Our Justice System -- An Overview

Dear Friends, 

I've had a few of you write to ask how our Justice System is supposed to work. Since I have a degree in Criminal Justice, I was going to reach back into my memory banks and attempt to recreate what I was taught some 35 years ago. But instead, I opted to do something a lot more reliable. 

Yes, I opted to go to what I consider a great source that explains our Justice System and how it is supposed to work. If you noticed, I said "supposed" to work. The reason that I preface how it works is because, as we all know, the system can appear broken depending on how people screw with it.

My belief is that if people, judges, lawyers, law enforcement, politicians, would allow the system to work, society might find that the bad guys do get punished and the victims do get a sense of justice being served.

The problem as I see it is that we don't need more laws, but instead we need law redundant laws abolished and laws enforced. Make life easier to understand for those too dense to know the difference between right and wrong, lawful and not.

The problem with our system is that people have a tendency to want to input their own sense of how the Justice System "should" work and there sits the problem. The result is that criminals go free, justice is not served, and the voters seek fixes while Judges and Prosecutors may have their own biases and see punishment as something too harsh. And yes, they themselves, for whatever personal reason, may see sentences as too long.

While it is not a perfect system, it does work when we can get people to allow it to do so. With that, below you will find an overview of how our Justice System is "supposed" to function from the point of a crime being first reported by a citizen and so on through the process. 

The information below was compiled from the U.S, Bureau of Justice Statistics. I hope you find this helpful.

But before we get started, we should keep in mind that just because a person breaks the law that they are arrested. And we should keep in mind that not everyone arrested is sent to trial and then immediately found either guilty or not guilty, and then either hanged or set free. No, our notion of swift justice such as what we think took place in the Old West is not what takes place today. Keeping things simple is not a part of the system.

The Structure of the American Justice System

The governmental response to crime is founded in the intergovernmental structure of the United States as set fourth in the Constitution of the United States.

Under our form of government, each State and the Federal Government has its own criminal justice system. All systems must respect the rights of individuals set forth in court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and defined in case law.

State constitutions and laws define the criminal justice system within each State and delegate the authority and responsibility for criminal justice to various jurisdictions, officials, and institutions. State laws also define criminal behavior, and groups of children or acts under jurisdiction of the juvenile courts.

Municipalities and counties further define their criminal justice systems through local ordinances that proscribe the local agencies responsible for criminal justice processing that were not established by the State.

Congress has also established a criminal justice system at the Federal level to respond to Federal crimes such a bank robbery, kidnapping, and transporting stolen goods across State lines. Believe it or not, bank robbery only became a Federal crime when banks became insured by the Federal government in the 1930s.

Unless someone is in direct violation of a Federal law, the response to everyday crime is mainly a State and local function -- local meaning County and City.

While many more laws today seem to be Federal regulations and restrictions, fact is that very few actual crimes are under exclusive Federal jurisdiction.

The responsibility to respond to most crime rests with State and local governments. Police protection is primarily a function of cities and towns. Corrections is primarily a function of State governments. Most justice personnel are employed at the local level.

Responding to Crime

Citizens initiate the first response to crime. This first response may come from individuals, families, neighborhood associations, business, industry, agriculture, educational institutions, the news media, or any other private service to the public.

It involves crime prevention as well as participation in the criminal justice process once a crime has been committed. Private crime prevention is more than providing private security or burglar alarms or participating in neighborhood watch. It also includes a commitment to stop criminal behavior by not engaging in it or condoning it when it is committed by others.

Citizens take part directly in the criminal justice process by reporting crime to the police, by being a reliable participant (for example, a witness or a juror) in a criminal proceeding and by accepting the disposition of the system as just or reasonable.

As voters and taxpayers, citizens also participate in criminal justice through the policy making process that affects how the criminal justice process operates, the resources available to it, and its goals and objectives. 

At every stage of the process from the original formulation of objectives to the decision about where to locate jails and prisons to the reintegration of inmates into society, the private sector has a role to play. Without such involvement, the criminal justice process cannot serve the citizens it is intended to protect.

The response to crime and public safety involves many agencies and services

Many of the services needed to prevent crime and make neighborhoods safe are supplied by noncriminal justice agencies, including agencies with primary concern for public health, education, welfare, public works, and housing. Individual citizens as well as public and private sector organizations have joined with criminal justice agencies to prevent crime and make neighborhoods safe.

Criminal cases are brought by the government through the criminal justice system

We apprehend, try, and punish offenders by means of a loose confederation of agencies at all levels of government. Our American system of justice has evolved from the English common law into a complex series of procedures and decisions.

Founded on the concept that crimes against an individual are crimes against the State, our justice system prosecutes individuals as though they victimized all of society. However, crime victims are involved throughout the process and many justice agencies have programs which focus on helping victims.

Because we have 50 States, each having laws unique to their people. There is no single criminal justice system in this country. In fact, we have a framework of many similar systems that are individually unique.

What that means is that criminal cases may be handled differently in different jurisdictions, but court decisions based on the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution require that specific steps be taken in the administration of criminal justice so that the individual will be protected from undue intervention from the State.

The description of the criminal and juvenile justice systems that follows portrays the most common sequence of events in response to serious criminal behavior.

Law Enforcement 

The justice system does not respond to most crime because so much crime is not discovered or reported to the police. Law enforcement agencies learn about crime from the reports of victims or other citizens, from discovery by a police officer in the field, from informants, or from investigative and intelligence work.

Once a law enforcement agency has established that a crime has been committed, a suspect must be identified and apprehended for the case to proceed through the system. Sometimes, a suspect is apprehended at the scene; however, identification of a suspect sometimes requires an extensive investigation. Often, no one is identified or apprehended. In some instances, a suspect is arrested and later the police determine that no crime was committed and the suspect is released.

After an arrest, law enforcement agencies present information about the case and about the accused to the prosecutor, who will decide if formal charges will be filed with the court. If no charges are filed, the accused must be released. The prosecutor can also drop charges after making efforts to prosecute (nolle prosequi).

A suspect charged with a crime must be taken before a judge or magistrate without unnecessary delay. At the initial appearance, the judge or magistrate informs the accused of the charges and decides whether there is probable cause to detain the accused person. If the offense is not very serious, the determination of guilt and assessment of a penalty may also occur at this stage.

Often, the defense counsel is also assigned at the initial appearance. All suspects prosecuted for serious crimes have a right to be represented by an attorney. If the court determines the suspect is indigent and cannot afford such representation, the court will assign counsel at the public's expense.

A pretrial-release decision may be made at the initial appearance, but may occur at other hearings or may be changed at another time during the process. Pretrial release and bail were traditionally intended to ensure appearance at trial. However, many jurisdictions permit pretrial detention of defendants accused of serious offenses and deemed to be dangerous to prevent them from committing crimes prior to trial.

The court often bases its pretrial decision on information about the defendant's drug use, as well as residence, employment, and family ties. The court may decide to release the accused on his/her own recognizance or into the custody of a third party after the posting of a financial bond or on the promise of satisfying certain conditions such as taking periodic drug tests to ensure drug abstinence.

In many jurisdictions, the initial appearance may be followed by a preliminary hearing. The main function of this hearing is to discover if there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed a known crime within the jurisdiction of the court. If the judge does not find probable cause, the case is dismissed; however, if the judge or magistrate finds probable cause for such a belief, or the accused waives his or her right to a preliminary hearing, the case may be bound over to a grand jury.

A grand jury hears evidence against the accused presented by the prosecutor and decides if there is sufficient evidence to cause the accused to be brought to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence, it submits to the court an indictment, a written statement of the essential facts of the offense charged against the accused.

Where the grand jury system is used, the grand jury may also investigate criminal activity generally and issue indictments called grand jury originals that initiate criminal cases. These investigations and indictments are often used in drug and conspiracy cases that involve complex organizations. After such an indictment, law enforcement tries to apprehend and arrest the suspects named in the indictment.

Misdemeanor cases and some felony cases proceed by the issuance of an information, a formal, written accusation submitted to the court by a prosecutor. In some jurisdictions, indictments may be required in felony cases. However, the accused may choose to waive a grand jury indictment and, instead, accept service of an information for the crime.

