Thursday, July 11, 2024

The True Story of Clay Allison and Wyatt Earp

Original photograph of the ‘Dodge City Peace Commission’ in June 1883. Front, l-r; Chas. E. Basset, Wyatt S. Earp, Frank McLain, and Neil Brown. Back, l-r; W. H. Harris, Luke Short, W. B. Bat Masterson, and W. F. Petillon. This is the version with Petillon beside Masterson. All rights reserved. FCHS.

Story by Roger Myers, author, copyright, 2002
Ford County Historical Society, Inc., Dodge City, KS.

One of the most written-about events of the Old West is the supposed “showdown” between Wyatt Earp, assistant marshal of Dodge City, and Clay Allison, rancher and self-proclaimed “shootist” from New Mexico. 

The San Francisco Examiner of 1896 and nearly all biographies of Earp have featured it in some fashion. Charlie Siringo talked of the incident in his autobiography, Riata and Spurs. A somewhat different version appeared in Robert K. DeArment’s Bat Masterson: The Man and the Legend.

The issue of law enforcement was at the forefront of local matters in the summer of 1878. The Ford County Globe ran several items regarding the failure of the police to “suppress” thieves, confidence men, and robbers. The Globe also seemed to question whether this criminal element was under the protection of the police force. 

Frustration with the lack of enforcement of the laws against the tinhorn gamblers and their like had been apparent since September 1876, several months after Wyatt Earp came on the scene. 

The Hays Sentinel of September 20, 1876, carried the following: 

“The citizens of Dodge have organized a vigilance committee, and last week the committee addressed the following pointed note to every gambler in the city; ‘Sir: You are hereby notified to leave this city before 6 o’clock, a. m. of Sept. 17th, 1876, and not return here.”

At the same time, the police were “buffaloing” herders with near impunity. 

An item in the August 6, 1878, issue of the Globe berates an unnamed officer for beating a Mexican prisoner unmercifully: 

“The policeman who pounded the Mexican over the head with a six-shooter last Thursday [August 1] night, did not display either much manhood or bravery. When we consider the fact that the poor ‘greaser’ was sitting on a bench almost helpless from the effects of a previous beating, we don’t think that even a Dodge City policeman who is nearly the greatest man in the world, has any right to walk deliberately up to him without any provocations, and knock out one or two of his eyes.” 

According to the Dodge City Police Court Docket, the arrested man was Guadelupe Flores for drunk and disorderly. Flores pleaded guilty to this charge. However, the police court docket contains this note: 

“But upon examination of the circumstances connected with the case the court finds that he is not guilty as charged and that he be discharged….” 

There can be little doubt that the court felt Mr. Flores had suffered enough at the hands of the Dodge City Police.

A meeting of the populace was called to discuss the inaction of the officers concerning the criminal element infesting Dodge. Even the allied Dodge City Times newspaper was wondering about the advisability of forming a Grand Jury to contend with the problem. Such was the dissatisfaction of the people during that Summer of 1878.

Concurrently, the cattlemen of Texas were indignant about the perceived mistreatment of their men and were not about to stand for it. In a letter dated at Lewistown, Montana, September 30, 1934, cowboy Pink Simms wrote: 

“A drunken cowboy had been shot to death while shooting a pistol in the air in the streets of Dodge. He worked for, or at least, was a friend of, Clay Allison. Others had been robbed, shot, and beaten over the head with revolvers and the cowmen were indignant about it. It was stated that the marshals were all pimps, gamblers and saloonkeepers. They had the cowboys disarmed, and with their teeth pulled they were harmless. If they got too bad or went and got a gun, they were cut down with shotguns. Allison…[was] going to protest over the treatment of [his] men and of course the salty old Clay was willing to back his arguments with gunsmoke.” 

The charged atmosphere around Dodge made an explosion a very real possibility.

Robert Andrew Clay Allison was already a western legend when he came to Dodge in 1878, while Wyatt Earp would not become famous for several years. 

The Dodge City newspapers noted Allison’s comings and goings and The Kinsley Graphic of December 14, 1878, had this to say when Clay stopped there: 

“Clay Allison, well known on the frontier and western Kansas, but better known in western Texas, for daring deeds and the number of affrays with knife and navy he engaged in, has been to town for several days this week. His appearance is striking. Tall, straight as an arrow, dark-complexioned, carries himself with ease and grace, gentlemanly and courteous in manner, never betraying by word or action the history of his eventful life.”

Allison's “notches” included Chunk Colbert, regionally infamous man-killer; Francisco Griego, another locally noted gunfighter; and Las Animas officer Charles Fabre. Numerous are the stories of his exploits, some fact, some fiction. 

All stories, factual or otherwise, led to Clay Allison being one of the most feared men of the West when he arrived in Dodge City, in September of 1878.

Front Street, Dodge City, 1874, with (from left) Rath and Wright’s General Outfitting Store, Beeson and Harris’ Long Branch saloon, and Hoover’s cigar and liquor Store. All rights reserved, FCHS.

The first known written record of the Allison/Earp clash is an interview with Wyatt Earp published in The San Francisco Examiner on August 16, 1896. The pertinent parts of the article are these:

Per Wyatt Earp: “And so Clay Allison came to town, and for a whole day behaved like a veritable chesterfield [perfect gentleman]. But the next morning one of my policemen woke me up to tell me that the bad man from Colorado was loaded up with a pair of six-shooters and a mouth full of threats. 

Straightway I put my guns on and went down the street with Bat Masterson. Now, Bat had a shotgun in the District Attorney’s office, which was behind a drugstore just opposite Wright’s store. 

He thought the weapon might come in handy in case of trouble, so he skipped across the street to get it. But not caring to be seen with such a weapon before there was any occasion for it, he stayed over there, talking to some people outside the drugstore, while I went into Webster’s Saloon looking for Allison. 

I saw at a glance that my man wasn’t there, and had just reached the sidewalk to turn into the Long Branch, next door, when I met him face to face. We greeted each other with caution …. and as we spoke backed carelessly up against the wall, I on the right. 

There we stood, measuring each other with sideways glances. An onlooker across the street might have thought we were old friends.

‘So,’ said Allison truculently, ‘you’re the man that killed my friend Hoyt.’

‘Yes, I guess I’m the man you’re looking for,’ said I.

His right hand was stealing round to his pistol pocket, but I made no move. Only I watched him narrowly. With my own right hand I had a firm grip on my six-shooter, and with my left I was ready to grab Allison’s gun the moment he jerked it out. He studied the situation in all its bearings for the space of a second or two. I saw the change in his face.

‘I guess I’ll go round the corner,’ he said abruptly.

‘I guess you’d better,’ I replied.

And he went.

In the meantime ten or a dozen of the worst Texans in town were laying low in Bob Wright’s Store, with their Winchesters, ready to cover Allison’s retreat out of town, or help him in the killing, if necessary. From where he had stationed himself Bat Masterson could see them, but I did not know they were there. After the encounter with Allison I moved up the street and would have passed Bob Wright’s door had not Bat, from across the street signaled to me to keep out of range. A moment later Allison, who had mounted his horse, rode out in front of Webster’s and called to me.

‘Come over here, Wyatt,’ he said, ‘I want to talk to you.’

‘I can hear you all right here,’ I replied. ‘I think you came here to fight with me, and if you did you can have it right now.’

Several friends of mine wanted me to take a shotgun, but I thought I could kill him all right with a six-shooter. At that moment Bob Wright came running down the street to urge Allison to go out of town. He had experienced a sudden change of heart because Bat had crossed over to him with these portentous words: ‘If this fight comes up, Wright, you’re the first man I’m going to kill.’ Allison listened to the legislator’s entreaties with a scowl.

‘Well I don’t like you any too well,’ he said, ‘there were a lot of your friends to be here this morning to help me out, but I don’t see them round now.’

‘Earp,’ he continued, turning to me and raising his voice. ‘I believe you’re a pretty good man from what I’ve seen of you. Do you know that these coyotes sent for me to make a fight with you and kill you? Well, I’m going to ride out of town, and I wish you good luck." 

[end interview with Wyatt Earp published in The San Francisco Examiner on August 16, 1896].

Long Branch saloon interior, Front Street, Dodge City, circa 1878.

Charles A. Siringo’s very different account in his 1927 book Riada and Spurs, is often dismissed by historians due to lack of corroborating evidence (perhaps too, because his version makes Wyatt Earp look bad). 

