Marine General Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis

On February 22nd, 2014,  Marine General Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis gave what may be the most motivating speech of all time.

General Mattis, who retired from his post as head of U.S. Central Command after a 41-year career, gave this speech at the Marine Corps University Foundation’s 2014 Semper Fidelis Award Dinner where he accepted the award.

In his acceptance speech, he tells why he is not accepting it for himself but more on behalf of us, his fellow Marines. 

During the speech, General Mattis summed up the Marine Corps ethos. Since today is November 10th, a day when all Marines, young and old, those on active duty and those of us who served in days gone by, celebrate the 240th Birthday of our Corps, here is what General "Mad Dog" Mattis had to say in it's entirety. 

This is for you,

Happy 240th Birthday my brothers! 

From February 22nd, 2014:

"Long time since we served together in Brigade, cruised the West Pac

Or since I drank one of your Cokes on the March up to Baghdad.
General Gray, General Conway, General Pace, General Amos, General Paxton –
Marines whose very goodness put ambition out of context.

Sergeant Major Barrett – a Marine’s Marine. 

Colonel Harvey Barnum who for so many years – 

Your valor inspired us all to be better men.

Ladies – The wonderful ladies who exemplify grace & courage
Who represent our better angels and what we fight for.

Thank all of you for coming out tonight –
A night that celebrates our Corps’ values, its legacy and its mission.

A special note of appreciation for President of the Marine Corps University Foundation,
General Tom Draude.
Valiant combat leader who brought a Vietnam Vet’s reassurance 

To us as we filed into our Desert Storm attack positions
And earned our everlasting respect & affection.

We have Ambassadors present,
Whom Marines have stood beside in foreign lands
And members of Congress and staffers,
To whom we owe our survival when short – sighted bureaucratic efforts challenged our existence,
Combined, they remind us our Corps carries more than our own hopes forward.

General Conway & General Amos spoke about this Foundation – I’ll add a few words.

Between Commandant’s Reading List and the Marine Corps University Foundation’s enriching
The education of our warrior leaders – 

I have never been bewildered for long in any fight with our enemies – 

I was Armed with Insight. 

In the worst of surprises we found our training and education had prepared us well.

I am a very average Marine  – at this podium tonight because I repeatedly was at the right place, 

At the right time to gain warfighting positions. 

I recall a Fleet Commander asking if I could bring Marines from the Mediterranean 

Together with a West Coast Marine Expeditionary Unit 

And strike 350 Nautical Miles into Afghanistan. 

I could, thanks to the Marines who went before me.

My immediate response was, “Yes”!

Thanks to our Corps’ legacy of audacity
Thanks to our Marines in 1950 who brought in KC 130 aircraft.
Thanks to our Amphibs, which our Navy-Marine-Corps Team funded.
Thanks to our Marines of the 1960 -1970s who put air refueling probes on Heavy Lift Helicopters.

Thanks to our Marines who brought in Light Armored Vehicles in 1980.
Thanks to our Recruiters who brought in High–Quality Marines.
Thanks to our Commandant who extended boot camp and toughened it.

None of this started with me – most of the thinking was done in Quantico. 

And for me – so often in the right place at the right time 

I have an enormous sense of gratitude for a Corps that gave me
Such capability when destiny called on our Corps to fight.

Images flash through my mind– and I speak from my heart: 

Of an Eighth & “I” parade in honor of John Glenn who remarked that night:

He had been a Marine for 23 years… "but not long enough."

That was from a man fought in WWII & Korea 

And was the first American to orbit the earth,

His wingman in Korea, baseball legend Ted Williams, put it well 

When asked which was best team he ever played on. 

Without hesitation he said, “The U.S. Marine Corps.”

On evenings like this most of us will remember the tragedy of losing comrades
Beautiful Marines whose rambunctious spirits gave us what F. Scott Fitzgerald called
“Riotous excursions with privileged glimpses into the human heart.”

And we remember them, everyone, who gave their lives 

So our experiment called America, could live.

And for us who live today…
We do so with a sense that each day is a bonus and a blessing.

To the Veterans who brought up the current generation of Marines 

Who imbued in us the spirit “such as Regiments hand down,”

Thank you!
You raised us well for our grim tasks!

During our apprenticeship you coached us 

And honed our skills with a sense of humor in a tough school.

And when the time came for us to stand and deliver, 

We never feared the enemy. 

We only feared we might somehow disappoint you.

But with good NCO’s the outcome was never in doubt,
And the NCO’s were superb, Sergeant Major Barrett

And all Marines, regardless of rank,
Stood shoulder –to-shoulder
Stood co-equal in our commitment to mission
Co-equal, from boot private to General

Smiling to one another, even as we entered Fallujah
Knowing the enemy could not stand against the Corps you Veterans honed.
Because every Marine, if he was in a tough spot – 

Whether a bar fight, or tonight in Helmand River Valley,
Our fellow Marines would get to us, or die trying.

So long as our Corps fields such Marines, 

America has nothing to fear from tyrants, 

Be they Fascists, Communists or Tyrants with Medieval Ideology. 

For we serve in a Corps with no institutional confusion about our purpose:

To fight!
To fight well!

As we say out West where I grew up, “We ride for the brand”, 

And hold the line until our country can again feel its unity.

From our first days at San Diego, Parris Island or Quantico, 

NCO’s bluntly explained to us that the Corps would be:

Entirely satisfied if we gave 100%
And entirely dissatisfied if we gave 99%

And those NCOs taught us the great pleasure of doing what others thought impossible.

As General Amos summed it up so well in his Marine Birthday message: 

“The iron discipline & combat excellence” of our Marines:

Marines who never let each other down, 

Never let the Corps down, 

Never let our country down…

Those are the Marines who define our Corps.

A Corps whose old-fashioned values protect a progressive country.
Marines who can do the necessary “rough work”, 

But without becoming evil by doing so, 

Despite an enemy who has opened apocalyptically the aperture for who they target,

To include even women and children.

It’s all the more important today that we hold to our precious legacy
Of ferocious, ethical combat performance.

For in a world awash in change, 

Americans need to have confidence in the everlasting character of our Marines

And to those Maniacs, the ones who thought that by hurting us on 9-11 that they could scare us,
We have proven that the descendants of Belleau Wood,
Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Chosin, Hue City & more,

We don’t scare! 

And we proved it in Fallujah & Ramadi and in the Helmand,
Where foes who had never reasoned their way into their medieval views
And could not be reasoned out – 

Found that American Marines could fight like the dickens,
And for the enemy it proved to be their longest and worst day against us.

Now from a distance I look back on what the Corps taught me:

To think like men of action,
And to act like men of thought!

To live life with intensity,
And a passion for excellence,
Without losing compassion for mistakes made,
By hi-spirited young patriots who looked past hot political rhetoric and joined the Corps – 

Which taught me to be a “coach” in General LeJeune’s style,

Summoning the best from our troops
The Father to Son, Teacher to Scholar bond bringing out the vicious harmony 

When together, we closed on the enemy.

We were taught that the strongest motivation we all have,
Whether an FA-18 pilot or a Huey door gunner,
Whether a “cannon cocker” firing a mission 

Or logistics Marine hurrying supplies forward,
The motivation that binds us is our respect for 

And commitment to a 19 year old Lance Corporal infantryman 

Upon whose young shoulders our experiment called America ultimately rests….

