from other cultures over time, more recent studies have shown that many of the holiday’s modern trappings do reflect pagan customs borrowed much later, as Christianity expanded into Northern and Western Europe.

For example, the Christmas Tree has been linked with late medieval druid practices.

And yes, this sort of finding has only encouraged modern audiences to "assume" that the date "absolutely must be pagan."

But we all know what they say about the word "assume'.

We should not believe it!

McGowan and other Biblical Archaeologists say there are huge problems with this popular theory of paganism being responsible for our celebrating on December 25th as many are lead to believe.

"Most significantly, the first mention of a date for Christmas was circa 200 A.D. and the earliest celebrations that we know about were circa 250–300 A.D., both were in periods when Christians were not borrowing from pagan traditions to such an extent.

Granted, Christian belief and practice were not formed in isolation. And yes, many early elements of Christian worship, including the Eucharist, meals honoring martyrs and much early Christian art would have been quite comprehensible to pagan observers."

But he also writes, "But historical facts point out that in the first few centuries A.D., the persecuted Christian minority was greatly concerned with actually distancing itself from the larger, public pagan religious observances, such as sacrifices, games and holidays.

This was still true as late as the violent persecutions of the Christians conducted by the Roman Emperor Diocletian between 303 and 312 A.D.

And yes, this would change only after Constantine converted to Christianity -as it wasn't until later from the mid-fourth century on, we do find Christians deliberately adapting and Christianizing pagan festivals.

But friends, even with that we don’t have evidence of Christians adopting pagan festivals earlier in the third century when Christmas was already well established by some Christians.

Because of that, realistically, being unbiased, it is apparent that it is unlikely that the date was simply selected to correspond with pagan solar festivals.

It's a lie to say that Christians adopted some ritual when they did not. And yes, celebrating Christmas pre-dates any sort of rituals that may have been adopted later.

The December 25th feast existed long before 312 A.D. when Constantine converted.

How did December 25 come to be associated with Jesus’ birthday?

Some believe that December 25th was being used in the Western Roman Empire and January 6 in the East - especially in Egypt and Asia Minor.

The modern Armenian church continues to celebrate Christmas on January 6th.

For most Christians, however, December 25 would prevail, while January 6th eventually came to be known as the Feast of the Epiphany, commemorating the arrival of the magi in Bethlehem. The period between became the holiday season later known as the 12 days of Christmas.

The earliest mention of December 25th as Jesus’ birthday comes from a mid-fourth-century Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs.

The first date listed, December 25th, is marked: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae meaning “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”

In about 400 A.D., Augustine of Hippo mentions a local dissident Christian group, the Donatists, who apparently kept Christmas festivals on December 25th.

So, almost 300 years after Jesus was born, we finally find people observing his birth in mid-winter.

But how had they settled on the date December 25th?

There are two theories today: one extremely popular is that December 25th has everything to do with pagan festivals; the other theory - though more ancient - is less often heard outside scholarly circles.

The first theory is an assumption that Christmas Day is on December 25th to coincide with the Winter Solstice and pagan festivals.

While it is true that elements of the Winter Solstice festival that developed from the fourth century A.D. has some pagan traditions, for us to say that the date of December 25th is entirely based on paganism is not only myth spread by unbelievers - but also a lie because there is no proof that shows that that is true.

Fact is, because the Christian Church did not use any pagan traditions for the first 300 years A.D., the actual date of Jesus Christ birth is more accurately derived from Judaism and from Jesus’ conception and death at Passover.

Some say the Donatist knew it first!

The second theory has to do with the fact that the Donatist Christians in North Africa knew it first 200 years before it ever had any sorts of pagan influence.

Furthermore, in the mid- to late fourth century, church leaders in the Eastern Empire concerned themselves not with introducing a celebration of Jesus’ birthday, but with the addition of the December date to their traditional celebration on January 6th.

Strange as it may seem, the key to dating Jesus’ birth may lie in the dating of Jesus’ death at Passover.

This view was first suggested to the modern world by French scholar Louis Duchesne in the early 20th century and fully developed by American Thomas Talley in more recent years.8 But they were certainly not the first to note a connection between the traditional date of Jesus’ death and his birth.