In some jurisdictions, defendants, often those without prior criminal records, may be eligible for diversion from prosecution subject to the completion of specific conditions such as drug treatment. Successful completion of the conditions may result in the dropping of charges or the expunging of the criminal record where the defendant is required to plead guilty prior to the diversion.

Adjudication

Once an indictment or information has been filed with the trial court, the accused is scheduled for arraignment. At the arraignment, the accused is informed of the charges, advised of the rights of criminal defendants, and asked to enter a plea to the charges. Sometimes, a plea of guilty is the result of negotiations between the prosecutor and the defendant.

If the accused pleads guilty or pleads "nolo contendere," latin for "no contest" which means the defendant accepts penalty without admitting guilt, then the judge may accept or reject the plea.

If the plea is accepted, no trial is held and the offender is sentenced at this proceeding or at a later date. The plea may be rejected and proceed to trial if, for example, the judge believes that the accused may have been coerced.

If the accused pleads not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, a date is set for the trial. A person accused of a serious crime is guaranteed a trial by jury. However, the accused may ask for a bench trial where the judge, rather than a jury, serves as the finder of fact.

In both instances the prosecution and defense present evidence by questioning witnesses while the judge decides on issues of law. The trial results in acquittal or conviction on the original charges or on lesser included offenses.

After the trial a defendant may request appellate review of the conviction or sentence. In some cases, appeals of convictions are a matter of right; all States with the death penalty provide for automatic appeal of cases involving a death sentence. Appeals may be subject to the discretion of the appellate court and may be granted only on acceptance of a defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Prisoners may also appeal their sentences through civil rights petitions and writs of habeas corpus where they claim unlawful detention.

Sentencing and Sanctions

After a conviction, sentence is imposed. In most cases the judge decides on the sentence, but in some jurisdictions the sentence is decided by the jury, particularly for capital offenses.

In arriving at an appropriate sentence, a sentencing hearing may be held at which evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances is considered. In assessing the circumstances surrounding a convicted person's criminal behavior, courts often rely on presentence investigations by probation agencies or other designated authorities. Courts may also consider victim impact statements before sentencing.

The sentencing choices that may be available to judges and juries include one or more of the following:

• The death penalty;
• incarceration in a prison, jail, or other confinement facility;
• probation - allowing the convicted person to remain at liberty but subject to certain conditions; and restrictions such as drug testing or drug treatment;
• fines - primarily applied as penalties in minor offenses;
• restitution - requiring the offender to pay compensation to the victim.

In some jurisdictions, offenders may be sentenced to alternatives to incarceration that are considered more severe than straight probation but less severe than a prison term.

Examples of such sanctions include boot camps, intense supervision often with drug treatment and testing, house arrest and electronic monitoring, denial of Federal benefits, and community service.

In many jurisdictions, the law mandates that persons convicted of certain types of offenses serve a prison term. Most jurisdictions permit the judge to set the sentence length within certain limits, but some have determinate sentencing laws that stipulate a specific sentence length that must be served and cannot be altered by a parole board.

Corrections

Offenders sentenced to incarceration usually serve time in a local jail or a State prison. Offenders sentenced to less than 1 year generally go to jail; those sentenced to more than 1 year go to prison. Persons admitted to the Federal system or a State prison system may be held in prisons with varying levels of custody or in a community correctional facility.

A prisoner may become eligible for parole after serving a specific part of his or her sentence. Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner before the prisoner's full sentence has been served. The decision to grant parole is made by an authority such as a parole board, which has power to grant or revoke parole or to discharge a parolee altogether. The way parole decisions are made varies widely among jurisdictions.

Offenders may also be required to serve out their full sentences prior to release (expiration of term). Those sentenced under determinate sentencing laws can be released only after they have served their full sentence (mandatory release) less any "goodtime" received while in prison. Inmates get goodtime credits against their sentences automatically or by earning them through participation in programs.

If released by a parole board decision or by mandatory release, the releasee will be under the supervision of a parole officer in the community for the balance of his or her unexpired sentence. This supervision is governed by specific conditions of release, and the releasee may be returned to prison for violations of such conditions.

Recidivism

Once the suspects, defendants, or offenders are released from the jurisdiction of a criminal justice agency, they may be processed through the criminal justice system again for a new crime. Long term studies show that many suspects who are arrested have prior criminal histories and those with a greater number of prior arrests were more likely to be arrested again.

As the courts take prior criminal history into account at sentencing, most prison inmates have a prior criminal history and many have been incarcerated before. Nationally, about half the inmates released from prison will return to prison.

The Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile courts usually have jurisdiction over matters concerning children, including delinquency, neglect, and adoption. They also handle "status offenses" such as truancy and running away, which are not applicable to adults. State statutes define which persons are under the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency matters is 17 in most States.

The processing of juvenile offenders is not entirely dissimilar to adult criminal processing, but there are crucial differences. Many juveniles are referred to juvenile courts by law enforcement officers, but many others are referred by school officials, social services agencies, neighbors, and even parents, for behavior or conditions that are determined to require intervention by the formal system for social control.

At arrest, a decision is made either to send the matter further into the justice system or to divert the case out of the system, often to alternative programs. Examples of alternative programs include drug treatment, individual or group counseling, or referral to educational and recreational programs.

When juveniles are referred to the juvenile courts, the court's intake department or the prosecuting attorney determines whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant filing a petition that requests an adjudicatory hearing or a request to transfer jurisdiction to criminal court. At this point, many juveniles are released or diverted to alternative programs.

All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under certain circumstances. In many States, the legislature statutorily excludes certain (usually serious) offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court regardless of the age of the accused. In some States and at the Federal level under certain circumstances, prosecutors have the discretion to either file criminal charges against juveniles directly in criminal courts or proceed through the juvenile justice process.

The juvenile court's intake department or the prosecutor may petition the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction to criminal court. The juvenile court may also order referral to criminal court for trial as adults. In some jurisdictions, juveniles processed as adults may upon conviction be sentenced to either an adult or a juvenile facility.

In those cases where the juvenile court retains jurisdiction, the case may be handled formally by filing a delinquency petition or informally by diverting the juvenile to other agencies or programs in lieu of further court processing.

If a petition for an adjudicatory hearing is accepted, the juvenile may be brought before a court quite unlike the court with jurisdiction over adult offenders. Despite the considerable discretion associated with juvenile court proceedings, juveniles are afforded many of the due-process safeguards associated with adult criminal trials.

Several States permit the use of juries in juvenile courts; however, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that juries are not essential to juvenile hearings, most States do not make provisions for juries in juvenile courts.

In disposing of cases, juvenile courts usually have far more discretion than adult courts. In addition to such options as probation, commitment to a residential facility, restitution, or fines, State laws grant juvenile courts the power to order removal of children from their homes to foster homes or treatment facilities.

Juvenile courts may also order participation in special programs aimed at shoplifting prevention, drug counseling, or driver education.

Once a juvenile is under juvenile court disposition, the court may retain jurisdiction until the juvenile legally becomes an adult at age 21 in most States. In some jurisdictions, juvenile offenders may be classified as youthful offenders which can lead to extended sentences.

Following release from an institution, juveniles are often ordered to a period of aftercare which is similar to parole supervision for adult offenders. Juvenile offenders who violate the conditions of aftercare may have their aftercare revoked, resulting in being recommitted to a facility. Juveniles who are classified as youthful offenders and violate the conditions of aftercare may be subject to adult sanctions.

Discretion is exercised throughout the criminal justice system

Very few crimes are under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. The responsibility to respond to most crime rests with State and local governments. Police protection is primarily a function of cities and towns. Corrections is primarily a function of State governments. Most justice personnel are employed at the local level.

Discretion is "an authority conferred by law to act in certain conditions or situations in accordance with an official's or an official agency's own considered judgment and conscience."

Discretion is exercised throughout the government. It is a part of decision making in all government systems from mental health to education, as well as criminal justice. The limits of discretion vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Concerning crime and justice, legislative bodies have recognized that they cannot anticipate the range of circumstances surrounding each crime, anticipate local mores, and enact laws that clearly encompass all conduct that is criminal and all that is not.

Therefore, persons charged with the day-to-day response to crime are expected to exercise their own judgment within limits set by law.

Basically, they must decide:

• Whether to take action;
• where the situation fits in the scheme of law, rules, and precedent;
• which official response is appropriate.