Now this award can never be mine –
And because we are members of the same tribe,
Every one of you knows what I will say next….

For I am grateful & humbled to be singled out with you tonight:

An average Marine who always had good fortune to repeatedly 

Be in the right place at the right time
A “limited duty officer” as Commandant of the Marine Corps Jim Jones put it – 

Who only knew what to do with me when there was a fight.

But this award is truly not made to a man, to an individual,
It is made through me
For my work with those who shouldered Rucksacks,
Work that was carried forward by our Grunts,
And I will hold it in trust for those lads whose unfailing loyalty we celebrate tonight, 

Who chose to live life fully – more than they wanted longevity. 

Even when I made mistakes they saved the day.

And I made plenty –
Like the time I got my Battalion surrounded in open dessert, with
My mortar Platoon spilling out and
Setting up 4 tubes pointing north, and 4 tubes pointing south and, 

They restored the situation…

Yes, even in a jam of my own making –
The lads’ spirit, skill and good humor carried us through when danger loomed.

So on behalf of such lads
I hold this award in trust –

For the lads who prove Hemingway was right when he said, 

“There was no one better to have beside you when the chips were down than a U.S. Marine.”

For to Marines, love of liberty is not an empty phrase… 

Rather it’s displayed by blood, sweat and tears for the fallen. 

I was humbled that our Corps allowed me to serve over four decades,
Yet as Colonel John Glenn – a fighter pilot, astronaut and Senator put it –
It wasn’t long enough –

Semper Fidelis and May God hold our lads close."

written by Marine General Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis

General Mattis will certainly go down in Marine Corps History as one of the Marine Corps' most revered Generals. And yes, besides being the warrior that he is, he proved to be a great inspiration to us all.

Happy Birthday Marines! 

Tom Correa

Hand Guns And Personal Protection

By Terry McGahey

When it comes to personal choices of which pistol or revolver to carry for your own personal protection I always say, "Carry what you are most comfortable with, and which ever one you shoot best with."

That said, I prefer the old tried and true 1911 .45 Auto. This pistol has proven to be one of the best man stoppers since it's conception.

Personally, I carry mine with the 230 grain Cor-Bon hollow points. Reason being, unlike ball ammo which can pass through your intended target and possibly kill or injure another individual, the Cor-Bon hollow point will not.

One of the biggest misconceptions I hear from people is how you need a bullet or caliber that will kill with one shot, but in my opinion this is not necessarily true. In a shooting situation you do need the right caliber or bullet which will stop the perpetrator, but not necessarily kill them.

Yes, with the .45 one shot could very well turn an individual into a corpse, but if you should be off center of mass because of adrenaline coursing through your body, this caliber will still stop them, and please remember, stopping them should be your first goal when it comes to your personal protection.

In the world of hand guns there are a few calibers with more stopping power, or one shot kill power, but to achieve this goal, in general you are carrying a hand cannon which is not necessary. Example, the .357 magnum is probably one of the best at one shot kills, but should you need to use this weapon in an instant of your own protection you won't have time to put in ear plugs.

This weapon does not make the typical boom sound of other calibers, but it makes a very sharp crack! Without ear plugs you won't be able to hear very well for an hour or so.

Personally, that's why I don't care for the .357 magnum, besides the point that it may pass through and hit an innocent individual even with hollow point bullets. In my opinion, if you carry a .357 for self defense, carry it with hollow point .38s, they will do the job and not kill or injure an innocent bystander. But that's just my opinion.

No matter which caliber a person may choose to carry for their own protection they need to spend plenty of time at the range or out in the country to become proficient with it. If you practice enough, pulling and firing the weapon will become muscle memory, which will save you in a bad situation.

For first time shooters, learn gun safety before you even load it for the first time. The biggest mistake first time shooters make is to want to shoot the gun right away. If you were not raised with handguns, please get with an instructor or someone you may know who has a lot of experience with them.

Have them teach you the safety features of the weapon and how to load, unload, clean, and handle the weapon in a safe manner. Once you learn these things you are then, and only then, ready for the shooting experience.

I will close this article with an old saying. Beware of the person who only owns one gun. If they only own one gun, you can dang near bet they are very good with it!

Old West Lawman Saw Deputized Citizens As An Asset

It wasn't too long ago that I sort of stepped into a conversation regarding posses and how much law enforcement depended on the citizenry. The person who said it didn't take place decided to up his bet and said, "Other than in Hollywood movies, name one incident when that took place?"

So I started thinking of the times which really stuck in my head that weren't a matter of vigilantes just taking over and doing what needed to be done. As many of you know, where there was a breakdown in the law, whether it was through corruption or simply the law being out numbered, often citizens formed vigilante groups to step forward and right a local crime situation that may be getting out of hand.

We forget that aside from the vigilante groups, which popped up all over the West, it is a fact that the history of the West has all sorts of examples of everyday citizens being deputized to assist with the administration of justice.

Using the Posse Comitatus law, Old West lawman saw citizens aa an asset. Fact is, whether forming a posse or simply deputizing a couple of citizens on the spot, a lawman would use the Common Law of Posse Comitatus to call on all males over the age of fifteen for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder and maintaining order.

A posse is defined as a group of civilians called upon by a sheriff or other law enforcement official to assist temporarily in preserving the peace or pursuing and arresting a fugitive. A group of citizens summoned by a sheriff to help in maintaining law and order.

After the person who I was talking with challenged me to name once when deputizing a couple of citizens on the spot actually took place, I have to admit that I shot for the obvious. I told him that before going down to the lot adjacent to the OK Corral to confront those in violation of Tombstone's city ordinance against wearing guns in town, City Marshal Virgil Earp deputized two citizens on the spot. One citizen was his brother Wyatt Earp who was in reality employed as a bartender. The other was a citizen by the name of Doc Holliday who made his living as a gambler. 

Later of course, Judge Spicer would say that his choices may have been a little unwise. But all in all, Virgil Earp did deputize two citizens who he knew that he could depend on.  

As for other lawmen back in the day, they were known to do the exact same thing as what Virgil Earp did in that they would deputize citizens that they knew they could depend on to back them up. And hopefully, the men they picked would stick and not turn tail if shooting started. 

Below, I have listed a few times when citizens stepped forward in what was known back then as the "Far West" of California. In some cases the citizens carried out the law even after the lawman which they were there supporting was already shot dead.

 September 2nd, 1854 

California bandido Tiburcio Vasquez killed Monterey Constable William Hardmount by shooting him during a fight at a fandango.

A fandango is a lively couples-dance which originated in Portugal and Spain, traditionally accompanied by guitars and castanets or hand-clapping. Fandango can both be sung and danced. Fandango is still one of the main folk dances in Portugal today.

Constable Hardmount was shot and killed when he attempted to break up a fight between several men -- some from the East Coast, Mexico and Ireland. It is said that bandit Tiburcio Vasquez and others were fighting over rum and women when Vasquez shot and killed Constable Hardmount when he attempted to stop the fight.

Vasquez's accomplice was wounded by return fire. Vasquez escaped, but the citizenry stepped up and captured his accomplice who they hanged in the town square the following day.

