July 4th Means Nothing To Socialists Because Socialism Is Slavery

Cuban Dissident Daniel Llorente disrupts the Worker's Day March in Havana, Cuba. (Miami Herald)

Socialism is Slavery

Story by staff writers at Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
May 1, 2018

One year ago today [May 1st, 2017], an activist named Daniel Llorente interrupted the Workers’ Day march in Havana, Cuba. Wearing the Cuban flag T-shirt, Daniel unfurled an American flag over his head and ran in front of the procession replete with photos of Fidel Castro. He was tackled by undercover agents of the state.

The Cuban regime tries to take credit for the improvement of their people’s lives. It staked its legitimacy on the supposed emancipation and well-being of the working class. But the Cuban regime showed its colors by silencing Llorente and thousands of Cuban dissidents. Socialist regimes denigrate the very workers they claim to represent.

When the International Socialist Conference declared May 1 International Worker’s Day in 1898, it advocated for child labor laws, improvements in pay and safety regulations, and for the rights of workers to form independent organizations to advocate on their behalf. But by embracing Karl Marx’s theories of human nature and violent action, the early Socialists undermined their own aspirations.

Far from achieving equality, socialist movements that subscribed to Marxist ideology engendered a new form of slavery in the modern world. 

— Marion Smith

Far from ushering in a more equitable society, socialist movements that subscribed to Marxist ideology engendered a new form of slavery in the modern world. In the USSR, unenthusiastic work was considered a treasonous offense, “counter-revolutionary sabotage” that resulted in prison or death. 

Whenever a factory or harvest underperformed arbitrary regime quotas, the laborers were blamed for sabotaging the revolution. When the 1932 Ukrainian harvest underperformed after Stalin collectivized farms, he blamed the farmers and workers and forced them to starve en masse. Millions perished.

Marxist ideology is still being used to hold more than a billion people captive around the globe. China, where Xi Jinping just proclaimed the Communist Manifesto’s continued relevance, continues to use a system of Laogai, or forced labor camps, and dictates where the working class can live and work based on a “social credit” system. 

Venezuela’s socialist regime seized the means of production. Venezuela’s military runs the grocery stores while Nicolas Maduro denies humanitarian food aid to his political opponents. The average Venezuelan has lost more than 20 pounds in the last year.

Millennial Americans who rightly take offense at the greed and inhumanity sometimes exhibited by global corporations must remember that workers’ rights have not improved thanks to international socialism. Workers are only truly empowered in a free society because employers and employees are able to negotiate with each other equally under the law. 

In a socialist system where the regime owns the means of production, the owner, manager, employers, the party apparatchik is the law. Workers who would demand better treatment face repression, imprisonment, or worse.

Although Cuba has ratified all of the international labor conventions against forced, demeaning, and dangerous labor conditions, “it willfully fails to comply with them,” writes the AFL-CIO. The Cuban regime recently banned all independent labor unions.

The superiority of independent labor over Communism was known to the shipyard workers of Gdansk, Poland when they founded the Solidarity trade union. With the support of the United States, Solidarity helped bring down Communism in Eastern Europe.

If May 1 really is about workers, then don’t celebrate socialism.  

— Marion Smith

If May 1 really is about workers, then don’t celebrate socialism. Celebrate free enterprise that allows workers to thrive. Let’s celebrate a free society in which individuals are able to pursue their dreams, provide for their families, and bargain collectively.

For dissidents like Daniel Llorente who want freedom and prosperity, the American flag symbolizes hope. America manifests the noblest Western traditions of free and honest enterprise. On this May 1, Americans would do well to remember that Socialism is not the best hope of workers, it is their ultimate enslavement.

Marion Smith is the executive director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C.

This story was originally published in the New Hampshire Union Leader.

I reposted this here because I believe July 4th means nothing to Socialists. While the 4th of July, our Independence Day, is celebrated by freedom-loving Americans, Democrats need to understand that "Socialism Is Slavery." While I hope the short story above helps them understand why "Socialism Is Slavery," I can only hope that it also makes them understand that Socialism leads to Communism, which is an all-powerful Central Government. 

History tells us that Socialism and Communism enslaves and claims "ownership" of the people. 

Tom Correa

A Young Murderer Hanged 1874

First, let's talk about the news article below. It was published by the New York Sun. It was circulated by the syndicated telegraph wire and published by the Los Angeles Herald on March 19, 1874:

A "Boy" Murderer Hanged.