As we will see, there actually is contemporary evidence backing Siringo’s presence in Dodge at the proper time. Siringo wrote:

“About the first of October eight hundred fat steers were cut out of my four herds and started for Dodge City, Kansas…. I secured permission [from owner David T. Beals] to … accompany them to Chicago….

“A 25-mile ride brought us to the toughest town on earth, Dodge City. It was now daylight, and the first man on the main street was Cape Willingham, who at this writing is a prosperous cattle broker in El Paso, Texas. Cape gave us our first news of the great Indian outbreak. [Dull Knife’s raid through Kansas.] He told of the many murders committed by the reds south of Dodge City the day previous – one man was killed at Mead City, and two others near the Crooked Creek store. 

“Riding up the main street Ferris and I saw twenty-five mounted cowboys, holding rifles in their hands, and facing one of the half-dozen saloons, adjoining each other, on that side of the street [Front Street]. In passing this armed crowd one of them recognized me. Calling me by name he said: ‘Fall in line quick, h–l is going to pop in a few minutes.’

“We jerked our Winchester rifles from the scabbards and fell in line, like most any other fool cowboys would have done. In a moment Clay Allison, the man-killer, came out of one of the saloons holding a pistol in his hand. With him was Mr. McNulty, owner of the large Panhandle “Turkey-track” cattle outfit. 

Clay was hunting for some of the town policemen, or the city marshal, so as to wipe them off the face of the earth. His twenty-five cowboy friends had promised to help him clean up Dodge City.

“After all the saloons had been searched, Mr. McNulty succeeded in getting Clay to bed at the Bob Wright Hotel. Then we all dispersed. Soon after, the city law officers began to crawl out of their hiding places, and appear on the street.”

Robert K. DeArment, from this account, deduced in his biography Bat Masterson: The Man and the Legend, that the incident must have happened on September 17 or 18, 1878. 

Used as evidence is Siringo’s placing the affair at the time of the Dull Knife raid through Kansas, specifically Meade. The papers of the day make it plain that the killings at Meade occurred on September 16, 1878. Dodge City heard of the raid on Meade on September 17, 1878.

With more than 40 years separating the incident and the retelling, Siringo’s estimation of the first part of October is only a close approximation. 

An item in the October 8, 1878, issue of the Globe reinforces the year and indicates that in all probability the event happened in mid-September. It says D. T. Beals shipped 25 carloads of cattle to Chicago between October 1 and October 7, 1878. 

The same issue of the Globe shows Dick McNulty, the hero of Siringo’s story, to have shipped 18 carloads of cattle from Dodge City to Kansas City the same week, putting him in Dodge at about the same time.

Now consider the following news item from the Dodge City Times of September 21, 1878: 

“There was a scrimmage Thursday night, [September 19] between some of the officers and the party that were going on the Indian hunt. Several shots were fired. One man carries a bandaged head and a soldier was severely wounded in the leg. A disgraceful row occurred in the afternoon, in which it is said the officers failed to appear [emphasis added]. These occurrences are the subjects of much comment on the conduct of the officers.”

Is this reference to a “disgraceful row” on September 19, the extent of the reporting of Clay Allison’s “hunt for trouble?” That “the officers failed to appear” is consistent with the account of not only Siringo but also another participant, Chalk Beeson.

I recently re-discovered an interview with Beeson, datelined Topeka, January 17, [1903] (Special). It seems to confirm the Siringo account. The interview is found in a Beeson family scrapbook on file at the Boot Hill Museum in Dodge City, Kansas. The originating publication is not identified.

Chalkley McArtor Beeson was co-owner of the Long Branch saloon in Dodge, city councilman, two-time sheriff of Ford County, and four-time state legislator representing Ford County in Topeka. He was described by one newspaper as “a quiet, almost noiseless man of medium size.” His hometown newspaper once described Beeson as the “man of the hour.” 

Indeed, the City of Dodge named a street after him many years ago. Here are the pertinent portions of that interview.

“Topeka, Jan. 17. (Special.) … Chalk Beeson is dean of the outfit. He migrated to the Western plains with the buffalo…. ‘The noted Clay Allison with his gang of untamed cowboys came to Dodge one day to start some trouble,’ continued Beeson. ‘They soon found it. Erp [sic] was marshal [assistant marshal] at the time. He notified the boys to be on guard. I saw that a clash was coming.’

‘Dick McNulty and myself held a brief conference. Something had to be done, and done quickly to prevent a wholesale killing. We took our lives in our hands and went to Allison and his gang and told them, as friends, that they had better not start anything. 

We argued with them while the lines were forming for a general battle. They finally yielded and handed us their guns, which we kept until they got ready to leave town. After giving up their guns they were in no danger. No one there would be so mean as to jump on to them when they were unarmed. That was against the rules of civilized warfare as construed in Dodge.'”

The only mention by Beeson of Wyatt Earp is that he [Earp]“notified the boys to be on guard.” 

Notice also, that Dick McNulty is responsible for disarming Allison – Siringo said the same thing.

Much weight must be given to the account of Chalk Beeson. Mr. Beeson’s integrity has, to my knowledge, never been seriously questioned. He was in Dodge on September 19, 1878.

These three participants – Earp, Siringo, and Beeson – all tell of Clay Allison coming to Dodge City hunting trouble. The reason for Allison’s trip could very well be the one put forth by Texan Pink Simms; the mistreatment of the Cowboys in general and the shooting of George Hoy.

From these three accounts, perhaps a likely scenario can be put together. While the Texan Siringo wrote of the cowardice of the officers, Dodge City partisan Beeson takes a different stance. A case can be made for the following reconstruction of events.

It would seem that Charles Siringo hit Dodge on September 19, 1878, where he heard the reports of Indian depredations south of Dodge from Cape Willingham. There, he met an indignant Clay Allison, backed by his “untamed cowboys”. 

Allison was intent upon getting to the bottom of the George Hoy killing while forcing the Dodge City police to ease up on his friends. Likely the mob went from saloon to saloon, maintaining their courage with whisky at each stop. As the anger increased, so did the fury of the protestations with all its accompanying shooting and shouting until it became a “disgraceful row” by early afternoon.

Knowing that 25 rowdy cowboys backed Allison, Wyatt Earp and policeman Jim Masterson (Bat’s brother) began to assemble their forces. 

In the meantime, Dick McNulty and Chalk Beeson intervened on behalf of the town, convincing Allison and his “gang of untamed cowboys” to give up their guns. The gang then dispersed. 

Two participants verify this action on the part of McNulty.

While the gang was being talked out of their guns, the officers still had not confronted Allison and his friends. This inaction would have seemed like cowardice to Clay Allison and his gang, and dereliction of duty to the townspeople. Therefore, we have The Globe of the 21st adding, “It is said the officers failed to appear. These occurrences are the subjects of much comment on the conduct of the officers.”

There seems to be no evidence that any kind of showdown occurred between Wyatt Earp and Clay Allison per The San Francisco Examiner interview. Neither Beeson nor Siringo mention anything about it. In addition, there is evidence that Robert Wright and Bat Masterson could not be involved. They were both out of town during the Dull Knife raid.

Evidence for a “conversation” between Allison and Earp is sparse. A likely scenario for this meeting is the one put forth by Pink Simms: 

“I also heard that later Allison alone found Wyatt Earp seated in the lookout’s chair at a faro game and he told him in no uncertain terms what he thought of the way some of the cowboys were being treated.”

We have in this a highly believable proposition. Allison had no fear of being gunned down. As Beeson so eloquently put it, “no one there would be so mean as to jump on to them when they were unarmed. That was against the rules of civilized warfare as construed in Dodge."

Mr. Beeson’s story seems to enforce the one told by Charles Siringo. It is clear that for whatever reason, the story of Wyatt Earp backed by Bat Masterson is not what quelled the disturbance. 

That honor must go to Dick McNulty and Chalk Beeson.

Roger Myers, author, copyright, 2002
Ford County Historical Society, Inc., Dodge City, Kansas 

Sunday, July 7, 2024

White Americans Are Not Enlisting To Defend America

A few of my readers wanted to know how I feel about "white Americans not enlisting" in our military? White enlistment being down is something that's been going on for a few years, but it has really hit home lately because of its consequences. 