November 10th, 1855 

California's Monterey County saw three of its Sheriff Deputies killed in one afternoon when Deputy De La Torre, Deputy Jim Beckwith and Deputy Charles Layton were all shot and killed while attempting to arrest a suspect wanted for murdering two other people.

The killer fled, but soon he was captured by citizens. They angry citizens took him to a nearby tree and hanged him. It is said they held his trail on the way to that hanging tree.

November 26th, 1858

In the California Gold Country, the town of Columbia saw one of its Police Officers and a Constable murdered within 3 days of one another. Yes, that's what happened to Columbia Policeman Joel McDonald and Constable John Leary when they were shot and killed during an operation to arrest three professional thieves.

The officers had noticed the three suspicious men loitering around the town and came up with a plan to determine their motives. Policeman McDonald approached the men out of uniform and began talking with them. 

After he earned the men's trust, it was suggested that Policeman McDonald and the three thieves would rob a house together and then go back to Policeman McDonald's saloon to divide the loot. McDonald informed Constable Leary of the plan, and the two agreed that Leary would hide at the saloon during the robbery so that the suspects could be taken by surprise.

The robbery went as planned, but the robbers grew suspicious as they approached the saloon because they noticed a light was on. They asked Policeman McDonald what the light meant. Because they were unsatisfied with his answer, they drew a gun and shot him in the head, killing him instantly. 

They then fled the scene. But three days later, on November 29th, 1858, Constable Leary located the suspects and was attempting to arrest one of them when the suspect pulled out a gun and fatally shot him.

Citizens got involved and captured the killers. While one of the suspects was shot and killed during a citizen's arrest attempt, the other two suspects were captured within days of the incident. They were lynched by an angry citizenry.

July 26th, 1860 

California's Amador County Constable Miles Huntsman was shot and killed as he attempted to serve a warrant on a Native American Indian who had been accused of stealing a horse. 

The suspect opened fire on Constable Huntsman as he served the warrant, his shots killing the Constable almost instantly.

A citizen who was accompanying Constable Huntsman returned fire, and killed the suspect and another man who was with him who drew his pistol. Though deputized, that meant nothing to the crowd of Indians. Soon they gathered around that citizen, and then slowly beat him to death.

September 23rd, 1871

California's Mono County, Sheriff's Posse Member Robert Morrison and Posse Member Mono Jim were both shot and killed during a shootout with several men who had escaped from the Nevada State Penitentiary in Carson City, Nevada.

The convicts fled south and murdered three citizens they encountered. They were tracked into California by a posse from Esmeralda County, Nevada. Once in California, a new posse was formed by a Mono County deputy who took over the pursuit.

The Mono County Posse located the convicts camped out near Monte Diablo Creek in Taylor Canyon and waited for daybreak to confront them. A shootout ensued in which Posse Members Mono Jim and Robert Morrison were both shot and killed.

All of the escapees were apprehended in the following days. While a couple of the escapees were returned to jail, two of them were tried in a makeshift court in a remote cabin and executed the following day.

Soon afterwards, Monte Diable Creek was renamed Convict Creek in commemoration of the shootout. And yes, two nearby peaks were renamed Mount Morrison and Mono Jim Peak in honor of the fallen citizens.

March 20th, 1889 

After being with Los Angeles County Constable's Office for only one year, 39 year old Constable Anton Harnischfeger succumbed to a gunshot wound sustained in Garvanza three days earlier while he and a posse attempted to arrest a man wanted for assaulting a child.

The man who would turn killer was a hermit who lived in a hut along the Arroyo Seco. He was collecting driftwood that washed onto his property as the result of heavy rain when a woman and her daughter who lived above him also starting collecting the wood.

The man became irate and confronted the woman and child telling them to stop. When the woman went into her house, the man attacked the girl by punching her and clubbing her.

A warrant was issued for the man's arrest and Constable Harnischfeger went to the man's home to serve it along with several citizens. When the door opened, the man immediately shot Constable Harnischfeger in the forehead with a .38 caliber revolver.

The would-be killer tried to flee the scene through a backdoor. He was chased, cornered, and killed in an exchange of gunfire with the pursuing citizens. 

As you can see, in most of the situations, citizens did not stop the enforcement of law just because the person that deputized them was killed. Fact is, citizens who swore an oath to uphold the law -- even if it was on a temporary basis -- truly understood exactly what that meant. 

While these are just a few instances where citizens rose to the occasion, citizens stepping forward when needed was essential to maintain some sort of civilized world back then. When people talk about the Old West, they usually only talk about the now famous gunfights like that of the OK Corral. Sadly, they hardly ever mention how everyday citizens supported law enforcement. 

Let's not forget citizen O.M. Aldrich who jumped into action and caught Tom Horn as he tried to escape jail.

On Sunday, August 9th, 1903, at 8:00am, Tom Horn and the prisoner in the next cell, a man by the name of McCloud, decided to make their break. County Under-Sheriff Dick Proctor was tied up with a window cord to affect their escape and they proceeded into the Sheriff’s office in search of weapons. As fate would have it, it's said they overlooked a cabinet containing five lever action .30-30 Winchesters rifles. 

McCloud ran out a side door leaving Horn to wrestle the Under-Sheriff alone. Horn snatched a pistol from Under-Sheriff Proctor, and beat the officer in the head and face before running out the side door as well. According to historian Lee A. Silva, the handgun Tom Horn tried to use during his escape attempt was a John Browning designed, Fabrique Nationale (FN) manufactured, semi-automatic pistol. Tom had never used a semi-auto before and luckily for Officer Protor that Horn didn't know how to use it.

Horn ran out the same door used by McCloud, but when hearing the Cheyenne police shooting at his old roommate, Horn decided to run south then East towards Capitol Avenue. That's where he ran into big problems with the Merry-Go-Round operator.

Beware of the Merry-Go-Round Operator!

Believe it or not, a Merry-Go-Round Operator by the name of O.M. Aldrich spotted legendary killer Tom Horn running from the jail. In response, Aldrich grabbed his own .38 caliber Iver Johnson pistol and took a shot at Horn. Sadly, Aldrich missed. But the shot is said to have made Horn turn and attempt to return fire. Since Horn didn't know how to operate the semi-automatic pistol, he wasn't able to shoot and kill Aldrich.

The Merry-Go-Round Operator Aldrich caught up with Horn, and pulled the trigger again. This time his shot is said to have creased Horn's head. This stunning the killer. Believe it or not, it's said that Horn actually fainted when shot at. He is said to have went face first down into the ground.

As Horn tried to regain his feet and get back up, he again attempted to fire at Aldrich. Again he didn't know why the FN semi-automatic pistol wouldn't fire. By this time Officer Robert LaFontaine showed up to help Aldrich who had tackled Horn and was beating the crap out of the famous gunman.

After being clubbed several times on the head by the Merry-Go-Round Operator Aldrich with his little Iver Johnson .38 caliber pocket pistol, the famed Tom Horn stopped resisting and surrendered to Aldrich. Yes, the Merry-Go-Round Operator whopped the hell out of Tom Horn!

Horn was lead back to jail by a large group of townsfolk, city policemen Otto Aherns, and two other officers. Robert LaFontaine said later that he spent most of his time pulling Aldrich off Horn for fear the Merry-Go-Round Operator was going to kill the killer. Imagine that! 