Jacksonville, Florida, February 27th. --- William Keene was executed today for the murder of Valentine in November last. Keene first made his appearance in this city about the 1st of October, 1873. He was quite youthful, being about eighteen years of age, and prepossessing in appearance and manner. A few days after his arrival, he was joined by Valentine, a person much older than Keene. They appeared to be warm friends. 

About the 1st of November, Valentine started up the river on a hunt, and was followed by Keene, who returned a few days after, bringing Valentine's boat, gun, and watch. Valentine's body was found near Black Point, with evidence that he had been foully murdered. The brain was pierced with a shot, the throat gashed, and the legs weighted. 

At the Coroner's inquest, Keene admitted in a careless way that the body was that of Valentine, and afterwards confessed that he committed the crime, adding that it was done in self-defense. His story was that he quarreled with Valentine about a loan of money. Valentine stooped to raise a revolver, and he fired and killed him. He denied having cut the victim's throat, and attributed the cuts to the fish. 

The theory of defense was upset by the fact that Valentine had been shot in the back of the head, and this, together with Keene's concealment of the crime and his haste to get possession of the dead man's property, sufficiently proved his guilt. 

His air of cool levity in the prisoner's box made an unfavorable impression. The proof was clear, and he was sentenced to be hanged today. His counsel made a motion for a new trial, but withdrew the motion, and the death warrant was signed. 

After his sentence, Keene began to reflect on his condition. He was received into the Methodist Episcopal Church and wrote verses devoid of literary merit, but showing that he realized his approach, ending. 

At half-past 10 this morning, he was hanged in the jail enclosure. He met his fate calmly and was pronounced dead within thirty minutes. About one hundred persons witnessed the execution. 

Tomorrow, Keene would have been nineteen years old. Valentine, the murdered man, was a native of Charlton, Saratoga county, New York, and has one brother and two sisters now living. He left home and went to California nineteen years ago, and was never heard of by his relatives until an account of his murder was seen in the New York Sun. 

L. L. Gillespie and his wife, of Troy, New York, the latter a sister of the murdered man, arrived here on Monday and had an interview with Keene. 

— end of article from the New York Sun. 

Now, let's talk about young folks committing crimes such as murder in the Old West. Keene was 18 when he killed Valentine in 1874. And yes, that's pretty young to commit murder. But really, I wouldn't call an 18-year-old murderer a "boy" like the newspaper did.

Of course, William Bonney, aka Billy the Kid, was 16 years old when he committed his first crime. It's true. In 1875, he stole food for himself and his brother from a laundry. He was also arrested for stealing clothing and firearms around the same time, and later escaped from jail. Billy the Kid was either 17 or 18 years old when he committed his first murder. 

Legend has it that it took place when Billy killed a blacksmith named Frank P. Cahill on August 17, 1877, in Arizona. He was involved in an argument with Cahill, which escalated into a physical fight. Billy shot and killed Cahill during the altercation. It's supposedly marked his first known killing and set him on a path to becoming a notorious outlaw.

While some mistakenly think he was just a youngster when he stole a horse, Wyatt Earp was not a youngster when he ended up in jail for horse theft. He was a grown man, 23 years old, when he was arrested and placed in jail for stealing a horse in 1870 in Butler County, Kansas. If he were convicted of stealing that horse, he faced the prospect of a five-year prison sentence. Knowing that, he escaped jail.

Just as what happened later when he was wanted in Arizona for the murder of Frank Stillwell, Wyatt Earp escaped the law and never answered for either crime.

Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, and William Keene were all pretty old when they broke the law when compared to the youngest killer known to have committed murder in the Old West. Of course, some say that distinction goes to an unnamed 8-year-old girl who killed her brother in Cassville, Missouri, in 1867. Others say that sad distinction rightfully goes to James Arcene. He was 10 years old when he participated in a robbery and murder in Fort Gibson, Oklahoma in 1872. He was convicted of murder and hanged for his crime when he was 13. 

I find it interesting that young people committing crimes in the Old West, while present, were not as common as some people think. While some young people engaged in typical youthful misbehavior like petty theft, gambling, and carrying weapons, serious juvenile crime was relatively rare in many areas. It probably has something to do with keeping young people busy. So, instead of dealing in violence, many towns in the West focused on keeping young people busy by working, joining civic groups, and being a part of building their communities. 

That's not to say young people, especially young boys, in boomtowns didn't try to emulate elders by smoking, drinking, gambling, and carrying weapons, though not always responsibly. With some mining towns being more violent than others, I find it interesting that petty theft and vandalism were the extent of what was common back in the day. Of course, young people involved in minor offenses usually did so to test boundaries or gain attention. 