Frankly, it’s not really a surprise that this is happening. Let's keep in mind that we've all seen our Society bash white Americans over the heads for years.  White Americans have been relentlessly assaulted and accused of being responsible for all of the ills of the World. Today, young white men have become less willing to defend America or risk their lives for a Society that discriminates against them and blames them for all the evils of history – evils which they themselves had nothing to do with.

In January 2024, The Telegraph stated:

It was reported in this newspaper recently how the US Army has seen a dramatic fall in the number of white recruits, as the website found that the Army fell 10,000 short of its 65,000 enlistment target.

Underpinning this drop was a dramatic decrease in white recruits from 44,042 in 2018, to just 25,070 in 2023, leading to the proportion of white recruits falling from 56.4 percent of all recruits in 2018, to just 44 percent. According to the US Census from 2022, around 59 percent of all US citizens were from white backgrounds. The US military is 17 percent women, so the recruiting crisis is primarily one among white men.

Clearly, something inside the US Army’s recruitment system is failing, both in terms of targets being drastically missed and a failure to recruit effectively among the nation’s largest ethnic group. 

In February 2023, in an article titled "What the Data Says About the Military's Recruiting Crisis" written by Kevin Wallsten, he stated:

The U.S. military is facing an “unprecedented” recruitment crisis, with most branches of the armed forces failing to meet their enlistment goals in 2022. This recruitment crisis is partly a function of the fact that so few young people are now able to serve due to obesity, educational deficiencies, mental health problems, or criminal records. In fact, “only 23% [of American youth] are physically, mentally, and morally qualified to serve without receiving some type of waiver.”

The recruitment crisis is not entirely a consequence of these metastasizing physical, mental, and moral problems, however. It is also a direct result young people’s growing unwillingness to serve. The most recent estimates “show that only 9% [of America’s youth] are even interested in military service.”

Why are so few young people willing to serve in the military? According to some conservatives, the Pentagon’s increasingly “woke” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies are alienating the groups most inclined to serve in the armed forces (namely, Conservative, Southern, and rural Whites).

Consider, for example, Jimmy Byrn’s recent article in the Wall Street Journal. Byrn writes, the Pentagon’s “woke” policies “have amounted to a form of antirecruitment for prospective enlistees. The Pentagon is appealing to activists at the expense of those most likely to serve. The military has historically drawn an outsize proportion of recruits from conservative Southern states.”

Similarly, Thomas Spoehr argues that: “Wokeness in the military…acts as a disincentive for many young Americans in terms of enlistment...Is anyone surprised that potential recruits—many of whom come from rural or poor areas of the country—don’t want to spend their time being lectured about white privilege?”

Further in that article, I found it interesting that it states how while "wokeness" is responsible for the drop in enlisting white Republicans, in general, the political attitudes of young people today show an unwillingness to defend our country. While "wokeness" is keeping white Conservatives from enlisting, what's keeping white Democrats from signing up? 

The answer to that question has to do with how young white Democrats are being raised to hate law enforcement and our military. The hateful attitude of young white Democrats toward America, our way of life, our history, our police, and the military today is extremely obvious. The attitude of hate for America really stinks. 

Patriotism goes hand-in-hand with a good attitude in the military. The attitude of young white Democrats shows that they view America, our culture, and our military with contempt. 

In 2023, Gallup polls found pride in being American had fallen more than 20% among Democrats since 2015. Gallup also found that the views of Democrats and Republicans are inverted in that while only a mere 21% of Democrats say "America is the greatest country," polls show 64% say "other nations are as great or greater." 

In contrast, 62% of Republicans believe that "America is the greatest" with only 24% saying "other nations are as great or greater." The same 2023 poll also found that a third of all Democrats believe they are "less patriotic" than their parents.

What does all of this mean? 

For white Republicans, those who have been raised very patriotic, raised to love America and respect our military and police, they see our Society as blaming them and subsequently hating them for things that happened long before they were ever born. As for "wokeness" in America's military, they see "wokeness" as something that they don't want to deal with. Because of that, the military's desire to be political and embrace the Left's ideas of "wokeness" stops them from enlisting.  

People need to realize that many of the young people growing up in America today have been through the Public School system and have had to endure its "wokeness blame game" that targets whites. And frankly, young white Republicans see it as something that should be avoided if they can. Sadly, that limits their options in joining our military because most branches are embracing that horrible social experiment.   

For white Democrats, those who have been raised to be less patriotic, have disdain for America and actually hate America's military the same way they hate law enforcement, having to voluntarily "serve" in the military is completely out of the question. To them, as I'm reminded in their hate mail to me, our military is seen as something for others -- but not them. They see themselves as better than those who serve. 

The consequence of both cases is that there's now a growing disinterest in defending America while serving in our military. Of course, an ongoing decline in enlistment might mean the end of the "Volunteer" military service that was ushered in in the late 1970s. It might also mean the return of the Draft. And if that happens, I guarantee you that a lot of people won't be happy.

Tom Correa

Friday, July 5, 2024

Last of Our Civil War Veterans

Taken in November of 1947 at a family reunion in Alabama. 
Seated is Pleasant Riggs Crump, the last living Confederate soldier from the Civil War. 
Standing next to him is his great-great-niece Celia Milam. They shared the same birthday. 
He turned 100 and she turned 15 a few weeks after the photograph was taken.

Story by Terry McGahey 

The last verified Confederate soldier of the Civil War was a man by the name of Pleasant Riggs Crump. He was born on December 23rd, 1847, in Crawford’s Cove, St. Clair County Alabama. Crump enlisted in Petersburg, Virginia as a Private in the 10th Alabama Infantry Regiment in November of 1864. He was assigned to Company A.

Crump saw action at the Battle of Hatcher’s Run as well as the Siege of Petersburg. Crump also witnessed Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrender to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House.

After the war, Crump returned to Alabama and later located himself in Lincoln, within Talladega County. At age 22, he married Mary Hall, a local girl, and they had five children together. Marry died on December 31st, 1901. Crump later re-married Ella Wallis in 1905. Sadly Ella also passed away in July of 1942. From that point, Crump lived with a grandson's family.

The United Confederate Veterans awarded Crump the honorary title of Colonel of the organization in 1950. Crump passed away shortly after his 104th birthday on December 31st, 1951. Pleasant Crump is buried in Hall Cemetary in Lincoln.

The last verified Union soldier to pass away was a man by the name of Albert Henry Woolson. He was born on February 11th, 1850, in Antwerp, New York. Not only was he the last surviving Union soldier from the Civil War, he was the last of either side of the Civil War to pass away.

His father, Willard Woolson died from injuries he received at the battle of Shilo. Albert then enlisted as a drummer boy at age 14 into Company C, 1st Minnesota Heavy Artillery Regiment on October 10th, 1864, but his company never saw action. He was discharged on September 7th, 1865.

During his final days, he lived in Duluth, Minnesota, at 215 East Fifth Street. Woolson passed away at St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth on August 2nd, 1956. Others whom I won’t mention claimed to be the last Civil War Veterans, but they were not verified or were completely debunked. Woolson was buried with full military honors at Park Hill Cemetary. 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "The American people have lost the last link with the Union Army… His passing brings sorrow to the hearts of all of us who cherished the memory of the brave men on both sides of the war between the states."

Sometimes it's hard to believe that the Civil War was truly not that long ago within the annals of history. It really comes home to me because I was alive before both of these two men passed away. I was five years old when Woolson passed, so it sure made me think.

About the Author

Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Old West Historian

Terry has been a working cowboy, a writer, and an Old West historian. He is best known for his fight against the City of Tombstone and its historic City Ordinance Number 9.

He was instrumental in getting the famous Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 repealed while at the same time forcing the City of Tombstone to fall in line and comply with the laws of the State of Arizona.

If you care to read how he fought Tombstone's City Hall and won, check out:

Tuesday, July 2, 2024

Biden's A Puppet And Those Pulling His Strings Are Breaking The Law

Terry McGahey has been a working cowboy, a writer, and an Old West historian. The man who I'm extremely proud to call my friend is best known for his relentless fight against the City of Tombstone and its historic City Ordinance Number 9. In the end, Terry won and the 1881 City Ordinance banning the carrying of guns in the city of Tombstone, Arizona, was shot down. It's because of Terry that Tombstone, Arizona, was forced to conform to Arizona State laws regarding the carrying of firearms. 