A Crowd Escorted Horn Back To Jail

So now when people ask me about carrying a concealed weapon, after all there are those against guns rights who will inevitably ask, "Do you want our society to become like the Old West?" 

My answer is always, "Yes! Absolutely!"

I usually go on to inform them that the Old West was not as violent a place as people think, or as Hollywood makes it out to be.  For many reasons such as social norms, Christian beliefs, a dependence on one another, and the fact that citizens were armed, it was actually a fairly polite society. In contrast, back East where it was demanded that citizens remain unarmed, where cities had organized law enforcement, some ripe with corruption, society was a very violent place.

As for having a populace that's armed, an armed citizenry was an asset for law enforcement throughout the West. Today it's really no different, a citizenry that is armed is an asset to local lawmen simply by provided security for themselves without having to burden an overall local police or sheriff's departments.

In rural area, such as where I live, our Sheriff's Department is all in favor of citizens being armed simply because our county is huge and the response time for an officer is estimated at anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour in the best of conditions. This fact means that folks up here have to understand the need to provide our own security. Yes, just like the Old West in that respect.

Whether its getting involved by letting the law know about genuinely suspicious activity, or stepping forward as a witness to what transpired during a crime, or being involved in a neighborhood watch, or backing an officer in trouble, citizens play an integral role in keeping our communities safer today just as they did in the Old West. That's a good thing to have happen, especially with town's and counties facing limited funding and resources.

Asides from taking bad guys and lynching them on the spot, I truly believe that having a society become like the Old West where citizens took more ownership of what was going on in the towns and communities would not be a bad thing at all. That's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa

American Schools & Muslim Students

Do American schools prostitute themselves for Muslim dollars?

The Grace Memorial Chapel at Wichita State University (WSU) is located on the north side of the Rhatigan Student Center. It is said to be "one of the shining points of campus, and provides a great place for students to worship."

It was reported in early October that the Christian campus chapel was stripped of its pews and the altar and replaced by Muslim prayer rugs. University officials decided to make the chapel something they call "faith neutral,"

Believe it or not, WSU president John Bardo in a statement said his administration decided to convert the chapel into a facility "welcoming to all religious groups on campus."

University administrators ordered workers to remove all the pews and the altar inside the Harvey D. Grace Memorial Chapel last May, and Muslim prayer rugs and some portable chairs were then brought inside. This move was, according to Bardo, in compliance with the wishes of the chapel’s benefactor, Mrs. Harvey D. Grace, who in her Will wrote that "this chapel will be open to all creeds and to all races of people."

With an estimated 15,000 of the university's students being Christians and about 1,000 being Muslims, the Christian cleansing of the chapel has outraged the school's majority Christian population. Many protested to get the school's administrators to take a look at what it is doing, and not deprive its majority Christian student population of their religious rights.

A reader who attends WSU sent me this information which said that WSU president Bardo has met the demands of the school’s Christian students and recently ordered a committee to study possible changes in the facility.

Bardo wrote in a public statement posted on WSU's website that he doesn’t think the "change was undertaken with enough consideration of the feelings of all elements of the campus and broader community."

In case WSU does know what a chapel is, allow me to give them the definition of a CHAPEL: A small church, or an enclosed place in a large church for worship by a small group, or a room in a building set apart for worship; a room that is part of a larger building; used for Christian worship as in "the ​college/​hospital/​prison has ​its own chapel."

While some call it a "renovation," others are calling it a complete change. By removing the pews and the altar inside the Harvey D. Grace Memorial Chapel last May, and instead putting in Muslim prayer rugs, the school officials there successfully took a ​building used mainly for ​Christian ​worship and changed it into a Mosque for only Muslims.

So why did WSU do it?

First, with a decline in enrollment, it is believed by some that WSU is doing exactly what other universities are doing in trying to lure more foreign students from the Middle East. Foreign students pay more to attend our schools.

And yes, while the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of accommodations, the University of California, Berkeley has a meditation room, and at the University of California, Davis, at Henry Ford Community College in Michigan, at the University of Portland in Oregon, and other public universities all have exclusive Muslim prayer rooms.

And if you think only public schools are doing this, private schools are doing this as well. For example, Muslim students at Benedictine University in Illinois and Trinity University in Texas have demanded and received prayer rooms. And yes, Trinity, Georgetown, and Syracuse University in New York also have Muslim chaplains.

Since Muslim students must wash their feet before praying, having foot-baths in bathrooms is another common accommodation on campuses, with two dozen public universities installing them so far.

Minneapolis Community and Technical College noticed that bathroom floors were wet from students washing their feet in the sinks, thereby leading to floor damage and students possibly slipping accidents so the university installed foot-baths.

Students at public universities objected to their tuition dollars being used for a particular religion, yet the university contended that anyone could use foot-baths to wash their feet. Also, the American Civil Liberties Union said that that foot-baths were necessary for Muslim students to practice their religion. You think the ACLU would fight for Christians that way? How about keeping Christmas a holiday on a school's calendar? No way!

Schools are accommodating Muslims by removing Christmas because Muslims are offended by the our Christian holidays, yet demand that schools observe two Muslim holy days, known as "Eid." Those are Muslim school holidays where Muslim students have day-long celebrations. Syracuse University in New York has made "Eid-ul-Fitr" an official school holiday on its five-year calendar to accommodate Muslims students there.

According to reports, Syracuse University's Muslim chaplain stated that since Easter and Christmas, two Christian holidays, were already on the school calendar -- why shouldn't "Eid?"

The school was forced into voting between no religious holidays or one additional holiday. The university voted to put Eid-ul-Fitr on its calendar. But now, now the Muslim students there want Easter and Christmas removed because those days are considered offensive to Muslims.

Other universities acknowledge Muslim holidays, while still holding classes on the two Eids. They allow Muslim students special privileges by allowing them to make up missed assignments and notify professors to avoid scheduling tests on the religious days. Imagine that!

While accommodations vary from university to university, reality is that more and more American universities are willing to meet the demands of Muslim students. And no, these accommodations are not restricted to universities as Muslims are making the same demands in colleges, high schools, and even elementary schools around the country.

By providing Muslims with the accommodations they are demanding, universities are prostituting themselves while making it clear that they will do anything for those foreign dollars.

So yes, money is what is believed to have a contributing factor behind the change of WSU's chapel.

The other reason has to do with politics. While Americans attending a university in an Islamic country would never dream of suggesting that a university there install pews and an alter in its Mosques to accommodate Christian students, that is not the case here.

Even at private Christian universities, Muslims demand the removal of crosses from rooms that they are in because they find the Christian cross offensive. Since the political winds favor Islam in America, and no one wants to get sued, universities and other schools respond by meeting the demands of Muslim students. And please don't think it hasn't happened, there have been many universities, including private universities, which have actually been sued to accommodate Muslim students.

My reader tells me that Muslim students are now in control of the facility. They are calling the outrage over changing the chapel "Islamophobia" -- prejudice against Muslims. They are organizing to assert their control of the facility and possibly even force the campus to build a prayer room if they can't retake control of the chapel.

The Muslims on campus have also published a petition in Wichita State University’s student-run news source The Sunflower, calling for the university to install Islamic plumbing -- specifically, handheld bidets in restrooms around the campus.