To ensure that discretion is exercised responsibly, government authority is often delegated to professionals. Professionalism requires a minimum level of training and orientation, which guide officials in making decisions. The professionalism of policing is due largely to the desire to ensure the proper exercise of police discretion.

The limits of discretion vary from State to State and locality to locality. For example, some State judges have wide discretion in the type of sentence they may impose. In recent years other States have sought to limit the judges discretion in sentencing by passing mandatory sentencing laws that require prison sentences for certain offenses.

The diagram below illustrates the sequence of events in the criminal justice system.

The flowchart of the events in the criminal justice system (shown in the diagram above) updates the original chart prepared by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1967.

The chart summarizes the most common events in the criminal and juvenile justice systems including entry into the criminal justice system, prosecution and pretrial services, adjudication, sentencing and sanctions, and corrections.

The above information was taken from the U.S, Bureau of Justice Statistics. As complicated as the system is, I really hope this has been helpful.

Best Regards,
Tom Correa

How Do You Correct Stubborn Asses When They're Being Asses

Sorry to say, this is not about working with mules. Although I have had a little experience with riding and working mules, this article is not just about jackasses per say.

If this were about just about mules, it might be about the mule that a neighbor once owned. It would be the story about the time my next door neighbor wanted me to halter up his mule and walk him out of its pen.

That's right, that's it, just walk him out of his pen. And yes, since it was a beautiful day out, I obliged my neighbor by going over to his place and doing just that.

Please understand that my neighbor is someone who I have very little dealing with for a few reasons. While he is not a bad man, he is a city boy through and through. In fact, he decided to settle here in Glencoe, California, population 189, after retiring from his job in the film industry. Yes, he now lives here in this tiny burg after working all of his life in Hollywood. It's like The Beverly Hillbillies in reverse.

He said he moved here because his mother lived in the vicinity just up the road in Wilseyville. He knew nothing about country living, and why he wanted to move here instead of moving his mom in with him in Southern California has been a mystery to me for years. But as I said, though a Liberal and from Hollywood, my complete opposite and a world away from here, he's not a bad man -- just screwed up.

When he and his then better-half moved in, they immediately set about making a garden on their 5 acre parcel. Soon he sent away for African Guinea hens to eat the bugs off of his tomato plants in his 12 foot by 20 foot garden. He said he read about using African Guinea hens as a form of non-toxic pest control in some Mother Earth magazine of some sort.

Of course instead of buying 2 or 3 of those African birds for that size garden, and of course to see how they'd do, he bought 34 of the noisy creatures. I found out later that Pot Growers buy a lot of Guinea hens and use them as alarm systems to signal when intruders are nearby. And yes, they make a horrible noise.

Now I'm sure some reader will write me saying that those blasted African Guinea hens are a metaphor for Muslim refugees, and that I'm way too obvious. Others will write telling me that my analogy of horribly noisy Guinea hens to the disruptive nature of Muslim refugees is way too obvious. Then there are those who will write me to tell me that African Guinea hens are not that bad and they have wonderful qualities. To the later, as always, I will write back and ask if the White House staff can stop picking apart my blog.

Soon those Guinea hens ate the bugs, the leaves, the plants, all of the plants in the garden down to the roots. Then after those 34 birds ate his garden into the dirt, he released them to walk around and pick at his property. Of course his property was not fences of to keep them in and soon they were walking into everyone's property.

A couple of early mornings, I found the noisy bastards on my roof. I was fit to be tied. I called my neighbor and told him to corral his birds and keep them off my roof where they were commencing to destroy my roof while looking for bugs.

At first, to get rid of them, I took a water hose and shot them off. That was at first. After about a week of that, I got up on morning and grabbed my trap shotgun and stepped out and started yelling "PULL!"

I didn't feel so bad about killing them noisy African bastards, especially after he called me wanting to use one of my shotguns to polish off the rest that I hadn't gotten to just yet. He realized that he didn't know anything about Guinea hens yet ordered too many. He also came to realize that he and his noisy birds had become a nuisance to many of us in the area.

Now for my not so subtle message: Yes, I have learned over the year that most Liberals don't care what impact their decisions have on others around them.

In my neighbor's case, his birds traveled from his property to other properties where they were not wanted. Some neighbors actually stopped feeding their chickens because the Guinea hens ate all of the food they were putting out for their birds.

The only thing that made me a little angry was when my neighbor found that funny and laughed about it as if that wasn't a big deal at all. He laughed again when he found out that his birds had actually scared an old woman resident so bad that she fell down and hurt herself when she tried getting away from them. Believe it or not, his Guinea hens actually swarmed around residents as they got out of cars and trucks and such.

Those residents were very happy to see me kill those birds. And for you Environmentalist out there. you should know that everyday that I shot a Guinea hen on my property -- there was a Hawk that came by afterwards and made off with the dead African noise maker. I could swear that those Hawks looked pretty happy with my supplying them with supper while I got rid of our problem.

Now as for my neighbor asking me to help him with his mule, I don't mind helping a neighbor. Yes, even one whose politics are 180 degree from my own. I feel sorry for any lost lamb, whether they have common sense or not.

In fact, a few year before when he asked if I could trailer his mule, I didn't mind helping him in using my trailer or going with him to get the mule. I agreed because he needed help. On the way there he talked about how this mule had been mistreated as a youngster, and that he and his better-half saw the mule advertised in a local Buy 'N Sell.

He and his better-half knew very little about the mule other than what was said in the advertisement which included a picture of a three-year old Jack. In fact, they were ready and willing to buy a large 3 year old mule without knowing anything about mules, donkeys, horses, or any other sort of farm animal.

When we arrived we found out that the young Jack had been confined to a 10 foot by 10 foot stall for almost all of his 3 years up to that point. He was a big tough animal for a 3 year old and my very naive neighbors decided to buy him because they liked his picture. No kidding! Yes, all emotion and absolutely no thinking involved here!

We were there just a few minutes and I after I got my trailer situated, I walked up just in time to watch the sellers, those folks who raised the mule, open his pen and that mule explode out the gate as if on fire.

The owner had the mule by a 20 foot lead rope and holding on for dear life. Thank God for a small tree where he quickly snug that rope to and stopped himself from being drug into the next county. Come to find out later, the owner had only had that mule on a lead rope a few times and in a small confined pen.

As the agitated mule was in a storm, my neighbor looks at me and says, "You don't think this is a good idea do you?"

My response was something to the effect, "This is F%#@'n insane!"

After about 20 minutes or so, they still had that mule tied to that small tree and he was stranding at the halter and lead rope pulling on it trying to get free. My neighbors, God Bless them both, were still determined to have that mule. To me, he look like an accident waiting to happen.

After a little bit of doing, I got the mule in my small two horse trailer and we were off. After we got him to their place, I helped to set up his pen and get him situated. They named him "Wilson" after some soccer ball in some Tom Hanks movie.

Wilson was indeed a mammoth animal. And yes, after a few years, he seemed to get bigger but he became pretty gentle and sort of kind.

While I still don't deal with him much, so when he asked me to come over to halter up his mule and walk him out of its pen, I didn't mind helping.

And as I said before, it was a beautiful day out. And yes, I obliged my neighbor by going over to his place and doing just that. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Wilson was very calm in his large pen. It took a little doing but soon enough I put a halter on him without too much trouble. I then went about walking him around his pen. And frankly, I was very pleased that they had handled him some and that he was actually real good about being lead.

After a half an hour or so, I walked him up to the gate and opened it. He shied some but not bad, then he walked through without a problem. I was standing there not seeing a real problem and everything seemed fine. That is until my neighbor walked up, and that's when Wilson blew up as if someone stuffed a hand grenade up is ass!

I had hold of a 20 foot lead rope and held on for dear life. Sounds similar does it? Well, it should because Wilson took off with me in tow after I lost my footing -- he just about drug me to China before I let go and told him to go have at it.

Wilson ran around that property for the better part of two hours with my neighbor and I trying everything to keep him from disappearing into thousands of acres of BLM land. Then before we knew it, Wilson ripped down my wire fence and crossed into my property and headed over to my horses. Once there I throw a loop and quickly tied him to a nearby tree to get him to settle down.