Well, since the Presidential Debate, I've been thinking about how Terry was right. Knowing that Joe Biden is incapacitated, we really need to know who's running our government. And yes, I've been thinking a lot about what Terry wrote in his opinion editorial for this blog when he asked the important question, Who Is Actually Running Our Country?

In Terry's article, he stated, "As we have all heard at one time or another our government is now being run by what’s called the deep state. Many of us, as well as myself, believe the deep state as it is referred to, comes down to the elitist Democrats and some Republican politicians who claim to be Republican but who in reality, are actually shadow-woke Democrats with Mitt Romney leading the pack.

In my opinion, as well as many of us American patriots, Joe Biden is not fit to run this country. All one has to do is watch Biden stumble and bumble through his speeches and or his interviews which at times it seems that this old man doesn’t even seem to know where he is. Personally, I do respect the office of president, but I will never refer to Biden as president because I have absolutely no respect for this destroyer of our nation.

Going back to the so-called "Deep State," I don't know how many folks know who Jeff Dunham is. Jeff Dunham is a comedian who uses many different puppets in his act. And if you notice, one of the puppets he uses is the grumpy old man named Walter. The grumpy old man puppet looks amazingly like Joe Biden. 

Like Jeff Dunham who commands his puppets with his hands and his remarks, I firmly believe the Deep State is Biden's puppeteer.

Who is the Deep State? There are many crooked politicians and other extremely wealthy individuals with the likes of George Soros and many others who belong to this so-called Deep State. It's my belief that the up-close individuals to Biden, who are actually running the office of President are the Clintons, Obamas, Schumer, Polisi, and some of the wealthiest people in the world. ...

Most of us, as even the Democrat Party realize, that Biden most likely would not be able to finish his term in office if elected. And frankly speaking, his re-election bid against Trump is a total joke. With the Democrat fascists also realizing this fact we are now hearing California Governor Gavin Newsom's name being thrown around as a possible replacement Democrat candidate for president.

As most of us know, California cities are in a gruesome state of decline. So that’s why I refer to Gavin Newsom as "Gruesome Newsome." This far-left Democrat Governor of California has run out many businesses as well as many long-time California residents to places like Texas, Arizona, and other states. Newsome loves regulations forcing people to bend to his will.

Just look at the gasoline automobile ban he is trying to enforce, forcing you to drive electric vehicles, not to speak of his regulation policies that are driving out businesses and people causing California to lose more and more revenue.

Places like Los Angeles and San Francisco and many other cities in California look like Third World countries in places. Anyone who votes for Gruesome Newsome is still voting for the so-called Deep State. Different person but the same puppet." 

Yes, Terry McGahey was right. Joe Biden is a puppet and we need to find out who is running our country! 

No one knows who's been running our government. And even worse, no one knows the names of those in the Deep State who have been pulling Joe Biden's strings or putting words in his mouth. We've all seen that he can't speak without a Teleprompter. And recently, he even needed a Teleprompter at a "private meeting" so that he would be able to speak to his donors.

A few days ago, cable television talk show host and radio talk show host Ben Ferguson said "Biden is clearly incapacitated and is not running this country." Many others are coming out to say the same thing including Tech investor David Sacks who said, "Joe Biden was always a puppet" for the Democratic Party.

In the wake of Thursday's presidential debate, David Sacks came out to say what others have been saying for a while now, the Democratic Party is propping up President Biden as a "puppet" to advance the party's interests.

David Sacks said Biden's performance at the Presidential Debate exposed to all that the Democratic Party has been supporting Biden as a "figurehead" to deflect attention from party members' goals of using political clout to funnel power and money to allies. 

He said, "The Democratic Party is a collection of interests who want to remain in power. The Democratic Party is the party of government. Its goal is to allocate money and power from the government to the collection of interests who back the Democratic Party. In other words, it's basically a collection of interests who want to loot the Republic.

"Well, obviously no one's going to vote for that. So they have to make it about something else. They choose a figurehead, they talk about how this is about saving democracy. They basically invent, hoax after hoax, lie after lie to basically maintain their power," he continued.

"And I think what's happened is, the mask has come off, the whole shell game has been revealed. It's obvious that Biden was always a puppet for these interests who were hiding behind him. And now, it's all being exposed," Sacks said.

David Sacks says President Biden is a "puppet" and "figurehead" for the Democratic Party. 

Sacks publicly endorsed Trump and said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, "I give to many, but endorse few. But today I am giving my endorsement to our 45th President, Donald J. Trump, to be our 47th President. My reasons rest on four main issues that I think are vital to American prosperity, security, and stability – issues where the Biden administration has veered badly off course and where I believe President Trump can lead us back."

Sacks explained that "the voters have experienced four years of President Trump and four years of President Biden. In tech, we call this an A/B test. With respect to economic policy, foreign policy, border policy, and legal fairness, Trump performed better. He is the President who deserves a second term."

While it is great to see people like David Sacks and Ben Ferguson and others get behind Donald Trump so we can stop the Democrats' Dream of an "Authoritarian Nation" and the installation of a Socialist system, we really need to answer Terry McGahey's basic question, "Who is actually running our government?" 

Biden's Incapacitated And Those Making Decisions In The White House Are Breaking The Law

Whoever it is, after seeing Joe Biden's very public, very obvious, state of confusion during the debate, we need to know who are the people pulling the strings on the puppet that we have in the White House right now. 

Here's something else to think about. The people behind the scenes are un-elected and doing things that are criminal. Yes, criminal. It is against the law to impersonate an elected official, especially the President of the United States. And frankly, WE should all want to know, who's been signing Joe Biden's name to such things as Executive Orders? WE should all want to know, who is making decisions since we know Joe isn't?

So what can happen to someone who is proven to be making decisions in the White House, and actually taking on the role of president?

Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 912 provides: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Thus, there are two possible offenses under § 912: (1) pretending to be a federal agent and acting as such; and (2) pretending to be a federal agent and demanding or obtaining certain listed items. 

So what is required to be charged? The first clause of § 912 includes two distinct elements: (1) a false pretense asserting federal authority; and (2) an overt physical act taken in the capacity as the pretended authority.

Since, as we have been reminded over and over again by the Mainstream Media in the Trump trial that "No one is above the law," we need to know who has been breaking the law in the White House and prosecute them.

We need to find out who is behind the curtain. Who is the Deep State that propping up Biden? Who is pulling Joe's strings and making him dance to their tune? We need to determine if someone has faked his signature, given orders to carry out policies, and enacted Executive Orders in the White House while Joe Biden has been incapacitated. 

And yes, I believe that even if we find out that it's the First Lady Jill Biden and his Cabinet and Barack Obama running things from behind the scenes, we need to jail them. 

Tom Correa

Saturday, June 29, 2024

Joe Biden Needs A Convalescent Hospital -- Not The White House

The headlines after Thursday's Presidential Debate were mostly ... 
"Biden Obviously Ill -- No Shock To Republicans -- Democrats Now In Panic Mode" 

Of course, since the Presidential Debate on Thursday, June 27, 2024, was watched by millions of people worldwide, there is no need for me to state the obvious about how bad President Joe Biden looked and spoke. Biden looked bad. He really looked bad. And worse, was Biden's inability to speak clearly or coherently. Actually, I think he looks like he's had a Stroke or two -- maybe a few of what's called "Mini-Strokes."

A couple of years ago, in August of 2022, I was asked by some of my readers if President Joe Biden could be a lot more ill than we were being told. I was also asked if I knew of any time when a President of the United States became incapacitated while in office. 

To answer my readers, I wrote America's Greatest Presidential Cover-Up 1919

Part of what I wrote in that article is below:

Since some of you have written to ask if it is possible that President Joe Biden could be a lot more ill than we are being led to believe, let's talk about America's greatest presidential cover-up and President Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Wilson suffered a couple of severe strokes while in office. And no, instead of turning over control of the presidency to the Vice President, his handlers and his second wife refused to do that. In fact, President Wilson remained in office, even though he was at one point considered completely incapacitated.

How long did he remain in the White House after his strokes? His first stroke was not that long after taking office. His last stroke, the one that put him out of commission, took place in 1919. He was kept in the Oval Office, even though he was incapacitated for over a year. Yes, all the way up until the end of his presidency in 1921. ...