So yes, I believe WSU essentially bowed down to today's political pressure to discriminate against Christians in schools. By altering their chapel and refit it for only Muslim worship, they have shown a complete lack of respect for the vast majority of their students.

An editorial in a local paper there says that WSU administrators re-examining the removal of pews and alter is a slap to the face of the 1000 Muslim students there. It is not surprising that there was not even the smallest mention made as to how the 15,000 Christians on campus were offended or discriminated against.

And frankly, if I were a parent thinking of sending my son or daughter to a university, I'd rethink sending my child to WSU or any of these universities who prostitute themselves for foreign dollars.

Since I'd be paying big tuition money, I would certainly question the priorities and intentions of that university. And since WSU has shown its hand, I don't know if I'd send my child to a school that has demonstrated animosity for Christians just to bring in more Muslim students.

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

Elections 2016

By Terry McGahey

As we grow closer to the 2016 elections, I grow more concerned about how the outcome will effect the future of our children, grandchildren, and the supreme law of the land, our constitution. 

Lets face it, Hillary Clinton is the nominee and always has been on the Democrat party side of this upcoming election. She and many others on the left believe it's simply her turn. 

On the Republican side of this battle, at this point, we are looking at Donald Trump and Ben Carson as the top candidates.

I believe that Ben Carson is a good man and would do a good job as president, but I do see one problem lingering behind a cloak of viciousness awaiting him in the not so far off future. Mr. Carson is a very nice man, an intelligent man, and a soft spoken man. 

On the other hand the Clinton machine, just like the Clinton's themselves, is a very ruthless, underhanded, and dishonest organization that will stop at nothing to win the White House, even if it means stretching the truth or even telling out and out lies by twisting words. After all, twisting words is what attorneys are paid to do and the Clintons are some of the very best at doing so, depending on your definition of "what is, is."

I truly hope I am wrong, but I believe that the Clintons would tear Mr. Carson to pieces, then chew him up and spit him out. The reason I believe this to be true is because Mr. Carson is a nice man and a very soft spoken individual. 

If Mr. Carson is going to face the Clintons in the 2016 election, he is going to have to get down in the gutter with Hillary Clinton because that's who she is. And if he doesn't, or isn't willing to do that, Hillary Clinton will be the next president. 

God help us all if that takes place, this country couldn't stand under the strain of another progressive president in the White House. 

I am not saying that I actually prefer Donald Trump over Ben Carson, but I am saying that it is going to take someone like Trump who will get down in the gutter with Hillary and play just as dirty of politics as I guarantee you the Clintons will. Sorry to say it, but I believe that is what it will take to keep lying, cheating, dishonest Hillary Clinton out of the White House.

Just to give you a few examples of the kind of person Hillary truly is, I will list a few of at least ten scandals the Clintons have been involved with over the past many years:

1. Chinagate: This is where the Clinton-Gore campaign allegedly took bribes from the Chinese bank and government to help dwindling poll numbers.

2. Travelgate: Here Bill Clinton's cousin was allegedly promised the position as director of the White House travel office. Hillary then indirectly fired seven employees from that office and replaced them with associates from Arkansas.

3. Filegate: Craig Livingston, the director of the White House's office of personal security accessed FBI files on several hundred individuals. Hillary stated that it was nothing more than an honest Bureaucratic "SNAFU," even though many of those files were of Republicans.

4. The cattle futures miracle: Hillary's first commodities trade was in cattle futures where she ordered ten futures contracts which at the time sold for $12,000, but somehow Hillary picked them up with only $1,000 in her bank account. 

By the following morning this investment was worth $6,300, and after ten months totaled $100,000 with the help of James B. Blair. At the time, Mr. Blair was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas. This company was the largest employer at the time in that state. I don't know a lot about trading, but isnt this insider trading?

5. Lootergate: Bill and Hillary shipped off White House furniture to their home in Chappaqua, New York. The Clintons claimed the items were donated, but only some of those items were proven to be. After enough pressure was put on them, they finally returned the furniture to the White House.

6. Watergate: At the age of 27 years, Hillary Clinton was fired by the Judiciary Chief of Staff, Jerry Zeifman, who was a lifetime democrat and Hillary's direct supervisor. When Mr. Zeifman was asked why he fired her, he replied, "Because she was a liar and an unethical, dishonest lawyer."

I do not care if you are Democrat, Republican or Independent, we do not need someone with the lack of moral character in the White House such as the likes of Hillary Clinton. Even if only part of the things I listed above were true, that's still too many indiscretions, not counting the other five I haven't listed. 

Why party voting Democrats can not, or will not see this woman's character is beyond me. 

Let's Discuss What Muslims Want

Readers have been writing in to ask me about my take on what is going on in our schools, pertaining to Muslim demands regarding Islamic prayer in schools and such. Well here you go!

Thomas Jefferson's policy for dealing with Native Americans was simple. He said, "let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix, and become one people."

America has, for the most part, worked to become one people.

Whether it was to find a common ground to right the wrongs of our past, or whether it was simply us evolving as a nation to accept each other's ways so that we can become one people, America has had "to meet and blend together, to intermix," to become one people the world knows as Americans.

And yes, it has been a tough road to get to a place where people from other nations can blend together. A huge part of our success in the struggle is the assimilation of people wanting to accept the laws of our land as set fourth in out Constitution.

Assimilation has everything to do with how people of different backgrounds and beliefs allow themselves to become part of the community, such as when the Irish immigrants came to America in the 19th century. They joined in and became part of the fabric of America. They didn't want to be treated "separate and special" -- just "equal". 

During our history, we have proven that the struggle to be equal has not been easy. Take for example how in 1890 a new Louisiana law required railroads to provide "equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races." This led to the "Separate But Equal" segregation laws.

If the term "Separate But Equal" rings a bell, that's because "Separate But Equal" was a legal doctrine in United States Constitutional Law that justified and permitted racial segregation. It was said not to be a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guaranteed equal protection under the law and other federal civil rights laws to all citizens.

Under the "Separate But Equal" doctrine, federal, state, county, and city governments were allowed to require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be separated along racial lines, provided that the quality of each group's public facilities was equal.

The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890 actually used the phrase "equal but separate." And yes, believe it or not, the "Separate But Equal" doctrine was confirmed in 1896 in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. The Supreme Court actually said that state-sponsored segregation was allowed.

The "Separate But Equal" doctrine was finally overturned, but only after a series of Supreme Court decisions that lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s involving many court cases and federal legislation.

So now, why do Muslims want to be "separate and special," and is it legal? Why do they want special treatment, special accommodations, special preferences? 

And frankly, since "Separate But Equal" was struck down, aren't schools and other institutions who provide "Separate And Special" accommodations breaking the law as they are in violation of the Constitution?

Research shows that Islam is far behind Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism, in faiths being observed in America. Fact is, compared to 78.3% who follow Christianity, 16.4% unaffiliated, 1.8% Judaism and 1.2% Buddhism, Muslims account for only 0.9% of the population.

So with that, why are Christians being persecuted in the United States? And frankly, why are people appeasing Muslims by meeting their demands for preferential treatment in a nation that is not supposed to give any group preferential treatment?

According to the Obama White House, the Democrat Party, Liberal Hollywood, the Liberal Media, there has been an increase in something the Liberal Left has termed "Islamophobia" -- which Liberals define as "An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from social, political, and civic life."