Soon I got him settled down and then moved to a pen on my place. From there I worked with him for about a month to get him friendly enough to where he wouldn't be dangerous. Yes, come to find out later, my neighbor had only had that mule on a lead rope and halter a few times and in his pen but never out of it. Wilson sensed he was free and didn't know how to handle it.

Now, before someone writes to ask if I don't think Democrats can handle freedom and feel a sense of comfort being cared for by Big Government like say how Wilson did with his the safety of pen where he was fed and cared for? That's up to you to decide.

All in all, I have always loved mules. And yes, donkeys are too cute for words. Mules especially, are said to be more patient, sure-footed, hardy, and have longer lives than horses. They are hard workers, super-smart, easy to love, and great to ride with many saying that they have a much smoother gait than a horse.

They say the only emotion one should have with horses is "patience." While dealing with mules is a lot like dealing with Liberals in that it takes a great deal of patience, I do find that some just don't do well outside their pen.

Then again, while I feel it's offensive to a mule to call it a Democrat, I truly understand why donkeys and mules, jackasses, are known to be so stubborn. They can be very hard to work with. Wilson was as stubborn an ass as one would ever find.

I understand why they are associated with stubborn ass Democrats. Frankly, Democrats are stubborn asses. And yes, Democrats have been using a braying donkey for a mascot for close to 200 years.

Supposedly it started with Andrew Jackson was running for office way back in 1828. Jackson’s opponents called Jackson a "jackass". In a typical Democrat spin, Jackson said "Think I am jackass, hear me bray!"

It is said that Andrew Jackson tried to spin the donkey's traits of being hard-headed, slow, and obstinate and down right stubborn to "willful."

If you look at the bottom of my blog, you will see in the "About me" section that I state that "my wife and I believe we should celebrate and defend our American culture, values, heritage, our country lifestyle, and all that makes us proud Americans."

I wrote that the very first day that I created this blog some 5 years ago. Frankly, when I stated that at the start of my Blog, that I will defend and celebrate America, our traditions, our history, our culture, and fight the lies, I surely didn't think this would become a full time job as it sometimes feels.

My friends, if you're sick of my politics, imagine constantly beating the drum. Friends, I would love to spend more time going through my old journals of the many fascinating historic places that I've visited and talk about them. I'd love to concentrate more on Old West history, horse breeds and care, vintage guns and security.

I don't know if Liberals are just dense, even more dense than mules, or if that are just stubborn asses because they like being asses! Explaining to Liberals the reasons for things that many of us see as common sense can be a full time job. For example, trying to make Liberals understand that "race" has nothing to do with why Americans dislike President Obama's policies is getting to be so repetitive that it's actually boring.

The problem is that I can't avoid writing about it simply because of the asinine statements that come from Democrats. Statement that my blog readers, and my Facebook friends and followers ask me about all the time.

For example, on January 12th, 2016, Obama's State of the Union speech proved to most Americans once again that he is truly and unequivocally delusional in his perception of what is taking place in America.

Obama does not recognize the threat that ISIS is to the world, and us in particular. He does not see the threat of Islam. He does not see how he has divided our nation as never before -- all on race, class, wages, and more.

He does not see how Americans view his policies as negative and anti-productive, over-reaching, and completely unnecessary. He also doesn't see why Americans dislike his inaction on issues. And yes, Americans hate that he has demonstrated his weakness and his ineptness to manage his office.

Through all of this, Democrats, Liberals, the Mainstream Media, cannot admit that Obama is out of touch. They cannot admit that Obama is acting like a Dictator and King in some ways, and Buffoon in others.

So as stubborn, or maybe more stubborn than Wilson was with his refusal to learn that it was OK to step out of his pen, Democrats, Liberals, are afraid to venture out of their comfort zone when it comes to their reasoning. Yes, according to Democrats, and Obama himself, the ONLY reason Americans dislike his policies is because he's Black.

Name calling and unfounded accusations are their comfort zone. They don't want to talk about facts, figures, statistics, events, reason, probable cause, or the issues. They immediately resort to name calling and false accusation.

Obama himself said "the ONLY reason Americans dislike his policies is because he's Black" just a few weeks ago. Ultra-Liberals like Chris Matthews on MSNBC have said the same thing again just recently. And yes, last Tuesday on Fox News Liberal political commentator Geraldo Rivera said that Obama's "difficulties" are because "the nation was not ready for a black president."

Yes, Democrat Geraldo Rivera said, "I think what is clear is that the nation was not ready for a black president."

But if you think that that would have been enough divisiveness for one day, Rivera wasn't finished. He went on to accuse white of racism by stating, "And I think the gross divisions we suffer right now in this country are, when you strip away everything else, the gun rights, terror and all the rest of it -- what you have essentially is a nation divided between white people and everybody else in broad strokes. When you look at the groups that overwhelmingly favor the Democrats right now, the Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, the Muslims, you see a nation where people are largely chosen up sides and if you strip away everything else, what you are going to find is a racial divide. It is the biggest, unaddressed issue. I think it is why we can’t deal with urban crime. It is why we are dysfunctional in terms of the ability to be bilateral, bicameral, bipartisan."

Frankly, Rivera is assuming a great deal here. And yes, his assumptions are wrong. He sees America as a racist place even though America is proof of the opposite. And frankly, no matter what I and others say -- Liberals like him are some stubborn asses.

How do you correct stubborn Democrats when they're asses and absolutely refuse to see anything other than what they will? How do Americans talk about how Obama's policies are hurting Americans when Liberals in positions of power refuse to listen and instead summarily dismiss all grievances as "racist"?

Ever notice how racist will be quick to call someone a "racist" -- yet not even take into consideration that they are indeed being offensive in their slanderous claims? Ever notice how they use race to their own advantage?

For example, why give Obama's failures in office a free pass by saying "Oh, it's OK that he failed because it's not his fault. It's someone else's fault." That is the same as saying that Obama is incompetent because he's Black -- and frankly, that is racist. And Democrats, yes Liberals, are the one's making that very argument!

I don't mind calling incompetence in the White House by its name! It's name is Obama. But I don't feel he's incompetent because he's Black. Frankly, Black, White, Pink, or Green, his color has nothing to do with his incompetence. To say that Obama is just incompetent is not being racist, that's just being factual. That's being honest and not looking for excuses as to why he failed to do his job.

Obama should have protected the fabric of America, not try to change it.

Obama has failed because he has done things that have been very negative and Americans haven't bought what he's selling. In fact, Americans don't like what he is doing right now. And frankly, his color has nothing to do with it -- no matter what some stubborn Liberal asses thinks!

Let me make this clear for my Liberal readers, I vote for Republicans to fight against Obama's Socialist policies. I didn't vote for Republicans to have some sort of Bipartisan-fest where Republicans give and Democrats take. Friends, Democrats do not compromise. There is no give. They only take. I vote Republican because they are my only option to fight against the Democrat Party and their lack of principles and morals.

So no, this article is not all about mules but more about asses. Mules of course, but also Democrat asses who don't have the class of most mules! Democrats who like Big Government the same way that Wilson like the guy who fed him. Democrats who like being in pens. Democrats who are afraid of freedom and all that it offers.

My neighbor's intentions for Wilson were actually great. He wanted to get Wilson out of the smaller pen and get him used to the bigger property. Once he would be acclimated to being outside his pen and not simply run off, my neighbor had the good intentions of wanting to allow Wilson to enjoy stretching his legs more than he could all cooped up.

Sadly, Wilson never did have the run of that property when he was there, he could never handle it and my neighbor was too afraid to let him try it. Sadly, I believe Democrats are like that. They like being cooped up, not being able to handle freedom. It's as if they are afraid to stretch their legs.

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

Invasion By The So-Called Religion Of Peace

By Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Historian

Muslims and even some non-Muslim idiots like to call Islam, "A Religion of Peace." In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. 

We have all heard about the Christian Crusades, and many people seem to want to blame the Crusades on the Christian Europeans who had attacked the Muslim world. 

Once and for all, let's set this straight. Islam started the Crusades, not the Christian Europeans! The Muslims started the Crusades in or around 630 A.D. by conquering Mecca. Later, Muslims invaded Syria, Iraq, Jerusalem, Iran, Africa, Spain, Italy, France, and others.