So, while there is disagreement about whose idea it was to withhold that information from the public, some say it was the First Lady, while others say it was [the president's physician] Dr. Grayson and the president's senior political advisors, we do know that both they and the rest of the Wilson Cabinet worked in concert to deceive the American public regarding the extent of the President's actual medical incapacitation.

As for President Wilson, he finished his term in office through the actions of a cabal of actors all united with the intent of deceiving the public. Edith Wilson published her memoirs in 1939, and she called her actions after her husband became completely incapacitated "her stewardship." In her memoir, she stated emphatically that her husband's doctors, senior political advisors, and his entire Cabinet supported the cover-up. She supposedly just went along with the deception.

In 1921, both the President and First Lady left the White House and retired to a comfortable home in Washington. President Woodrow Wilson died there three years later. His second wife Edith died in 1961.

When asked my opinion about this by readers who want to know if this could ever happen again? My answer is simply this, probably. But really, I think it all depends on the amount of cooperation that the culprits get from the News Media and inside the administration. I really believe that that's the only way such a cover-up would be perpetrated today.

That's just how I see it.

Well, sadly, I was right. What millions of people worldwide saw on television on Thursday, June 27, 2024, amounted to what has been kept hidden from the American people. Biden looked like he'd had a Stroke or two -- maybe a few of what's called "Mini-Strokes." And no, I'm not exaggerating, the sad fact that he looked like someone who had recently had a Stroke was extremely obvious to everyone watching. 

After spending 10 days rehearsing what to say in the debate, he struggled to remember what he was told to say. And yes, because he didn't have a Teleprompter with someone telling him what to say, I believe that he was coached and told what to say. He was told how to respond to the questions asked. And as we all saw for ourselves, he struggled to put together his own thoughts on just about every subject that came up. 

He was lost and had a far-away look that really was pathetic to watch. Someone called in "Elder Abuse." Frankly, he looks like he needs a Convalescent Hospital -- not the White House.

Of course, as what happened with President Woodrow Wilson in 1919, there are a lot of people asking "Who has been in charge of the White House all this time? Who is in charge of the White House right now?"

Is history repeating itself? Is First Lady Jill Biden our "un-elected" President? Who are the people in the secret cabal that's performing all of the president's duties? Who is behind lying to the American public about his condition? Who is writing his Teleprompters, and telling him what to say?"  

The debate made it very obvious to everyone that the Biden Administration and the Democrat Controlled-News Media has been lying to the public about Joe Biden's actual physical condition. The guy is a wreck. And yes, we now know that he's being propped up -- both in public and behind the scenes. 

And let's not fool ourselves here, from what we all saw, there's no way that Joe Biden's capable of leading the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. There is no way that he can be making the decisions needed in the White House. There is no way that he should be dealing with our enemies. And since he, or whoever writes his Teleprompter, keeps pushing Americans into World War III, shouldn't he be removed from office immediately?

Can we as a nation afford to have such a sick man, a man with outbursts of anger, a man who can't coherently put together a sentence without being told what to say, in the White House? Democrats talk a lot these days about "Saving Democracy," and about "Threats to our Democracy." 

So why don't they put their money where their mouths are and remove Joe Biden from office to "Save Democracy"? Having an un-elected group of people, a secret cabal, in the White House running the Executive Branch, and having Biden being used as a puppet is a real "threat" to our nation. 

That's how I see it.

Tom Correa 

Thursday, June 20, 2024

James Cummings -- Tar, Feathered, And Shot Dead 1904

In the many news reports about what took place in the murder of a hobo by the name of James Cummings, all mention how he was the victim of a "lynching." So as not to confuse folks, it's important to note that he was not hanged. He was in fact "tar and feathered" in his jail cell before a member of a mob fired a single shot that killed him.

On March 13, 1904, The Morning Echo newspaper in Bakersfield, California, reported:



Given a Coat of Tar and Feathers, and in the Raid the Prisoner was Shot.

Special Dispatch, MOJAVE, CA, March 12.

James Cummings, convicted yesterday of vagrancy, was given sixty days in the county jail. Officer Chitwood locked him in the branch jail at Mojave, intending to take this morning's train at 4 o'clock and transport the prisoner to Bakersfield to serve the sentence. Chitwood and Night Watchman Gillman went to the jail about 4 o'clock this morning and found Cummings dead on the floor of the jail. His clothing was removed from the lower half of the body and the whole body was covered with crude oil and feathers, and a bullet hole through the body.

The jail lock was broken. The coroner's jury is in session. No arrests have been made by officers, but suspects are being vigilantly watched. Nothing definitely is known as yet as to who the lynchers are. Deputy Sheriff Tower and District Attorney Laird are expected here this evening at 10:30. The taking of testimony at the coroner's investigation was continued until tomorrow.

It is quiet here. It is rumored that the motive for the lynching was because of the fact that Cummings was alleged to have committed an infamous crime. The citizens of Mojave are extremely indignant over this event. 

Coroner Mullins was notified yesterday morning that a negro, whose name was not given, was murdered by a mob at Mojave about 11 o'clock Friday night. From the message to the coroner and from the statement of John Underhill, a resident of Mojave, who left that place yestermorning, the facts are ascertained as follows:

The negro, who had been in Mojave but a few days, was arrested for an unmentionable crime against a young hobo, who was also a stranger in the town. The young hobo left Mojave, however, and could not be found at the time set for the negros trial. A simple charge of vagrancy was placed against the negro, and he was sentenced to sixty days in the county jail. The negro was effaced in the small wooden jail at Mojave with the intention of bringing him to this city yesterday morning.

About 11 o'clock Friday night, a party of men battered in the door of the jail, stripped the negro and applied a coat of crude oil and feathers. The intention at first seems to have gone no further than that, but whether by intent or accident the negro was killed. The body of the negro was placed in the jail, and yesterday morning the coroner was notified.

No notice was sent to the sheriff's office, and Undersheriff Baker learned of the lynching by the rumors on the street. He telephoned Justice Reddy of Mojave, who advised that an officer be sent at once to investigate the affair, as it appeared to have been a cold-blooded murder.

The lynching was kept very quiet in Mojave and John Underhill, who left there at 3 o'clock yesterday morning, did not know of the affair until he heard of it in Bakersfield. He knew the circumstances of the negros trial, however, and stated them as given above. Sheriff Kelly, who has been in San Francisco, returned on the 6 o'clock Santa Fe train. He was met by District Attorney J. W. P. Laird and Deputy Sheriff Thrash, and the three proceeded at once to Mojave.

After arriving at Moiave Coroner Mullins telephoned to District Attorney Laird for advice and Mr. Laird instructed him to postpone the investigation until his arrival. Court Reporter Ernest Laird accompanied the coroner. 

It didn't take the Coroner's Jury very long to determine his cause of death. The Coroner's Inquest was held and it was determined that Cummings' death was caused by a single gunshot wound. Of course, even while a Coroner's Jury was being gathered for a Coroner's Inquest, some of the names of the men who were part of the mob started slowly coming to light.

The evidence became immediately sufficient to warrant the holding of James Cowan to answer for the killing. The Coroner Jury's verdict mentioned no one else. However, it was said that evidence secured by Sheriff Kelly and District Attorney Laird caused them to have complaints sworn out against William O'Neal, J. Clancey, and A. Cuddeback. A fifth man was also suspected of being involved, but his name was not known to the officers.

On March 14, 1904, The San Francisco Call reported:


Warrants Are Issued for Arrest of Suspects.

Coroner Investigates the Murder of Prisoner Cummings.

Evidence at Inquest Tends to Show That Unfortunate Negro Was Innocent of Crime Charged.

Special Dispatch to The Call.

MOJAVE, March 13. — A verdict by the Coroner's Jury holding James Cowen responsible for the alleged murder of James Cummings, the negro prisoner who was put to death by a mob; the arrest of C. O'Neil and J. Clancy this evening and the issuance of warrants for two others are the developments today in the Mojave lynching of Friday.

The Coroner's Jury examined witnesses for four hours today. Several witnesses appeared to be very reluctant to testify and one, William Jones, a hostler, acknowledged that he had received warnings not to tell what he knew.

Several witnesses testified that Cowen went to his lodging house, got a rifle, and left, after making a remark, about "having some fun with a nigger."