Let's make something real clear, when the stereotype is true the stereotype is true. It is not exaggerated when it is true. There is no "bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion" when Muslims are in fact getting separate and special treatment when compared to other religions in America.

In 2014, researchers have found that Muslims are the most disliked religious group in the United States with more people disliking Muslims than do Atheists. Why? It is because we react to what we see.

Show me a rude person and I believe them to be rude. Show me a religion in love with blood and murder, and I'll show you Islam. Let's face facts, while not all Muslims are un-American, there are Muslims who have absolutely no desire to assimilate -- "to meet and blend together, to intermix, and become one people."

And yes, though most of us do not know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the fact that Shiite Muslims are the violent wing of Islam, Americans and the world are absolutely justified in their dislike of Muslims by what we are seeing.

While Sunni Muslims make up almost 85 percent of the Muslim population globally, and Shiites account for perhaps 13 percent, Sunnis are estimated to account for about 90 percent of U.S. Muslims. Sunnis and Shiites split in the 7th century over many things including following the more violent parts of the Koran.

Today we see what is taking place around the world, and more importantly what is taking place here to America -- especially to our public institutions such as our schools and how Americans are bending over backwards meet the demands of Muslims at the expense of taxpayers -- and this has increased our distrust of all Muslims.

Why is Christian prayer outlawed while Muslim prayer is embraced by schools and in our government?

Friends, I am plenty old enough to remember when American children said the Pledge of Allegiance in both public and private schools. Liberal Atheists did not like the idea that the Pledge of Allegiance includes the words "Under God" so they worked to actually get the United States Supreme Court to rule that the Pledge of Allegiance could not be recited in schools because of those two words "Under God." 

Of course, Liberals used the phrase "Under God" to rid American schools of the whole Pledge of Allegiance simply because Liberals do not believe in having an allegiance to the United States, but that is for another article at another time.

Right now we need to focus on how Liberals fought to have the Pledge removed using the pretense that the phrase "Under God" violated the First Amendment of the Constitution and the "separation of church and state,"  yet see nothing wrong with Muslim ritual prayers in public schools.

The Liberals at the ACLU stated that the term "Under God" made the Pledge a Christian prayer and it was being forced upon children in public school. 

Today, Islam is truly being forced upon children in public schools. So now, now where are the Liberals and the ACLU when public colleges, high schools, middle and elementary schools accommodate Muslim children attending these schools by permitting Islamic prayer rituals or by constructing footbaths for Muslim students -- all using tax-payers' money?

Why are there special accommodations made only to satisfy the needs of Muslims -- while in direct violation of the U.S Constitutional provisions of separating church and state? 

How is it that 0.9% of the population, Muslims, demand to be treated separate and special, and not simply "Equal" and get public schools to make special accommodations specifically for American Muslims by adding Arabic to its curriculum and also giving breaks for Muslim prayers right there in public schools?

Is it OK to have a nation where Americans who practice other religions do not have the special political and economic rights of Muslims? Is the desire by Muslims here to be treated separate and special really OK? I don't believe it is. And yes, I believe we should fight it.

Why is the Obama White House, the Department of Education, Liberal Politicians in state and even county educational systems, endorsing Islam when no such exceptions being made for any other religious group -- past or present?

In some cities with heavy Muslim populations, school board officials have actually eliminated traditional American holiday celebrations after Muslim parents complained that those celebrations are "offensive" to Muslims? 

Because of the Muslim demands to be separate and special, Americans do not see Muslims in the United States as wanting to assimilate into American society. As with most Americans, this is the very same reason that the vast majority of people in Europe and Australia do not see Muslims as wanting to be a part of their countries either. They refuse to assimilate. 

Yes, Muslim desire to be separate and special is the same reason that Americans, Australians, and Europeans are now finding out that Muslims do not want to assimilate -- but actually demand that we convert to Islam.  

And yes, that is also the reason that Americans do not see Muslims in the United States are as being able to be loyal to the United States and our Constitution. In fact, since Muslim leaders have stated that the "law of the land" in the United States does not apply to them because they "must follow" the Koran. Yes, that is why Americans see Muslims as unable to follow our laws, unable to be loyal to the United States, and unable to treating other Americans as they want to be treated. 

This fact, the fact that they "must follow" the Koran over any Civil Law, is the number one reason that Muslims are not qualified for any sort of public office in any country that does not practice Sharia Law.

And no, while Obama may be trying to get Sharia Law observed in America, the application of Sharia Law is in direct violation of the laws governing the United States of America  as stated in our Constitution. We only have one law of the land -- not two or three or more depending on what religion you practice or what Leftist political faction you follow.

The lie that the Obama administration has tried to spread is that Muslims have given the world so much. That is blatantly untrue. If anything, Muslims have tried to stifle, to choke, to suffocate, to drown, to cut off human growth through hate and adherence to the words of their blood-thirsty prophet. 

Muslims inaccurately represented Islam, and are intolerant of people of other religions in the United States. As a public official, one cannot be bias against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other American who is not Muslim. They cannot do this is accordance with Islam.

And whether Atheist Liberals and Muslims want to admit it or not, to adhere to the tenets of Islam means that one has to be loyal to Islam before being loyal to the Constitution of the United States.

By demanding to be treated separately and special, American-Muslim pubic officials treat Muslims one way and non-Muslim Americans differently. And to them, the United States Constitution demands that Muslims violate what their beloved Koran instructs them to do. And yes, that's why they are "disqualified" for political office.

In my opinion, President Obama has demonstrated this very point since being elected: Muslims cannot be loyal to the United States Constitution, the law of the land, and their Islamic faith at the same time.

That is why Obama has violated the Constitution so many times, he puts his Muslim faith ahead of what is good for America. And yes, Obama feels he is entitled to special accommodations to do so. Obama believes that Muslims should be treated separate and special.

Has Obama and Muslims throughout the world shown the world that they cannot be trusted? Absolutely. Remember, the Koran instructs Muslims to say one thing while doing another --especially to non-Muslims.

Examples: 1) Muslims say their Koran does not condone violence, yet the majority of violence being perpetrated around the world and especially in Europe and the Middle-East right now has to do with Muslims acting out what the Koran instructs them to do. 2) Muslim say their culture does not glorify suicide, yet they have a belief in martyrdom to appease their blood-thirsty prophet who orders Muslims to kill those who refuse to convert to Islam. 3) Muslims are a threat to the entire world.

Because of this, the vast majority of Americans do not see Islam as a trustworthy or peaceful religion. And while Liberals love to label articles like this as "Islamophobia" -- I assure you it isn't.

This article is simply trying to answer a few simple questions while truly understanding the reasons why Muslims want to be treated separately and special. It is simply our understanding of America's number one enemy today.

I'm simply giving my readers my opinion. I believe that Muslims want special treatment, to be treated separately from the rest of our society, and to dominate the Western world through threats and violence. That's what I see them wanting. 

Liberals like to hoist such labels as "Islamophobia" upon Americans in an effort to demean those of us who refuse to accept what's going on around us. Fact is, it is the truth of what Muslims are doing in America and around the world.

Muslims are demanding that federal, state, county, and city governments allow special concessions, services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation all be separated along religious lines. Muslims say they require special treatment, special accommodations, special this and special that to satisfy their needs -- and they are getting special concessions in schools and in business even in violation of our laws.