It's said that in the boomtown of Bodie, a group of teenage boys was known for loitering and using foul language. Their activities were generally considered more annoying and not dangerous. Serious juvenile crime, such as violent offenses, was not a widespread issue in many parts of the West.

The fact is that organized criminal gangs of very young boys committing serious crimes were not the norm at all in the West. And while that claim couldn't be made about what was going on in the cities in the East, even though law enforcement resources were often limited in towns in the West, the focus was often on maintaining basic order and dealing with juvenile delinquency by nipping it in the bud before it grew. 

Today, popular culture exaggerates the level of violence and lawlessness in the Old West. This is especially true regarding young people committing violent crimes. It just didn't happen as often as Hollywoood tries to say it did.

Tom Correa

President Trump's Immigration Record -- February To May 2025

According to the information compiled by FAIR: Federation for American  Immigration Reform: 

The Trump administration has committed to taking bold action to secure our borders and restore safety to American communities by enforcing our immigration laws to ameliorate the crisis caused by more than 10 million illegal border crossings over the past four years.

February 2025

Leveraging Tariffs to Bolster Border Security

On February 1, the Trump administration proposed hefty tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their failure to stem the tide of illegal immigration and drugs over our borders. In response, both countries agreed to take a larger role in ensuring that those borders are secure. Mexico pledged to send 10,000 National Guard troops to the southern border, and Canada agreed to implement a $1.3 billion border security effort, and dedicate another $200 million towards combating crime, fentanyl, and money laundering. President Trump moved to pause tariffs for Canada and Mexico on February 3.

Terminating Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela

On February 3, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the Department would no longer support the 2023 designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans. 

Venezuelans were among the most encountered nationality of illegal aliens at the border under the Biden administration, with total encounters jumping by 77 percent between Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023.

Targeting Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Non-Governmental Organizations

On February 5, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a memorandum entitled, “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives,” which stated that the DOJ will work to ensure that state and local jurisdictions that impede immigration enforcement do not receive federal funds from the Department. The memo further noted that DOJ will pursue legal action against sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to follow our immigration laws. Finally, the memo directed the Department to identify all contracts, grants, or other agreements with non-governmental organizations that provide services to illegal aliens and pause the distribution of funds.

Fighting to Overturn Sanctuary City Policies

On February 6, the Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed a lawsuit to overturn state and local laws in Illinois that prevent law enforcement there from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The lawsuit alleges that the state of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County are all acting unlawfully to block immigration enforcement.

Increasing Vetting for Sponsors of Unaccompanied Alien Children

On February 14, the Trump administration implemented new policies to increase the vetting for sponsors of unaccompanied alien children (UACs). The policies will be carried out by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the agency within Health and Human Services (HHS) that supervises UACs once the agency assumes custody of them from border officials. 

Now, ORR must conduct background checks on all adults in the sponsor’s household, and, to that end, require that all such adults submit fingerprints to the agency. In addition, ORR may now only accept unexpired and legible documents for the purpose of identifying potential sponsors.

Running Ad Campaigns to Discourage Illegal Immigration

On February 17, the Department of Homeland Security announced a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at warning against illegal immigration and encouraging illegal aliens here unlawfully to self-deport. The ads were broadcast across numerous media platforms domestically and internationally – including radio, broadcast, social media, and text message – and were streamed in various languages.

Targeting Taxpayer-Funded Public Benefits for Illegal Aliens

On February 19, President Trump issued an Executive Order to protect American taxpayers from the financial strain of mass illegal immigration. The Order directed federal agencies to identify federally funded programs currently providing financial benefits to illegal aliens and to take corrective actions. It also required enhanced eligibility verification to ensure illegal aliens do not access taxpayer-funded benefits.

Designating Cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations

On February 20, pursuant to the President’s Executive Order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the Department would designate Tren de Aragua, MS-13, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, United Cartels, the Northeast Cartel, the Gulf Cartel, and La Nueva Familia Michoacana as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).

Enforcing Longstanding Federal Law Requiring Aliens to Register with the Government

On February 25, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the Department would begin enforcing longstanding provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that require all aliens to register with the federal government within 30 days of entering the country. 

Aliens who fail to register with the federal government, leave the country if they are here illegally, or notify the government of a change of address are subject to criminal penalties.

Securing Our Borders and Increasing Interior Enforcement

Border Patrol agents apprehended 8,347 illegal aliens between southern border ports of entry in February 2025, the lowest number of monthly apprehensions since FY 2000. This constituted a 94 percent decrease from February 2024, in which 140,641 were apprehended. Border encounters per day hit a 15-year low of 200 individuals on February 24. 