The Western Crusades didn't begin until somewhere around 1095 to try to stop Islamic aggression, but many Atheist's today try to use the Crusades as a way to point out how Christians were the evil doers who slaughtered thousands of people, 

Why? Because they don't want to see or realize the whole truth of the matter or possibly, even more so, because they are not educated in the truth of the Crusades. The truth being, they were fighting for their existence and right to live without becoming subjects of Islam.

In order to understand Islam a little better let's take a quick look at this so called Religion of peace. Islam has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 270 million people or more: 120 million Africans, 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, and 10 million Buddhists, and forcing the conversion of Islam upon those groups which has been the norm. Islam has been at war against non-Muslims for close to 1400 years now and nothing has changed.

Muslim scholars formulated their understanding of religion and political division of the world early on by setting up two houses. The house of Dar al-Islam, or the house of peace. The other is Dar al-Harb, which is the house of war. The so called house of peace is most likely the reason that Islam is referred to as the religion of peace, but this is not true when you understand what the house of Dar al-Islam is truly about.

In a nutshell, Dar al-Islam, or the house of peace means that peace can only come when the world has submitted to Islam, then and only then will there be the peace Islam refers too. The other house, the house of Dar al-Harb, the house of war, pertains to Islam waging war to meet the ends and means of the house of peace. 

Either way you choose to look at both of these houses, Islam is not a religion of peace, period! Nor will Islam ever be a religion of peace until they have subjugated the world and its people. That's not peace, it's world domination, no different than the ideals of Hitler's Nazi regime.

Make no mistake, we are now seeing the beginnings of World War Three. The description of a World War is as such: "World War is a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populated countries. World Wars span multiple countries on multiple continents with battles fought in multiple theaters."

All one has to do is pay attention to what's going on in our world today. What's going on in Germany, France, Iraq, Syria, the U.K., as well as Russia, China, and others, and yes, even here in the United States of America? What's going on? It is the invasion of Islam, Period!

The Muslims, or radical Muslims if you prefer the term, have known for many years now that they could not take the countries I have mentioned by force so they are now trying to take us by infiltration and the sad part is, our government is doing nothing about it. Why? In my opinion the reason why is because we have Muslims who have now infiltrated our own government. 

Obama, our so-called president, has proven time and time again that he leans toward the Muslims, and why not, he was raised as a Muslim. Again, his grandfather, father, mother and stepfather were all Muslims. This so called president has appointed Muslims into his cabinet and wants to bring in thousands of more Muslim refugees into our country.

As I am writing this article, and long before this article, Muslims have set up their own regions and even a town or two where they have total control of those areas. What has our government done about this? Nothing, that's what! 

The Islamic belief does not fit in any way with our Constitution or our way of life, yet this administration has done nothing to make a stand for our constitution, the law of the land. This so called president should have been impeached a long time ago for not adhering to our constitution. 

His job is to stand by the constitution and make sure our people are protected. His lack of doing so constitutes treason by giving aid to the enemy, which he has done by his inactions against an invading force of people. 

I don't know about you, but that's the way I see it.

So Who Is Funding Muslim Terrorism?

As a young Marine, I learned many axioms of leadership and logistics. Among those was what the famous Napoleon Bonaparte, the first emperor of France, had to say about logistics. Regarded as one of the greatest military leaders in the history of the Western world, he said, "An army marches on its stomach."

Yes, to be effective, an army has to be fed -- and more so, it has to be supplied. Besides, food and water, a fighting force must have supplies and support to keep them fed, clothed, refueled, armed with ammunition, have their medical needs tended to, and much more. This is a fact of life for any fighting force big or small.

Without a supply line, whether it's 4 a man Fireteam or a 400,000 army, an army of any size can only last until they are out of food, water, arms, ammunition, and other equipment that's needed to sustain them. Without supplies, no fighting force can survive.

So knowing this fact of life, back when we all first saw those Muslim terrorists on 9/11, I asked who is funding those animals? Fact is, over the years there has been no satisfactory answer to that question, or to the question: Why can't we shut down their funding and supply lines?

They have to eat, drink water, have gasoline for their vehicles, maintenance of their equipment. Yes, they have a supply line of food, water, fuel, arms, ammo, and other essentials. So why hasn't this been found and cut off? And more importantly, where is that supply line coming from?

Wherever the money is coming from, why haven't we stopped it?

We should be tracing their funding and find out what banks they draw from? Who supplies them? Who finances them? Who are their benefactors? Then we should attack them as we would any military target.

Are their benefactors men such as Billionaires George Soros and Bill Gates and Al Gore? Are their sponsors Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, the Clinton Foundation. and Bernie Sanders who gave financial support to anti-American groups Occupy Wall Street and Code Pink?

I've read reports that point to President Barack Obama and his assistant Valerie Jarrett as being responsible for funneling Billions of American Taxpayer Dollars to support ISIS and the Muslim Invasion of Europe and the United States. Obama and Jarrett have made no secret of their allegiances to Islam.

Though they will not acknowledge that Obama's father and step-father were Muslims, his family in Kenya is Muslim, and that Barack Obama Jr was raised in a Muslim school in Jakarta until the 5th grade, Obama supporters rail against the assertion that Obama is Muslim.

Valerie Jarrett has been very open about her desire to transform the United States into an Islamic Nation as far back as the 1970s.

For most Americans, Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, remains largely an unknown. But many in Washington DC see her as the puppet-master working the strings to control Obama. For those who think she has not positioned herself as the true power in the Oval Office, they are being naive at best. 

Valerie Jarrett is a woman, who like President Barack Hussein Obama, has direct links to the Muslim world, both past and present. And yes, she has sponsored the appointment of almost all of the Muslim Brotherhood appointments in the White House under Obama.

Besides the White House supplying weapons and other supplies to the Syrian rebels which make its way into the hands of ISIS and other Muslim terrorist groups, I've read where the leader of Germany has sold out her people also -- all in favor of the Muslim Invasion of Europe.

Of course there are reports that Muslim terrorist groups such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, and others being funded by the United Nations in exchange for huge pay-offs? Remember, Saddam Hussein was being funded with the Oil For Food U.N. Scandal for the same reason -- a corrupt United Nations that prostitutes itself for the highest bidder.

The United Nations is known to sell anything from seats on committees to doing special favors, from lying as with the United Nations Climate-gate where it falsified Global Warming data for money to supplying dictators with arms.

I've read reports that the nation of Turkey is supplying ISIS and other Muslim terrorist groups with NATO arms in return for oil. That would account for why they are so angry at Russia for attacking ISIS and the Syrian Rebels that way they have.

And yes, I've even read reports that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations are giving Billions of oil dollars to Muslim terrorist groups that accompany the thousands of Mosques that they are being built throughout Europe and the United States.

More and more we are finding out that ISIS and other Muslim terrorist groups are officially being sponsored by Saudi Arabia who is using the thousands of Mosques that it is building throughout Europe and America as weapons depots? The French, the Greeks, Italians, and other Europeans have raided a number of Mosques since the Paris Muslim Terrorist attacks, and have found a huge number of weapons caches at those "religious" sites. Is it happening here, I wouldn't doubt it.

Is it possible that a select few, a Radical Islamic American President and his key adviser who is an Iranian Muslim, crooked politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton, an anti-American psychopath like George Soros and Muslim sympathizers Billionaires Bill Gates and Al Gore, the leader of Germany, oil rich Arabs, and a corrupt United Nations getting pay-offs from Islamic OPEC nations, could be responsible for most the Muslim troubles that we are experiencing today?

I believe it's certainly possible. Look how Obama has drug his feet in the war against ISIS even going so far as to give them 45 minute warnings that they were about to be bombed. Look at George Soros who recently admitted to financing the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, and the Muslim Invasion of Europe. Look at the leader of Germany Ms Merkel who insists that German must allow Muslim refugees even though she knows that they are rapists, murderers, terrorists, as well as other assorted criminals. Look at the United Nations which is attempting to disarm any sort of resistance to any sort of Muslim Invasion. And yes, look at the United Nations' Syrian Refugee Mandate that it has "ordered" its member states to adhere to. And of course, look at Saudi Arabia's refusal to take in refugees while sending huge amounts of arms to Mosques throughout Europe and the United States.  