The autopsy showed that the course of the bullet was downward. Indicating that Cummings had been shot while in a kneeling attitude with his hands raised above his head, the assassin standing over him when he fired. 

The warrants issued tonight charge the accused with the general crime of felony. Cowan is in the Bakersfield jail. Albert Irwin and Fred Fry, railroad employees, testified that a boy, apparently a tramp, informed them Friday that the negro, Cummings, assaulted him with a pistol and committed a serious offense. 

The negro appeared a minute later and was then putting a pistol in his pocket. An officer was called, but the boy disappeared. There is not a scintilla of evidence against the negro, who denied the charge and gave a perfectly straight account of himself and his actions. 

The remains of the murdered man lay all day in the anteroom of the jail. A heavy crowbar used to pry open the jail door, a railroad lantern bearing the stamp of the Southern Pacific Company, and a can of lubricating oil stand by the side of the corpse. The officers believe they have a good case against the suspected lynchers and expect to secure their conviction.

On March 15, 1904, The Los Angeles Herald newspaper reported:


Officers Seeking the Ringleaders of the Mob. 


Relies of Barbarism Are Featured in Burial of the Victim.

(Special to The Herald.) 

MOJAVE March 14.—Authorities here are determined to secure the punishment of at least the ringleaders of the mob that lynched James Cummings, the negro, last Friday night. The latest developments were the arrests today of William Jones and A. Cuddeback, both citizens of this place, which makes a total of five under arrest to date; James Cowan, whom the coroner's jury held responsible for the crime, and C. O'Neil and J. Clancy being already in custody. 

Jones is a hostler at the Southern Pacific roundhouse and admits being downtown the night of the trouble, "just to see what was going on." He made many damaging statements against Cowan at the Coroner's Inquest. On cross-examination, however, refused to make any direct statements, and it was deemed advisable to hold him pending further Investigation. 

Cuddeback was arrested on suspicion and is being held pending a trial before Justice Reddy. There was not much talk today about town in regard to the lynching, the general feeling seeming to be that "the negro is dead and buried and that settles it," but further arrests are looked for. 

A number of tramps are under suspicion but none have as yet been taken into custody. None have left town during the past few days and if any of them were implicated in the outrage they seem to be unconcerned, lingering about the alleys and saloons as though nothing had happened. 

Cummings was buried last night after he had been prepared for the grave by two hobos, who were paid $15 for the job. Laying a board on the floor of the jail, they got most of the blood and feathers scraped from his face and body, and a rough box was then made, in which the body was placed. The box was loaded on a butcher's handcart and taken to the cemetery, where a grave was dug by the light of two lanterns and the body interred. 

Those who saw the funeral procession of drunken hobos, laughing, jeering, and singing parodies of sacred songs, will never forget the scene. It has developed as the result of the coroner's inquest that there was nothing upon which to base a serious terge against the negro. 

Cowan, who is suspected of having fired the fatal shot, is still in jail at Bakersfield and declines to make any statement beyond a general denial of the charge.

On March 17, 1904, The Morning Echo reported:

James Cowan Fired the Shot That Killed Cummings.
Mob Did Not Endorse Shooting.

The Shooting. District Attorney Laird and Sheriff Kelly are determined to prosecute the members of the mob, who took James Cummings, the negro tramp, out of the jail at Mojave, and in the events that followed killed him.

The members of the mob, a number of whom have confessed their complicity in the crime, state that they had no intention of killing the negro, but in the excitement of the moment, James Cowan shot the hobo.

They state that they warned Cowan not to do any shooting, but it seems that he disregarded their instructions and has brought opprobrium on Mojave and Kern County by the lawless act of one member of the mob. It is stated that there was no intention of meting out any punishment to Cummings other than tarring and feathering, and no great harm would have resulted if the mob had stopped at that. The subsequent shooting of the negro has aroused the greatest indignation.

Sheriff Kelly and District Attorney Laird returned yesterday morning from Mojave, where they were called Tuesday night by the news that a number of the men who were present at the lynching of Cummings had confessed. According to the story, they told the officers that Cowan alone was responsible for the negro's death.

It is claimed that he was the only one who fired any shots and the men who made the confessions said that they did not know that Cummings had been killed or even wounded until the next morning. The belief of the witnesses is that the negro was struck by the second of the two shots fired. This shot was fired when Cummings was first taken from the jail and before the oil and feathers had been applied.

Cummings continued to fight with the crowd, however, and while he was being held in the ground Cowan pushed the muzzle of his gun into the negro's face, telling him with an oath, to lie still or he would blow his brains out.

One of the witnesses said that he pushed Cowan's gun aside and told him that there must be no shooting. Cummings lay quiet on the ground after that, but the witnesses said they supposed that he was passive only from fear. After the oil and feathers were applied, the negro was dragged back into the jail.

Whether he died while the mob was rubbing the oil and feathers on him or after he was left in the jail, the witnesses do not seem to know. Some of the men who confessed to the officers said that they left immediately after the shooting.
The case against Conan, while it rests wholly on circumstantial evidence, was considered very strong. He went to Mrs. Mary James, who kept a lodging house where Cowan stopped and asked her for a rifle which he had left in her charge some days previously.

Mrs. James had heard of the story about the negro and fearing trouble told Cowan that he better not take the gun. He replied that he would not kill anybody with it and she gave it to him. As he went outside Cowan told a barber that there was "going to be some fun downtown" that night. William Jones, a Southern Pacific hostler, heard him make a similar remark.

At about 11 o'clock, Cowan returned to the lodging house and gave the rifle back to Mrs. James. She testified that it "was stained with black oil and had feathers sticking to it." On the floor of the jail, an empty shell casing was found that fit Cowan's rifle. There was no wound on the negro's body other than the only shot.

Getting a number of witnesses 'to talk.' A number of them admitted that they had been warned not to tell what they knew. The men who are suspected of the lynching are part of a floating band of hard characters who have been terrorizing the town of Mojave for some time.

As an illustration of the feeling in the town, Mr. Asher, the merchant, told Coroner Mullins that when he locked up his store at night, he never felt sure that he would reach home safely, and he never went down to the store in the morning without wondering if he would find it burglarized. As readers of the Echo will remember, Mr. Asher's apprehensions regarding the store have been realized several times.

The feeling among the citizens of Mojave is that if the present dastardly affair is thoroughly sifted it may result in ridding the town of a large part of the undesirable element. Further information regarding the 'boy' who was the alleged beginning of the whole trouble is that he is 18 or 20 years of age and weighs about 160 pounds. He is supposed to have been traveling with the negro and disappeared before the latter's arrest.

Four officers are searching the southern part of the county for Cowan's accomplices and news of the arrest of one or both is hourly expected. Cowan, who is suspected of having fired the fatal shot, is still in jail at Bakersfield and declines to make any statement beyond a general denial of the charge. Sheriff Kelly was in receipt of encouraging messages from his deputies yesterday.

How many men were implicated is not known. The number in the crowd is estimated at thirty to forty men, some of whom were merely passive spectators. A large number of the men who participated in the lynching are now known. Most of them are employed at Mojave, some of them being from the railroad shops. The railroad men have not been placed under arrest, as that course would have seriously interfered with the railroad operations at Mojave. Trainmaster Trepanier vouched for the appearance of the men when wanted.

District Attorney Laird says that the charge of murder will be placed against James Cowan only, there being no evidence that anyone else was a party to that crime. What charges will be placed against the others and just how many men will be subjected to a trial, he was not prepared to say.

It is possible that the Grand Jury may be summoned to investigate the matter. Sheriff Kellv said that if the matter is left to Mr. Laird and himself, they cannot do anything but prosecute all the men against whom they have any evidence. The Grand Jury might take into consideration the expense to the county and decide to prosecute only the leaders. If all the men liable to prosecution for felony charges are brought to trial, the Sheriff says, the cost to the county will not be less than $25,000. It may be much more.

On June 24, 1904, The Morning Echo reported:


The introduction of evidence in the case of the People vs. James Cowan, charged with the murder of James Cummings, colored, was commenced yesterday morning in Judge Mahon's department of the Superior Court. The trial will require all of this and next week and probably longer. The defense has subpoenaed many witnesses.

A party of fifteen or eighteen men, all masked, gathered at the calaboose in Mojave one night several months ago for the purpose of "tarring and feathering" the negro, Cummings, for committing, it is alleged, a hideous crime.