In a February 26 press release, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that in just one month under President Trump, more than 20,000 illegal aliens were arrested, which the Secretary noted is a “627% increase in monthly arrests compared to just 33,000 at large arrests under Biden for ALL of last year.”

March

Designating English as Our Official Language

On March 1, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled, “Designating English as the Official Language of the United States.” The Order marks the first time in its history that the United States has had an official language. 

It also represents a major victory for FAIR and like-minded organizations, which have fought since the early 1980s to establish English as the official, unifying language for all Americans.

Launching the CBP Home App to Encourage Aliens to Self-Deport

On March 10, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the launch of the CBP Home App. The app features a self-deportation reporting feature, encouraging aliens illegally in the U.S. to leave voluntarily and gain a chance of returning legally in the future.

Removing Dangerous Illegal Alien Gang Members

On March 15, the President signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, designating members of Tren de Aragua as “alien enemies.” This designation subjects Tren de Aragua members to immediate detention and removal under emergency powers, instead of through the regular process set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The same day, a federal judge moved to block the effort – issuing a temporary restraining order for 14 days.

Revoking Parole for the CHNV Parole Program

On March 25, the Trump administration terminated the parole status of hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens who were allowed to enter the United States under the Biden administration’s illegal Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program.

April

Revoking Parole for Aliens Who Entered Through the CBP One App

In early April, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent termination notices to parolees who entered the U.S. using the CBP One mobile application, informing the aliens that their parole will soon be revoked and that they will be subject to deportation. The aliens were told to self-deport “immediately” using the same app, which has been repurposed into “CBP Home.” Within the two years that CBP One was active, it was used to allow nearly 919,000 otherwise inadmissible aliens into the United States.

Providing Immigration Enforcement Authorities Access to Illegal Alien Tax Information

On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of the Treasury signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing immigration enforcement authorities with access to taxpayer information of certain illegal aliens. The agreement permits the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to disclose taxpayer information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help locate criminal aliens, including those with final orders of removal.

Authorizing Military Control of Federal Land at the Southern Border

On April 11, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum, “Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions,” providing for the Defense Department to take jurisdiction of lands “reasonably necessary to enable military activities…including border-barrier construction and emplacement of detection and monitoring equipment.” 

On April 15, the Trump administration authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to take control of nearly 110,000 acres of federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border from the Department of the Interior (DOI). The military will administer the land for three years as part of a “National Defense Area,” including building infrastructure and monitoring conditions to stop the flow of illegal aliens and drug trafficking.

Blocking Social Security Benefits for Illegal Aliens

On April 15, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum, “Preventing Illegal Aliens from Obtaining Social Security Act Benefits,” aimed at combating Social Security fraud related to illegal immigration. The Memorandum aims to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining Social Security benefits by prioritizing enforcement and expanding programs charged with prosecuting fraud.

Designating Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Fighting to Enforce Our Laws

On April 28, President Trump signed an Executive Order, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.” The Order directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions within 30 days; moves to restrict federal funding going to such jurisdictions; and instructs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to take legal action as appropriate to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are complying with our laws.

May

Establishing a Second National Defense Area at the Southern Border

On May 1, the Trump administration established a second “National Defense Area” along the southern border, operating as an extension of U.S Army base Fort Bliss near El Paso, Texas. The 63-mile strip of federal land allows military personnel to lawfully conduct security operations, including searching and detaining trespassers.

Implementing REAL ID

On May 7, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the REAL ID Act, nearly 20 years after its enactment. Passed in the aftermath of 9/11, REAL ID sets federal standards for states to use when issuing driver’s licenses to prevent terrorists and illegal aliens from being granted them and is critical to protecting our national security.

Thanks to Federation for American Immigration Reform for compiling this great information.

Tom Correa

President Trump's Immigration Record -- January 2025

According to the information compiled by FAIR: Federation for American  Immigration Reform: 

The Trump administration has committed to taking bold action to secure our borders and restore safety to American communities by enforcing our immigration laws to ameliorate the crisis caused by more than 10 million illegal border crossings over the past four years.

January 2025

Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border

On January 20, President Trump declared a national emergency at our southern border. This declaration is similar to the national emergency the President declared during his first administration, but that declaration was rescinded by President Biden on his first day in office. The proclamation directs the Armed Forces to “take all appropriate action” to help the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) obtain full operational control of the southern border. It also directs the Department of Defense (DOD) and DHS to take immediate steps to construct additional physical barriers at the southern border and to take all appropriate action to impede the entry of illegal aliens.