So yes, as a matter of fact, I do think this handful along with their lap dogs in the Liberal Media are responsible for the troubles that we are in. While these are only a handful of people, most of them hold tremendous power and incredible wealth. So, yes I believe it is possible that these people are at the root of all of our problems. And yes, I really believe that they need to be arrested, stopped, imprisoned, and in the case of the United Nations -- disbanded!

We can stop the United Nation by withdrawing from that corrupt organization. Actually, I believe the United Nations should be disbanded as it has grown into a "World Order" when it was never intended to be such.

As for OPEC and Saudi Arabia, I'd like to see their influence and money dry up -- and the only way to do that is to out produce them. As for Germany's leader Ms Merkel, I'm real surprised that the German people have not thrown her in prison. At the least Germans need to vote her out as soon as possible before she throws all of Germany into Civil War.

The EU, the European Union, needs to rethink its Leftist ideology of mandatory "Open Borders" to stop the Muslim Invasion. Those countries being effected by Muslim terrorists committing domestic crimes such as murder, rape, home invasions, robbery, and assault and battery, should jail and deport their Muslim criminals to some Muslim friendly nation.

I have always believed in boycotting anti-Americans. We can boycott Bill Gates, George Soros, and Al Gore. We can rid ourselves of the Clintons by not putting Hillary Clinton in the presidency. We can get rid of the Obama at the end of this year, then fumigate the White House of any lingering parasites which have stayed around to plague us.

Our nations can relieve itself of a great deal of Muslim problems by forbidding their entrance into the United States using the laws already on the books, US Code 8 Section 1182, to do so. Since Islam forbids Muslims to "assimilate" into non-Muslim cultures, we shouldn't let them into our country since assimilation is the corner stone of our being the melting pot that we are.

Muslims can take their lack of desire to assimilate, and their funding from various sources, and live in the Middle-East. They certainly do not belong anywhere else, especially in multi-cultural societies.

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

Article by Ranch Manager, Dillon Land and Cattle Co., Maupin, Oregon

By Keith Nantz 

January 8th, 2015

I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff. 

The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink.

This week, the Ammon Bundy-led seizure of a federal wildlife refuge thrust Oregon’s ranchers into the spotlight. While I don’t agree with the occupiers’ tactics, I sympathize with their position. Being a rancher was always challenging. And it has become increasingly difficult under the Obama administration.

I grew up in a ranching community in northeast Oregon. Even as a kid, I knew I wanted to be a rancher. After eight years as a firefighter, I’d saved enough to start my own business. I wanted to work on the land, raising delicious, wholesome beef for our growing population.

For almost a decade, I’ve done just that. Most days, I’m up before the sun rises. I spend my mornings tending to my horses, dogs and livestock. In the winter, when it’s bitter cold, I’m outside with my cattle, making sure their water isn’t frozen and that they’re properly fed. In the summer, I often work 15-hour days, cultivating my crops and tending to the animals. In the afternoons, I’m in my office, reaching out to customers and handling the ranch’s business side. Over the course of a given day, I act as a vet, a mechanic, an agronomist and accountant.

I love the work, but it’s grueling. As a rancher, I’m always one bad year away from financial disaster. Every purchase I make — from new cows ($2,000 each) to a new piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars — is a major investment. And my ranch operates on very slim margins, so I have to be savvy to make ends meet.

Money isn’t the only challenge. Raising cattle requires a lot of land, much more than most ranchers can afford to own outright. I lease about a third of the space I use from private owners. But most ranchers aren’t so lucky. The federal government controls a huge amount of land in the west (more than 50 percent in some states, like Oregon), and many ranchers must lease that space to create a sustainable operation.

Utilizing federal land requires ranchers to follow an unfair, complicated and constantly evolving set of rules. For example, a federal government agency might decide that it wants to limit the number of days a rancher can graze their cattle to protect a certain endangered plant or animal species, or they might unilaterally decide that ranchers can’t use as much water as they need because of a fight over water rights. Or they might take over land that once belonged to the state or private individuals, imposing an entirely new set of restrictions.

I saw this play out firsthand when the federal government considered listing the sage grouse, a chicken-like bird, as endangered. That regulation would have shrunk the amount of land where ranchers could graze cattle, putting many out of business and decimating the industry. To avoid this, ranchers like myself and local officials spent months meeting with federal officials looking for compromise. We ultimately found middle ground. But we already have an enormous workload in our daily lives. The pressure of having to drop everything to lobby against a rule (which happens more often than you’d think) is a tremendous burden.

Most of the time, those regulations are written by people with no agriculture experience, and little understanding of what it takes to produce our nation’s food. The agencies that control these lands can add burdensome regulations at any time. Often, they will begin aggressively enforcing them before ranchers have a chance to adjust.

This forces us to either find new grazing land, reduce the size of our herd or sell out completely. In rural communities, this can have a catastrophic effect on the local economy and environment. Ranching is a billion-dollar industry in Oregon.

Overall, agriculture accounts for 15 percent of the state’s economic activity and 12 percent of the state’s employment. The income of a local farm generates double the money for the local economy as a supermarket’s income in the same area, according to the London-based New Economics Foundation.

The siege on our industry has only increased under the Obama administration. Officials are effectively regulating us out of business by enforcing a string of unprecedented environmental restrictions. In Malhuer county (next to Harney county, where the current standoff is taking place), the Obama administration is considering a measure that will turn 2.5 million acres of federal land into a “national monument,” a move that would severely restrict grazing. These restrictions would cause a huge economic downturn for those communities.

These decisions are being made by people who are four to five generations removed from food production. The rule-makers don’t quite understand our industry, and are being spurred on by extreme environmentalist groups asking for unreasonable policy changes.

It’s not that I don’t care what the environmental community wants. In every part of my business, I try to find a balance between economics, mother nature and our culture. I know that if we don’t treat our land properly, we will go out of business by our own hands. It is of utmost importance for us to be true conservationists if we want to continue producing the most nutritious and safest protein in the world.

But all too often, I’m not given the autonomy to do so. I’m given rules, not a conversation about how ranchers and government officials and environmentalists might be able to work together. That’s an approach that fails everyone.

-- end of article, The Washington Post

Keith Nantz is Ranch Manager at Dillon Land and Cattle in Maupin, Oregon.

Professional Politicians and Media Don't Get It

By Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Historian

Politicians within the political establishment as well as many people associated with the media don't seem to grasp or understand why so many voters are standing behind Donald Trump and Ted Cruz rather than the old guard politicians like Jeb Bush and others.

The answer to this is very simple, people are sick and tired of politics as usual. We have had enough of the lip service and empty promises that these professional politicians spew out of their mouths in order to get elected. Then once they do get elected, their empty promises fall into the eternal vacuum of complacency which has become the standard operational procedure in Washington D.C.

Why is it that the old establishment politicians along with the mainstream media are saying everything against Trump and Cruz possible? Simple, the politicians do not want things to change, and why? Because they are completely happy with the power and wealth they have been able to accumulate over the years.

As far as the media goes, they don't want things to change either because most of the media outlets are owned by liberals, which have become socialists, who believe that we the people have to be controlled.

The Socialist media has provided the propaganda necessary in order for the liberal agenda to take hold in our country. Political Correctness, gun control, division of the people by race, ridiculing Christians, standing behind Muslim immigration from countries where radical terrorists can infiltrate, and these are just to name a few.

Then we have the Liberal Socialist agenda which has infiltrated our schools in order to brainwash our children which the media and Liberals, along with RINO Republicans, have done nothing to stop. To do nothing is the same thing as to agree with this agenda in my opinion.

I believe that these are just some of the reasons why the left, as well as the right, along with the media, are afraid of Trump and Cruz, neither one of them belong to the good old boy system which makes all three entities feel very un-easy.

Think about it, all three entities are basically stating that Trump and Cruz are radicals. Well, maybe what we need is someone who is a radical pro American president rather than a radical anti-American president. That's what it may take to put a stop to the socialist agenda of our current so called president. A man who would possibly bring our enemy into our gates and who has promoted the things I have listed above, and Hillary is no better.

Being neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and being a Constitutional Conservative, I have no crystal ball. I do not know if Trump or Cruz would make a great president or not, but I do know that we as a country cannot stay on the same course this ship has been sailing for these past many years. This is a ship with many holes in it that has only been patched and not repaired correctly, and if we don't take care of these repairs permanently, this ship is going to sink with all hands on board, and there will be no life boats available.