The negro bolted from the calaboose and he was shot, it is alleged, by Cowan.

The testimony so far introduced is conflicting in some respects. Dr. Dempsey of Mojave, who was on the witness stand yesterday, testified that the negro sustained wounds that necessarily must have resulted in death almost immediately. Another witness went on the stand later in the day and testified that after Cowan fired the shots the negro and him struggled together and on the ground before they were separated.

Then a coat of tar and feathers was applied to the negro, and he was carried into the calaboose, where he was found dead the next morning. The case will be resumed at 10 o'clock this morning.

On June 28, 1904, The Morning Echo newspaper reported:


James Cowan, who is charged with the murder of James Cummings, the negro tramp at Mojave, took the stand yesterday afternoon. His testimony is practically the same as that told by other witnesses. 

He admitted that he fired the first shot at the negro before he came out of the calaboose, and a second shot was fired by a pistol in the hands of another party in the crowd, but he did not know who it was because the party was masked. The witness said that there were three other men in the party who had pistols in their possession, and he indicated in his testimony that the shot which killed the negro was not fired by him.

On July 1, 1904, The Colusa Daily Sun newspaper reported:


Bakersfield, July I.— James Cowan, the Mojave miner charged with the murder of James Cummings, the negro, who was lynched at Mojave on March 11, was yesterday convicted of Manslaughter. 

The jury was out nearly twenty-four hours and recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the court. One  Juror stood out all night for murder in the First Degree with the death penalty. The other members of the mob who went to the Jail with the intention of tarring and feathering the negro will probably not be prosecuted.

On July 28, 1904, The Hanford Kings County Sentinel newspaper reported the following:


Bakersfield, CA, July 23. James Cowan, who was convicted of manslaughter for killing the negro James Cummings, who was taken from Jail at Mojave and shot, was sentenced to eight years in Folsom Prison.

I think it's a sad tale. 

While the reports all mention that he was "lynched," as I said before, he wasn't taken from his cell and hanged. "Lynching" is defined as (1) The execution of a person by mob action without due process of law, especially hanging; (2) Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person; and (3) Putting a person to death by mob action without due process of law. So while James Cummings was lynched, he wasn't hanged.

And really, what happened to the hobo known as James Cummings is a sad tale. He was tarred and feathered and then shot to death by the dregs of the town, as it was reported, "The men who are suspected of the lynching are part of a floating band of hard characters who have been terrorizing the town of Mojave for some time."

As for the "unmentionable crime against a young hobo, who was also a stranger in the town"? Was that the assault with a firearm that was supposedly on a boy? Even the newspapers noted that the "boy" mentioned in the articles was not a "boy," certainly not a child. And more so, the newspapers did say that the "boy" was his traveling companion "18 or 20 years of age and weighs about 160 pounds." So really, who knows what that was all about since the young man disappeared when James Cummings was arrested for vagrancy.

Then there is the report of Cummings' burial and how truly horrible that was. Reports stated that the dead body of James Cummings lay on a board on the floor of the jail for a long time completely unattended.

Then, as if adding insult to injury, his body was prepared for the grave by two other hobos after they were hired to do the job for $15. It's said those hobos prepared his body by scraping most of the blood and the tar and feathers from his face and body. They then built a rough box in which Cummings' body was placed. After getting him ready, the hobos dug his grave by the light of two lanterns.

James Cummings was taken from the jail to be buried after the hobos loaded his "coffin" onto a butcher's handcart. It was reported that "Those who saw the funeral procession of drunken hobos, laughing, jeering and singing parodies on sacred songs, will never forget the scene. It has developed as the result of the Coroner's Inquest that there was nothing upon which to base a serious terge against the negro."

Though most involved didn't pay for what they did as they should have, and the fifth ringleader of the mob was never found, it's good to know that justice did not sleep in this case. Believe it or not, unlike many other instances when something similar took place and a mob of no-goods took someone, black, white, or another race from a cell, at least there were arrests made in this case. 

It was because of extremely diligent police work that the perpetrators were arrested. It was because law enforcement did not bow down to the pressures of some that the killer ended up in Folsom Prison. And here's something else to think about, while some today push the untruth that "no one has ever been made to answer for lynching a black man," the person who is believed to have fired the shot that killed James Cummings was arrested, tried, and convicted to the full extent that the law allowed.

While I and others may think that Cowan getting 8 years for manslaughter for shooting Cummings was a light sentence, I keep in mind what Folsom Prison was like in 1904. Folsom was a place where nothing was tolerated. It was a place where it was not unusual for convicts to be locked up in a dungeon for merely being suspected of stirring up trouble. Back then, it was described as a "Hell on Earth" where the convicts were "cowed." Yes, a place where convicts were frightened into compliance. 

Tom Correa

Sunday, June 16, 2024

Would Joe Biden Use F-15s And Nukes Against Americans

So here's the question, would Joe Biden use F-15s and Nuclear Weapons against Americans? Why would I ask such a thing you ask? Well, it's something that Joe Biden has talked about. Yes, it's something that Biden has mentioned more than just a couple of times. 

Let's take a look at what Joe Biden said that has people talking. 

In June of 2021, just a few months after taking office, Joe Biden spoke at a press conference to announce his gun crime prevention efforts. While there, he talked about how he believed the Second Amendment had always had limitations. Then out of the blue, he said something completely off the wall. It was something that I've thought about for a long time. It's something that he has repeated over and over again during the last three years. And from your email about it, it's something that concerns Americans. 

What is it? It's a quote that he likes to repeat concerning using F-15s and Nuclear Weapons against American citizens. He says it when talking about gun control and Americans' Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. 

He has said: "You need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons" during a White House speech to outline his plan to combat gun violence. He repeated it again lately, just a few days ago on June 10, 2024, at Everytown's Gun Sense University, where he was giving a speech on Gun Control. During his speech, President Biden stated that "Americans need F-15s if they want to take on the government." 

It's true. During his speech the other day, Joe Biden once again mocked American gun owners, saying "They'll need F-15s to fight back against government tyranny." 

Let's make it really clear what he said, "Americans cannot stand up to government tyranny because the government has warplanes." In other statements on the same subject, he has said "The government has F-15s (or F-16s) and Nuclear Weapons." 

And frankly, that's what some people are not comfortable about. Like me, they see Joe Biden, the President of the United States, should not be making subtle threats to the American people. When Biden says gun-rights advocates need a much bigger arsenal of weapons to take on the federal government, he leaves out the fact that armed Americans are part of what protects America from becoming a Soviet Union-style authoritarian socialist state with a totalitarian government that's oppressive, intimidating, and heavy-handed. Armed Americans will fight a tyrannical Federal government that mandates Communist Leftist policies -- especially a government that wants to take away more of our personal liberty and freedom. 

Biden finds nothing wrong with taking away our liberty and freedom. Lately, he and his administration assert, because of the upcoming 2024 Election, that they are all about "Saving Democracy." But it seems to most these days that Biden and his administration believe Americans need to give up our liberty and freedom "to save democracy." 

And by the way, while all Americans should love the word "democracy," the word "democracy" was never used in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution for a reason. The reason is that our Founding Fathers were extremely fearful of allowing any form of government tyranny to take place. Yes, that includes the sort of tyranny that can be forced upon citizens by a democratically elected majority. 

So now, I want to know, why would anyone want to "Save Democracy" if it means losing our Liberty and Freedom to the tyranny imposed upon us by a democratically elected majority? And please don't kid yourself, that's what Biden's authoritarian administration has been doing for more than three years with all of the edicts and regulations that we've been forcing us to endure. 

From mandating how we cook our meals, if we use electric or gas stoves, to dictating what else we can and can use in as far as appliances and cars in our lives -- it's all a matter of trying to control us. And frankly, while Biden and his friends attack half of the American population as being "a threat to democracy" because we support his political opponent, Donald Trump, I believe Joe Biden and the Democrat Party as a whole is the real threat to our Liberty and Freedom -- nevertheless being the real threat to American democracy."

Of course, besides telling Americans that we can't stand up to a tyrannical Federal government, Joe Biden also enjoys ridiculing Thomas Jefferson, the man who is credited as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. How does he do that? He does that by trying to ridicule one of Thomas Jefferson's most famous quotes about the "Tree of Liberty."