Why you ask? Well I believe it's because people are trying to appease Muslims all with the hope that they will blend in. Of course, I aslo believe that Muslims are being appeased because there are some people who will always be cowards -- and will always refuse to face the threat of Islam head on. 

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

Tom Correa

Tombstones Rise Up From San Francisco Bay

Ever wonder why tombstones would suddenly appear on a San Francisco beach?

The first time that I heard about this was back in the spring of 1977 when I was still in the Marine Corps. I was on leave visiting my parents when a newspaper story caught my eye. It was a story that I've never forgotten.

The story was that strong winds, cross currents, and shifting sands across the bay had exposed a very eerie reminder of San Francisco's past: Tombstones appeared on a beach there. 

Back in 1977, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper wrote about the gravestones surfacing on Ocean Beach and how "beachcombers" were stunned. One observer at the time said that finding them was "the strangest stuff I've ever come across in a city that's weird enough."
Exposed for all to see were the discarded tombstones, gravestones, both broken and intact, of people who had died in the 1800s and very early 1900s. All from the graves of many who were surely beloved. And besides the fact that there was an old mausoleum near the intersection of Rivera Street and the Great Highway on Ocean Beach, a number of tombstones were used to shore up the seawall at Ocean Beach. When this story first broke back in 1977, people were fairly alarmed by what had risen up from San Francisco Bay. Then as with most things, the uproar over the tombstones died off as soon as the drifting sands covered them up again. 

Fast forward to 2012, when on June 8th of that year, the tombstones became visible again. That was when many of the marble and granite tombstones once marked the final resting places of citizens long dead decided to let it be known that they are indeed beneath the bay. One of the headstones is the nearly intact marble tombstone of Delia Presby Oliver, who died at the age of 26 on April 9th, 1890. Delia Presby Oliver's grave marker is a solid piece of marble that was meant to last an eternity.

Delia Presby Oliver's tombstone, nearly as intact as the day it was carved more than 125 years ago, was uncovered in black sand near the end of Rivera Street. She was a member of a prominent family. Her father, David Shattuck, was born in New England and served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Her parents lived on very wealthy Nob Hill.

Delia Presby was born in San Francisco in 1863 and married Frank B. Oliver on October 27th, 1885. She passed away less than five years later. At the time, newspapers did not report the cause of her death. But a notice in the San Francisco Call newspaper on April 10th, 1890, said, "Friends and acquaintances are respectfully invited to attend the funeral services. From the residence of her parents No. 814 Powell Street. Internment private."

While newspaper reports back then really don't make it clear where Mrs. Oliver was buried, it is likely that a person of her social standing might have been interred in the Laurel Hill Cemetery. Back then, it extended south and west of California Street to near what is now Presidio Avenue.

The nearly intact marble tombstone of Delia Presby Oliver makes me wonder what unmarked grave she is in today? Her remains were removed and reburied when San Francisco authorities closed nearly all the city cemeteries and moved their dead to Colma during the 1920s and 1930s just to make room for more buildings.

If you've never heard of Colma, California, it is a true "City of the Dead" with the majority of that city being made up of graveyards. Colma became the site for numerous cemeteries when San Francisco, the city's powerful neighbor to the north, passed an ordinance in 1900 outlawing the construction of any more cemeteries in the city of San Francisco. The reason for the San Francisco ordinance was money. Increased property values made the cost of using land for cemeteries prohibitive.

After the first city ordinance, San Francisco then passed another ordinance in 1912 "evicting" all existing cemeteries and those buried there from city limits. Yes, that was when the politicians in San Francisco decided to move the cemeteries out of the city. With that decision the Catholic, the Jewish, the Masonic, and even the Chinese cemeteries among others were all destroyed.

It is a fact that Mrs. Oliver's original tombstone and thousands like it were used as landfill or in other ways throughout San Francisco. And it is also a fact that thousands of people now rest in unmarked graves because of the decision to close those cemeteries and relocate those buried in the city by the bay.

One lawman who was relocated to Colma was San Francisco Officer Alexander Grant who was shot and killed by a suspect that he had just arrested for public drunkenness and disturbing the peace on Folsom Street between 4th and 5th Streets. 

On September 11th, 1891, the suspect resisted arrest and at some point drew a gun and shot Officer Grant in the head -- killing him instantly. The suspect was an actor by the name of Maurice B. Curtis who was said to be very famous at the time.

Just as today, money can buy almost anything including a jury. So by 1893 after four trials, two hung juries, and one dismissal, he was acquitted. A few weeks later a prominent politician and a California State Senator was arrested for bribing four members of the jury. Curtis spent most of his fortune to gain his freedom and his acting career was ruined. Thankfully, Curtis died in Los Angeles on December 29th, 1920, a pauper.

Officer Grant was a member of the 17th and Howard Street Station, Company B, Second Division and was a member of the Knights Templar Freemasons. He was buried at the Masonic Cemetery of San Francisco which was one of the cemeteries closed by San Francisco politicians. 

His tombstone was removed and is thought to have been dumped in the bay. As for Officer Grant, it is thought that his remains are now in some unmarked grave at Woodlawn Cemetery in Colma. While that's the hope, some think the old lawman may be buried under the University of San Francisco.

Of all, Laurel Hill Cemetery was one of the last to be closed. In 1937, The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper described the Laurel Hill Cemetery  as "a silent city of the dead." Records show that there were at least 35,000 men, women and children buried there, all were removed to make way for the Laurel Heights development. And yes, it is believed that most of the western part of the city of San Francisco was actually built atop old cemeteries -- that included housing developments, shopping centers, and even the sprawling campus of the University of San Francisco.

On historian is reported to have said, "They found hundreds of bodies when they did seismic work at the Palace of the Legion of Honor, It was pauper's cemetery. And there are literally hundreds of bodies under the Lincoln Park Golf Course. No one kept track of them all."

In established cemeteries, like Laurel Hill and Calvary on Geary Boulevard, it is said that "The remains of the loved ones were removed at no cost, but if you wanted to remove a headstone, or a funerary building, the family had to pay the cost." Because this was taking place during the financially hard pressed days of the Great Depression, many families could not afford to pay the cost to relocate their loved one's headstones and opted for city markers. Those city markers were soon lost or discarded. So soon enough, the result was that many of San Francisco's relocated dead now rest in unmarked graves.

The tombstones left behind were confiscated by the city to use in various city projects. Some say that the stones of graves were sold to crooked San Francisco contractors as material to be used to build the seawall along the Great Highway. And yes, it is believed that large tombs and crypts were also torn down to be dumped into San Francisco Bay to shore up the seawall at Ocean Beach, all while other grave makers were used to line the gutters of Haight-Ashbury's Buena Vista Park. 

So yes, the stones were thrown in the bay when San Francisco outlawed cemeteries and moved all of the bodies to the city of Colma to its south. And yes, it is said that many of the bodies that were moved south to Colma went there without identifications and that the tombstones were simply thrown in the bay to get rid of the evidence.

And yes, as for you Old West history buffs, if Colma rings a bell, it's because you recognize the city of Colma as the place where Wyatt Earp is buried next to his wife, Josephine Marcus Earp. They are buried side-by-side in Hills of Eternity and Home of Peace Cemetery there.