The only life boat we as a people have right now is the constitution, the law of the land, and if something isn't done, and done soon, they will figure out how to get around that also. The Socialists/Communists are doing their best every day to get rid of our Constitution, and if you open your eyes you will see that this is true.

We Need Obama Prominently Featured In American History Books

In an article on Breitbart.com, titled "Matthews: Angry White Guys Want To Erase Obama From the History Books" on December 22nd, Pam Key reported:

Monday night on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews warned there are some wanting to “erase” President Barack Obama from the history books.

Matthews said, “My theory Molly [Ball], and I’m not a person of color but I have a particular theory about this charge. I think the really angry guy out there, mostly guy, white guy, thinks if he can erase him from that picture of what we get as kids from the presidents, begins with George Washington through Lincoln and Roosevelt, and there is a president who is black, they want to make sure he is not there. Somehow that book has an asterisk. Pete rose didn’t really get in the hall of fame. Somehow he’s not there they keep picking at it. because they do. All the polls, 43% of Republicans say he’s a Muslim. Where do they get that from?”

The Atlantic’s Molly Ball said, “This is the sense which Donald Trump is pandering to a market need. There’s a number of people — I think the president’s analysis that this is a time of rapid social change, that he is a representative of and there are a lot of people who feel dislocated by that, who feel uncomfortable with that and it’s not only about this president, it’s about a lot of things happening in this country. It’s about these economic woes. Interestingly does not associate himself with. He doesn’t see himself as part of this scenario. He doesn’t think the troubles the country is going through have anything to do with him. He is talking like a sociology professor.”

For me, this is the sort of thing that confirms why MSNBC is failing miserably. It assaults one's sense of right and wrong, of what is truly racist and what is not. While the term racist is batted about these days way too easily, Chris Matthews is truly a racist because he makes excuses for America's first Black President.

Yes, Matthews is a true racist because he makes excuses for Obama lack of ability to lead by attacking those who demand leadership from President Obama.

Why? Because Obama is black. I truly believe MSNBC's talking head Chris Matthews makes excuses for Obama in a way that he would never do if Obama were indeed white -- and certainly not if he were a Republican. And yes, that is the proof of Matthews being the racist.

He and others at MSNBC conduct themselves more as racists than I or any other "white guy" who I know. While I have called President Obama's policies dangerous and spiteful. I remember saying the very same thing about Jimmy Carter's policies some 40 years ago.

I see Obama and Carter as kindred spirits because both have demonstrated a deep seated hatred for America. Yes, both wanted to change America at her foundation. In Obama's case, he wants to change this from the largest Christian nation on earth to a Muslim state through indoctrination and denial of the truth about Islam.

Obama refuses to admit that Islam is a shrinking religion, especially since the Koran's doctrine of hate and murder has been revealed to the world. As what takes place when television and the news shows the world Islamic insanity, the demands of a demented cult, are showing people what Islam is really about -- and more are leaving Islam than joining it.

In Carter's case, he wanted to institute changes that would push our nation closer to Socialism. Like Obama, he too tried stripping our military and using it as place to test social changes like women in combat. Yes, it was tried before and failed.

American Socialists like Carter, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and the like, are living to see a world embracing Capitalism and its power to empower instead of enslave.

Before I move on to the main point of this blog post, I need to ask how can I be a racist if I dislike both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama the same? I wasn't unhappy with Jimmy Carter because he was from Georgia, and I certainly don't give a damn that Obama is black. So since one is white and the other is black, one from Georgia and the other from Chicago, how can I be a racist if its both of their policies that I haven't liked?

But don't try to convince Matthews that one can be unhappy with a president over his policies and be blind to where he is from or what the color of their skin is. Logic such as that evades Chris Matthews who sees all Whites as born Racists.

I assert that Chris Matthews is the real racist here because he cannot let go of the fact that our President is half-Black. And no. that is not a real surprise considering the Democrat Party's legacy of racism in America starting before the Civil War. 

While Matthews is enamored with Obama, he does not give the same respect to Black Conservatives and routinely flings racist slurs at them. But that is something that he will deny, yet it's true. He routinely says we Conservatives are thin skinned, but who likes being called something they are not? Does he? 

Now as for his assertion that the "really angry guy out there, mostly guy, white guy, thinks if he can erase him from that picture of what we get as kids from the presidents, begins with George Washington through Lincoln and Roosevelt, and there is a president who is black, they want to make sure he is not there."

You see, I suppose Matthews is talking about me when he says "the really angry guy out there, mostly guy, white guy, thinks if he can erase him from that picture of what we get as kids". But boy is he wrong! 

Sure, like others, I'm angry that I don't have representation. And no my anger at what's going on these days doesn't stop there.

My anger has to do with the majority being neglected while only minority views are respected. My anger is at those who give traitorous activity a pass. And yes, traitors like Hillary Clinton should be in prison for her breeches of national security.

Yes, my anger has to do with the double standard where the politically favored such as Democrats can break the law and go free -- all while Republicans and Christians are made to pay dearly for things like failing to bake a cake or associating with the Tea Party. My anger has to do with a government with such power that it can target innocent law abiding citizens such as the Conservatives that were targeted in the IRS scandal. 

My anger has to do with those who funneled thousands of guns illegally to Mexico at the cost of thousands of innocent lives, by have not been made to pay for what they've done. My anger is at those who do nothing about stopping the black market sales of illegal guns to criminals, yet they want to disarm Americans with more gun laws that criminals by definition will not observe.

My anger is at those who want to change everything good about America because it doesn't fit in their concept of Liberal Utopia -- no matter how much bad it does to this great nation.

Yes, I'm an angry American. And since there are Black Americans who are as angry as I am, what does skin color have to do with anything when it comes to recognizing tyranny? Any color of American can recognize it, especially these days with over-regulation and a Federal government out of control and in violation of the Constitution. 

Whether people want to admit it or not, it is a fact that our Constitution was designed to restrain our Federal government and stop it from becoming an all-powerful Central Government. Our founders fear Totalitarianism.

They knew that Totalitarianism is centralized control by an autocratic authority. It is the political concept that a citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority. Yes, totalitarianism means slavery! 

In our case, we are a Constitutional Republic. And yes, as such, we are a state where officials are elected as representatives by us. And yes, they must govern according to existing Constitutional Law which limits the government's power over American citizens.

The Constitution was written by men who knew that government needs to be controlled. They understood that an all-powerful government is more of a threat to our personal freedoms, that of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, than all of the foreign armies combined.  

But, am I so angry that I want Obama taken out of American History Books? Am I so disappointed in Obama that I want some sort of "an asterisk" put by his name as Matthews suggested? Not only no, but Hell No!

I Want Barack Hussein Obama In Every American History Book!

Let me be very clear on this. Yes, I 'm an angry American, but I really want ALL of Barack Hussein Obama's actions and lack of actions, his enemies list, his demeaning America, his callous discontent for our legislative process to be in every American History book ever printed from this day forward!

Yes, I want his ineptness and his divisiveness, his cowardice, his treasonous acts, his betrayal of the American people, his exorbitant spending, his Socialist policies, his anti-Capitalism stance, his radical Islamic sympathies, his attempts to become a dictator, yes, I want it all in our history books!   

As a man who studies history, I believe American History needs to be absolutely correct. We need to learn from failures like Obama. We need to learn just how he's made our nation weaker, more divided, fractured, unsafe, and less respected by our enemies and allies both. And don't kid yourself, that is his legacy. It is one that will show a nation down-graded and weakened, demoralized, and degraded on the world stage by Obama himself.

And frankly, history needs to be completely accurate with the biases of people like Chris Matthews taken out of the equation. Can you, any of you who read my blog, just imagine if the history of the Obama years is left to a man like Chris Matthews? Can you imagine the glowing review of what Obama has done to us? 

Can you imagine just how impartial some ultra-Liberal like Matthews would be when chronicling Obama's conduct in office? It's scary to think about what he would leave out and simply not include because it would not be seen as favorable to Obama's legacy.

No, Chris Matthews will never understand it. But frankly, I don't want Obama's conduct to be selectively put in the History Books, I want ALL of what Obama has done while in office in the History Books.

I don't want history re-written by Liberals to spin the truth. I want ALL of what Obama has done to America completely open to the public. I certainly do not want it buried. 