Last year, Biden said, "I taught it [the Second Amendment] for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can't own. Even when it was passed, you couldn't own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun. … No, I’m serious. You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15."

He also went on to say, "There’s no amendment that’s absolute." And continued by saying, "When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody could own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon. You couldn’t buy a cannon when this amendment was passed, so there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to buy certain assault weapons. But that’s another issue.”

Back in 2021, he said, "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you won't need a rifle, you'd need F-15s and Nuclear Weapons."

Joe Biden usually mentions how the Second Amendment has always had limitations, and "Those who think they need weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government would need F-15 fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it."

Joe Biden says that Americans thinking about an "insurrection" against a tyrannical United States government would need a lot more than guns to take on the U.S. government because it is equipped with a Nuclear Arsenal and warplanes. 

It was reported recently, that Biden said, "How much have you heard this phrase, ‘the blood of liberty … washes those' – give me a break," Biden said in a mocking tone.

Biden went on to say, "No, I mean it. Seriously. And by the way, if they want to think they can take out government if we get out of line, which they are talking again about, well guess what, they need F-15s."

Of course, Biden's schtick is always the same. He says this while mocking one of our Founding Fathers, a man who is considered the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who once in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." 

To give context to what Thomas Jefferson was talking about in that letter, he wrote, "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signifies a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson was talking about Shays's Rebellion which had recently taken place by farmers who were angry over local taxes and debt collection. His point was that the government must be kept in check and that Americans will preserve our liberties through rebellion from time to time to stop a tyrannical government. The key word here is "tyrannical." 

Let's remember what Biden said, "if they want to think they can take out government if we get out of line, which they are talking again about, well guess what, they need F-15s." So yes, Biden has made it crystal clear that the American idea of citizens being armed and having the ability to keep the government in line, or to rebel against an oppressive government, doesn't sit well with him. 

On serval occasions, Biden has said, "The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon." And yes, that's when Biden usually goes into his schtick mocking Thomas Jefferson by saying, "Those who say the ‘blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots."

Well, for a guy who keeps telling the lie that he was a "University Professor" after leaving the position of Vice President, he is certainly dumber than dirt when it comes to American History. Biden's claim that Americans could not own cannons around the time that the Second Amendment was passed is not true. In fact, even Liberal Left Leaning Fact-Checkers have had to admit that Biden's claims about owning cannons are "false." The fact is Americans were able to own cannons for more than a hundred years after our birth as a nation and the creation of the Second Amendment. 

And really, no matter how many people have corrected Biden about his "cannon" claim, Biden acts as though he refuses to acknowledge the historical fact that there were several noted instances of private ownership of cannons during the period when the Second Amendment was passed. And as a matter of fact, there was the private ownership of cannons during the Civil War.

One example that even Biden with his limited cognitive ability should understand has to do with American privateers who operated privately-owned vessels with privately-owned cannons. Those American privateers attacked the ships of other nations for profit. In fact, those American privateers did more to hurt the British Navy than the Continental Navy did at the time. Of course, if Biden weren't dumber than dirt, he'd have read a little American History and would have known that. 

But then, maybe he does know it and is simply saying it because he thinks we're all too dumb to realize that he's full of shit. Let's be honest here, talking down to Americans, being condescending, and putting out more lies about what he's done and so on is the way he is. 

Then there's this, according to The New York Post, in a May 2024 law review article in the Journal on Legislation, David Kopel and Joseph Greenlee found a "near-complete absence" of anti-cannon laws in the nineteenth century.

Davis Kopel, who really is a professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, told The New York Post that Biden's claim is "patently false." Biden, on at least three previous occasions, has falsely claimed that the Second Amendment outlawed cannon ownership.

"This version is a little different from Biden’s previous lies," Kopel said. "The earlier ones referred to when the Second Amendment was ratified. Now he's moving the time frame to the Civil War. Still completely false." And here's more, according to that report, "there are no federal laws preventing Americans from owning Civil War-era cannons, or any cannons manufactured prior to 1898."

So as for the Second Amendment, the idea that a President of the United States thinks that none of the Amendments in The Bill of Rights is sacred and "absolute" should bother everyone. But, as for a President going after our "Right To Bear Arms," that's not surprising since other Democrat Presidents have tried.

As for Joe Biden being wrong about cannons, or about him mocking Thomas Jefferson, or his disdain for Americans concerned about government overreach, government over-regulation, and a government that thinks it doesn't have to answer to the American people, that's just Joe Biden's way of thinking. 

All in all, it's Joe Biden's threat of using warplanes and Nuclear Weapons against American citizens that truly bothers many of my readers. And really, let's take that at face value, President Biden's dismissive attitude when threatening the American people is not something that Americans want in an American politician -- nevertheless, a President. He seems very cavalier over using our most modern military capabilities, including going Nuclear, to stop Americans from overthrowing a tyrannical United States government.

My friends, it's a fact that there have been other leaders who allowed their people to die in huge numbers to hold on to power. Frankly, there's certainly been no shortage of authoritarian leaders who have killed their own people to stay in power. 

For example, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge began a ruthless campaign to remake Cambodian society. Re-Eduacation Camps, imprisonment of his political opposition, authoritarianism resulting in starvation, forced labor, torture, and executions were the methods used by Pol Pot and his followers during the Cambodian Genocide. He was responsible for the deaths of about 1.5 million Cambodians.

Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung instituted "cultural and social reforms" that resulted in the death of over 40 million of his own people -- most died of starvation. He followed that up by allowing his Communist Party to destroy much of the culture and history of China.

Of course, Joe Stalin initiated murderous purges, imprisoned and killed political opponents, and killed what is believed to be more than 20 million of his own people either directly or indirectly under his orders. 

While these are just a few examples of authoritarian leaders who stopped the descent of their tyrannical governments by any means possible, to look for an example of a Nuclear Superpower with advanced warplanes that faced collapse because its people decided to fight their oppressive government, all we need to do is look at the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. They didn't use their warplanes and Nuclear Weapons against their own people, and we should ask why not?

Why didn't the leader of the Soviet Union threaten his people with the use of Nuclear Weapons and warplanes? Moreover, why didn't the Soviet Union use Nuclear Weapons against its people when the Soviet Union's totalitarian government was on the verge of collapse? 

The former Soviet Union's population numbered about 300 million people, with over a hundred distinct nationalities living within its borders. It had a Nuclear Arsenal of tens of thousands of Nuclear Weapons. Its sphere of influence was exerted through such mechanisms as the Warsaw Pact and its empire extended throughout Eastern Europe. 

Mikhail Gorbachev was the President of the Soviet Union and he was seen as someone who would be able to fix the public's dissatisfaction with the Communist state's authoritarian socialist government. And please, make no mistake about it, the Soviet Union was an authoritarian socialist state with a totalitarian government, oppressive, intimidating, and heavy-handed, always focused on the maintenance of order at the expense of personal freedom. 

In the late 1980s and '90s events dismantled the Warsaw Pact. In a few instances, the Soviet Union used military forces in attempts to halt the secession of Warsaw Pact nations by crushing popular demonstrations. In those military actions, civilians were killed and wounded. But in reality, those military actions only increased international support for the secessionist Eastern-Bloc nations. All of what took place finally led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist state was no more. 

So now, let's keep this in mind, Joe Biden has made the subtle threat of using such force against Americans unhappy with the Democrat Party's form of authoritarianism in America today. And yes, we know for a fact that Biden has stated that Americans would need F-15 warplanes and Nuclear Weapons to fight an American government that's "out of line".  Of course, who knows what excuse a dictator would use to attack half the nation that disagrees with him?

But, let's look at reality, I doubt that members of our military would ever launch Nuclear Weapons against our own countrymen simply because whacko over-the-top full-of-himself Joe Biden ordered them to do it. No matter what Joe Biden says, no one expects the U.S. Air Force to carpet-bomb Idaho or Texas because Joe Biden orders it. If anything, I believe our military would be on the side of the Patriots and not on the side of dictators like Biden or members of the Democrat Party.

So now, the question that my readers are asking is this, knowing that the Soviet Union was an extremely oppressive country that had modern warplanes and tens of thousands of Nuclear Weapons, why didn't the President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, use his warplanes and Nuclear Weapons against his own people to keep that Communist regime in power before that government collapsed? 

It sure sounds like American President Joe Biden would have.   

Tom Correa