The miracle of the coming Savior did not start at the birth of Jesus, but at the conception. For this reason, the early Christians celebrated Jesus’ conception and death on the same calendar day: March 25, exactly nine months before December 25.

According to scholars, around 200 A.D., Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died was equivalent to March 25th in the Roman (solar) calendar.

March 25th, is of course, exactly 9 months before December 25th. Imagine that!

It was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation — the commemoration of Jesus’ conception.

Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25th.

This fact appears in an anonymous Christian treatise titled "On Solstices and Equinoxes," which appears to come from fourth-century North Africa.

The treatise states that our Lord was conceived on March 25, which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception: "For on that day he was conceived on the same he suffered.”

Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to December 25th which happens to be the winter solstice.

Augustine, too, was familiar with this association. In "On the Trinity" (c. 399–419 A.D.) he writes:

"For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.”

In the East, too, the dates of Jesus’ conception and death were linked.

Thus, we have Christians in two parts of the world calculating Jesus’ birth on the basis that his death and conception took place on the same day March 25th or April 6th. and coming up with two close but different results December 25th and January 6th.

Connecting Jesus’ conception and death in this way will certainly seem odd to modern readers -- but it reflects ancient and medieval understandings of the whole of salvation being bound up together.

The notion that creation and redemption should occur at the same time of year is also reflected in ancient Jewish tradition is also recorded in the Talmud.

The dates of Christmas and Epiphany may well have resulted from Christian theological reflection on such chronologies: "Jesus would have been conceived on the same date he died, and born nine months later,"

The above per Adrew McGowen, Biblical Archaeologist.

It might seem confusing, but it's not.

Though the Bible does not give the exact date of his birth, the Bible is specific about the dates when Jesus was conceived and when he died.

We only need to understand that 9 month later is December 25th to accept that date. And yes, according to research, this is how we arrive at December 25th to be the birth date of Jesus Christ.

While there are some around the world who celebrate the conception, most Christians today celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ 9 months later on December 25th.

And to that birth, we celebrate and give thanks that our savior was born.

And Yes, We Should Celebrate His Birth Just As The Angels Taught Us Too!

What? But the Bible makes no reference to celebrating "Christmas" you say?

Well, actually it does.

While the word "Christmas" is a compound word originating in the term "Christ's Mass". It is derived from the Middle English Cristemasse, which is from Old English Crīstesmæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038 A.D., followed by the word Cristes-messe in 1131.

Crīst (genitive Crīstes) is from Greek Khrīstos (Χριστός), a translation of Hebrew Māšîaḥ (מָשִׁיחַ), "Messiah", meaning "annointed"; and mæsse is from Latin missa, the celebration of the Eucharist.

The form "Christenmas" was also historically used, but is now considered archaic and dialectal; it derives from Middle English Cristenmasse, literally "Christian mass."

So no, since the word "Christmas" did not exist - it obviously should not be in the Bible.

But for me, I believe that instructions on celebrating the birth of Christ certainly are in the Bible.

I believe it comes to us in Luke 2:10-14, where it states:

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"

So yes, there it is. The closest thing we have in the Bible telling us what to do to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

Luke 2:10-14 instructs us to have great joy and celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ by praising God and wishing peace on earth and good will toward men.

For me, while I praise God and celebrate the birth of my savior, I try to be aware of false prophets like those out there who want to convince others not to celebrate Christmas.

I keep in mind that in the entire Bible there is only one small section that tells us all what the LORD requires from us. Micah 6:8, "To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

As far as dealing with heathens who profess to have all the answers when it comes to Christmas, and yes I know they sound a great deal like Atheists and other non-believers, I try to remember Romans 14:5-6 which states:

"One person decides in favor of one day over another, while another person decides that all days are the same. Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind: The one who observes a special day, observes it to honor the Lord. The one who eats, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat, refrains from eating to honor the Lord; yet he, too, gives thanks to God.."

So yes, let all Christians, even Jehovah's Witnesses, do as the Bible tells us and do what the angels showed us - praise God and wish good toward men.

Above all let's honor the Lord.

Tom Correa