I want the truth of his actions and lack of actions. I want his desire to make excuses for Islamic Terrorism, his race-baiting bigotry, his want to divide our nation, his breaking the law, his by-passing the legislative process, his desire to represent a few while persecuting others, and of course his lies. Yes. I want it ALL in there! 

I want ALL of what Obama has done to America chronicled for future generation to examine and learn from. I want Obama to serve as a lesson of failure and ineptness in office. I want his desire for glory and fame on the world stage to be read over and over again. 

Oh yes, I want the Barack Obama Chapter of American History to serve as a model of what America does not need nor need in a President!

Frankly, because I believe that everything that Obama has done while in office can ultimately serve as a lesson, as a warning, for future generations of Americans as to just how bad it can get when the American people put a president in office who does not love his country. 

Chris Matthews is not only offensive in his racial overtones toward White, Asian, and Hispanic Americans while giving Obama a pass because he's Black. He is wrong and should apologize to us all for his ridicule of the American people.

Fact is American History needs to have the history of Barack Obama's conduct in office featured prominently in our history books. We should not bury what he has done or has attempted to do with his desire to "fundamentally change" America.

No, we need to have him front and center to serve as a warning to all in the future. Obama will be useful so that we can learn what not to allow again -- if we get through this.

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

Tom Correa

Let's Do Onto Others While Keeping Ourselves Armed And Ready

Dear Readers,

This is my first post of 2016. This post answers a question put to me by quite a few of you, "Should I arm myself to protect my family and myself, even if it means breaking the law?"

Before going to my answer, allow me to pass on some advice from our 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, who was a rancher, a cowboy, a statesman, author, explorer, soldier, naturalist, and a true reformer. Yes, one of my heroes.

In a speech in San Francisco, California, on May 13th, 1903, he said: "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." 

Since I have been a around a while, have done a few things, and have, like most of you, learned a few things over the years, I agree 100% with Theodore Roosevelt. Yes, we should live the Golden Rule while taking responsibility for our own safety is needed.

While Matthew 7:12 tells us "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law ...," common sense tells us we need to look after ourselves in all matters including our own security.

Knowing this, to answer your question, let's break it down into two parts. As for the first part of the question, "Should I arm myself to protect my family and myself"? My answer goes along with what Theodore Roosevelt said in that we should treat others with the Golden Rule in mind -- but take ownership of our own security.

My belief is that if you value your family's safety and security, you must take ownership for your family's safety and security -- and arm yourself. 

Because I believe that all of our lives matter, and that we need the ability to protect ourselves, our guns matter. We can arm ourselves legally because of our Right to Bear Arms. But because there are those wanting to take our rights away, take our right and ability to defend ourselves away from us, I believe that our vote matters more than ever.

Because of this, I believe to protect our families and ourselves, we must: 1) Arm ourselves, 2) Travel with others who are armed, 3) Vote for Gun Friendly representatives, 4) Be ready to use deadly force, and 5) Encourage others to do the same.

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia's or the national average.
In fact, across the nation, there has been an 89% drop in burglaries in places with mandatory gun laws. So yes, arm yourself and travel with others who are armed, because there is strength in numbers. Get training and be ready to use deadly force if need be. Register to vote and then vote for representatives who support your right to defend yourself and your family. And also, it is very important to spread the word to encourage others to do the same on all 5 points,

Our government will only improve when it enforces present gun laws, improves border security, and restrains criminals, both foreign and domestic, from roaming free. After all, we don't need new gun laws, or other new laws. We need to have the laws that we already have enforced.

200,000 times a year, that is the approximate number of times women use a gun to defend against sexual abuse.

We have to depend on ourselves to provide us security, and our ability to own guns as instruments to defend ourselves is an important right to ensure that. We have to vote in people who understand and respect our ability to fend for ourselves. Only getting off our backsides and buying guns and voting will make things better.

A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. Yes, more guns equals less crime.

In general, states with strict gun control laws have much higher murder rates than those who don't. And yes, that is the same with nations. In general, nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. 

In fact, the nine European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate 3 times higher than that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate. And yes, for my readers who do not live in the United States, that leads me to answer the same question of "Should I arm myself to protect my family and myself"? 

For my readers who don't live in the United States, my advice is this: 1) Arm yourselves, 2) Travel with others who are armed, 3) Replace your Socialist anti-Gun governments with governments who will allow you to protect your family and yourself with arms, 4) Train and be ready to use deadly force, and 5) Encourage others to do the same.  

Sound familiar? Yes, it is the same advice I give to all. We have the God given right to defend and protect ourselves, and we need to exercise that right as human beings. Don't depend on others to do for you when you need to do it yourself! 

Yes, in other countries it's difficult to own or possess a firearm because governments there have convinced many that "guns are bad" and "people cannot be trusted to provide for their own security." But frankly, that asinine propaganda was designed to keep you under control, as dependent on government protection while being at the mercy of the armed criminal. 

Yes, along with that sort of "we'll take care of you" propaganda, politicians all over the world have used criminal and terrorist attacks, all tragedies in themselves, to get anti-gun bans instituted. All that this has accomplish is to strip away your ability to protect yourselves while outlaws remained armed. 

This is a situation that many governments have created. It is one where government officials live with armed security details, police are armed, criminals are armed, all while citizens remain unarmed and easy prey.

In the decade following the Great Britain's Labor party's election and the banning of handguns in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77% to 1.2 million in 2007. That means that they recorded more than 2 attacks every minute.
And yes, that was after they banned their people from having the ability to defend themselves with firearms. And sadly, here in the United States, we have politicians who want to create the same here. Politicians want to keep their armed security details, allow the police to be armed, but not attend to the real problem of armed criminals -- all while trying to disarm American citizens.

If I were living in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, or the Netherlands, I would find a way to arm myself to protect my family and myself -- even if that meant obtaining guns and ammunition illegally.

I'd do that just the same as I would if I were living in anti-gun cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and New York where criminals and illegals aliens have guns but citizens have a hard time obtaining such protection legally.

Now, as for the second part of the question, "even if it means breaking the law?"

Do I advise breaking the law? No of course not. I've always believed in working within the law. But on the other hand, would I risk going to jail to protect my family? Yes, absolutely, because I love my family and would do whatever I need to do to keep them safe.

Would I rather be tried by a jury of my peers rather than place my family's security in the hands of the police or some other government agency who may be too overworked to attend to my family's moment of need? Yes, because I couldn't live with myself knowing that I didn't do something when the police were not available at the moment.

Would I use deadly force to save members of my family from rape or murder? Yes. I have been trained to do so and will. Would I use deadly force if my life or the life of another is in mortal danger? Yes, no doubt about it. 

Do I want those who would attack my family or me to know that I have the ability to use deadly force, and that I'm willing to use deadly force? Absolutely yes. I firmly believe that bad guys respect force and avoid contact with armed resistance.

Fact is, of the felons in prison who were polled, 3 out of 4 say they won't mess with armed citizens. They knew their victims were unarmed.

Like it or not, human nature like water flows with the path of least resistance. Criminals do not look at someone armed as a target of opportunity because they themselves may get killed. Criminals see un-armed citizens as targets of opportunity. People attack those who cannot fight back. 

We need to vote for Gun Friendly representatives if we value our safety and security. We need to vote for representatives who are for our right to Self Protection if we are to have laws that are favorable to us taking ownership of our own security needs.

We need to acknowledge that states with Right-to-Carry laws have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country: total violent crime by 31 percent, murder, 39 percent; robbery, 55 percent; and aggravated assault, 19 percent. 

We need to understand that more than 80,000 Americans a year used guns in an effort to protect themselves or their property against crime, and that more than 2 million crimes are prevented each year by the presence of privately-owned firearms.

Ownership of our security needs means taking responsibility for our own safety is a big deal. It starts with our having the belief that there are good and bad folks out there, and living in the reality of today, and that we should be prepared to deal with both. 

Yes, let's live the Golden Rule as stated in Matthew 7:12 and do to others what you would have them do to you. Or as Theodore Roosevelt put it, "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."

We should welcome the good, and deter the bad. And frankly, if the bad are not deterred? Than make them wish they were!

Friends, that is the Cowboy way. That is the American way, It is a fact of life because we all matter.

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

Tom Correa