As for the tombstones on reappearing, local historians in San Francisco seem mixed as to the importance of the find back in 1977 and again in 2012. One is supposed to have said, "They turned up some years ago in about the same place. There was a big fuss, and then they were covered up again. How soon we forget." And frankly, I believe that person is correct. In 2012, a spokeswoman for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which manages Ocean Beach, acted as though this was really no big deal saying, "This happens every once in a while. It's been a crazy year for sand." Of course, back then the Park Service had no plans to remove the gravestones believing eventually they'll be covered again by the drifting sand. Imagine that.

Because of the lingering drought, these days one can actually see many of the towns that were submerged under what would become needed lakes and reservoirs. This is especially true since our drought has sent our lakes and reservoirs to their lowest levels since the mid-1970s. Just as with those towns of years gone by, it is believed that it's only a matter of time before the sands shift and the tombstones of San Francisco's ghosts rise up from San Francisco Bay once again. 

Tom Correa

BLM Illegally Sold Thousands Of Wild Horses For Slaughter

Under the authority of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the BLM is responsible for protecting and managing wild horses and burros to ensure that healthy herds thrive on healthy rangelands.

Per the BLM website, "The mid-20th century harvesting of wild horses for commercial purposes induced a Reno, Nevada, secretary -- Velma Johnston -- to begin a campaign that led to passage of a 1959 law to protect these iconic animals.

While driving to work one day in 1950, Ms. Johnston noticed blood leaking from a livestock truck. She followed it and discovered that horses were being delivered to a slaughterhouse. Ms. Johnston responded with a massive letter-writing campaign by students to prevent other wild horses from meeting a similar end. The campaign became known as the 'Pencil War' and Ms. Johnston was affectionately dubbed 'Wild Horse Annie.'"

Legislation that followed resulted in the enactment of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the landmark law that directs Federal management of wild horses and burros on our public lands, Federal property. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 declares wild horses and burros to be "living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West." 

Under that law, the Interior Department is responsible to care for our wild horse herds. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service manage the herds in their respective jurisdictions.

To help carry out its assignment, the BLM established the Wild Horse and Burro Program which the agency uses to manages and protects wild horses and burros, both on and off the range, while striving to maintain rangeland health.

Environmentalist groups, who care more about the flora and the fauna and less about wild horses, burros, cattle, and the American people, have consistently tried to rid the rangelands of wild horses, burros, cattle, and people like ranchers and farmers. 

In reality, Environmentalists have used all sorts of political influence, from bribes and lawsuits to lobbing and huge campaign donations, to get their way. And yes, many top Federal government officials are in the pockets of wealthy Environmentalist groups. 

On October 24, 2015, the Washington Times reported that the Bureau of Land Management, the agency responsible for protecting America's wild horses on public grazing lands, broke the law by selling 1,794 federally-protected wild horses to a Colorado rancher who sent them to slaughter.

According to the report from the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General, between 2009 and 2012, rancher Tom Davis purchased the horses through the agency’s Wild Horse and Burro Program and knowingly illegally sent them to slaughter.

According to the allegations and news reports, rancher Davis also had farming and trucking connections with former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

Kenneth Lee "Ken" Salazar is member of the Democratic Party. He previously served as a United States Senator from Colorado from 2005 to 2009. Salazar resigned his Senate seat on January 20, 2009, upon his confirmation by the Senate to become Secretary of the Interior under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013. 

Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General Investigators wrote in the report, "We determined that BLM did not follow current law while managing WH&B. BLM also failed to follow its own policy of limiting horse sales and ensuring that the horses sold went to good homes and were not slaughtered,”

Davis admitted that most of the horses that he purchased through the BLM went to slaughter. He told investigators that "in selling so many loads of horses, BLM had to know that the horses would end up at the slaughterhouse."

According to the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General  report, the wrongful sale also cost taxpayers $140,000 to deliver truckloads of horses to Davis. He paid $10 a piece for the horses, or less than $18,000 total, and made as much as $154,000 in profits by selling them for slaughter.

The report also states that no one BLM representative tried to stop the sale or the slaughter. Speculation ranges from someone in the BLM simply giving their approval by looking the other way, to BLM employees being bribed to disregard the unusually large purchases.

The report does state that BLM employees never attempted to verify the information that Davis provided regarding his intentions for the horses he bought, despite the unusually large number of horses being sold to him.

Investigators also wrote that the BLM also did not stop selling horses to Davis after receiving reports that he was sending the horses to slaughter. Why, since he and they were clearly breaking the law? Who knows. But it must be nice to have friends in high places.

And yes, if you are wondering, the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General declined to investigate ties between Davis and former Secretary of the Interior Salazar who still has connections in the department he managed while being a part of the Obama administration.

According to the report, the investigation was referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado as well as the State of Colorado Conejos County District Attorney’s Office. Frankly, it is not a surprise that both declined to seek civil and criminal prosecution, prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Ken Salazar served as Attorney General of Colorado from 1999 to 2005

Suzanne Roy, Director of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC) stated, "It took more than three years for the OIG (Office of Inspector General) to confirm what we’ve always known -- that the BLM sold 1,795 federally-protected wild horses to a known kill buyer who sold them to slaughter. Unfortunately, there will be no justice for these mustangs, who suffered a brutal death in Mexican slaughter plants. No one at the BLM is being held accountable for this betrayal, and Tom Davis is not being prosecuted for violating his contractual obligation to not sell the horses for slaughter."

No one was surprised to hear the response to the report when BLM officials said they are "taking the matter very seriously and have taken preventative measures to ensure horses sold by the agency do not end up at slaughterhouses in the future."

While not a single BLM employee has been charged for illegal activities relating to the sale of those 1,794 wild horses that were slaughtered,  neither has the Colorado rancher Davis.

While that should piss most people off, BLM officials tried to make it sound like Davis was getting punished when they said, "the agency no longer has any business relationship with Tom Davis and will not in the future."

Frankly that's not much of a penalty for anyone who knowingly kills 1,794 "federally-protected" wild horses. In fact, I'd bet a few bucks that the Colorado rancher who sent them to slaughter, and made well over $100,000 in that sale, is probably very happy that his illegal activities won't even warrant a slap on the wrist.

Friends, my opinion is that if he is close to BLM officials, then that Colorado rancher found out that the term "federally protected" means absolutely nothing if you have friends in high places. As illegal as his activity was, the government gave him a pass -- most likely because who his friends are.

And yes, "illegal" activity not being prosecuted is why we have the society we have today. The term "illegal" means very little because we have people in government who pick and chose what laws are truly "illegal" and what laws mean nothing even when violated to its fullest.

From Illegal Aliens killing innocent people in Sanctuary Cities that see nothing wrong with that being done, to doing businesses illegally because no one cares if they do or no; from illegal behavior like that of Hillary Clinton with her breach of national security by putting her e-mail on a non-secure computer server, to Democrats like California's Governor Jerry Brown giving "Illegal" Aliens rights reserved for "legal" citizens; we live in an era when the term "illegal" means less and less.

And frankly, that is especially true when it comes to how the law is applied to some groups over others. Today, Republicans, Conservatives, Gun Owners, and Christians, are all held to a higher standard to where even the smallest infraction of the law could amount to huge fines, lawsuits, criminal charges, arrest, and prison.

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