Detailing a Plan to Secure our Borders

On January 20, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Securing Our Borders,” which outlined the Trump administration’s border security policies. These policies included critical measures such as building a border wall; deterring illegal entry into the United States; prioritizing the detention and removal of illegal aliens; and obtaining operational control of our borders. The Order also called for the termination of harmful “catch-and-release” policies, which were recklessly used under the Biden administration to release illegal aliens into the country.

Directing the Military to Assist in Securing Our Borders

On January 20, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Clarifying the Military’s Role in Protecting the Territorial Integrity of the United States.” In addition to detailing the National Emergency along our southern border, the Order aims to mitigate threats against our nation’s sovereignty by directing the Armed Services to, “prioritize the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.” 

It instructs the Department of Defense (DOD) to make plans to secure our borders against illegal immigration, drug trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other illegal activities.
Protecting the States Against Invasion

On January 20, President Trump signed a Proclamation entitled, “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion.” In it, the President used his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny entry into the United States of aliens engaged in the invasion at our southern border, until such time as the President finds that the invasion has ceased. 

Finding that the entry of illegal aliens is detrimental to the interests of the United States, the President is also directing that aliens engaged in the invasion are restricted from invoking INA provisions to remain in the country, including section 208 of the INA, until such time as the President finds that the invasion has ceased. This suspension of entry is also invoked for aliens posing public health, safety, or national security risks who fail to provide sufficient medical, criminal history, and background information.

Enforcing Our Immigration Laws to Keep Americans Safe

On January 20, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” Through this Order, the President implemented broad policies regarding a variety of aspects of immigration law and required the DHS Secretary, Secretary of State, and Attorney General to implement critical enforcement policies. 

These policies included prioritizing the prosecution of criminal offenses related to illegal entry or presence in the United States; targeting cartels, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations; taking appropriate action, including through 287(g) agreements, to authorize state and local law enforcement officials to help enforce federal immigration laws; and undertaking any lawful actions to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions are not receiving federal funds.

Bolstering Vetting to Prioritize National Security and Public Safety

On January 20, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” This Order provided for increased vetting and screening of aliens to ensure that individuals who intend to harm Americans or jeopardize our national interests do not exploit visas to enter the country. 

The Order directs the Secretary of State to evaluate vetting procedures and requires the State Department to report to the President which countries have inadequate vetting and could warrant suspension of entry for nationals of that county. The Order further instructs the DHS Secretary to remove or exclude aliens from countries warranting such a suspension of entry absent other national security or public interest concerns.

Taking Steps to Combat Cartels and Other Criminal Organizations

On January 20, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” This Order created a process to designate certain international cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) or Specially Designated Global Terrorists. 

Specifically, it required the Secretary of State, within 14 days, to make recommendations as to the designations of specific cartels and directed the Attorney General and DHS Secretary to prepare for action under the Alien Enemies Act.

Realigning the Refugee Admissions Program to Prioritize American Interests

On January 20, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program,” which announced that he would be suspending the entry of refugees for up to 90 days, if not longer, until he determines that resuming admissions would be in the best interest of the United States. The Order also required DHS to suspend the adjudication of existing refugee applications during the pause. 

Despite the suspension, the Order still allowed the DHS Secretary and the Secretary of State to admit refugees on a case-by-case basis if it is in the national interest and the refugee would not pose a threat to the United States. Finally, the Order directs the federal government to engage more with state and local leaders on refugee resettlement in the country.

Protecting the Value of American Citizenship

On January 20, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Meaning of and Value of American Citizenship.” This Order sought to ensure that the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted correctly so that birthright citizenship is not extended to those unlawfully or temporarily in the country. 

While the Order was set to go into effect on February 19, 2025, legal challenges arose immediately, resulting in the Trump administration filing three emergency requests to the U.S. Supreme Court asking that the Court partially allow the Order to go into effect until there is a ruling on merits.

Rescinding the Harmful Executive Actions of the Biden Administration

On January 20, President Trump rescinded numerous executive actions by the Biden administration that were used to facilitate illegal immigration. 

Orders rescinded included:

• Executive Order 13993 (Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities)
• Executive Order 14010 (Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework To Address the Causes of Migration, To Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and To Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border)
• Executive Order 14011 (Establishment of Interagency Taskforce on the Reunification of Families)
• Executive Order 14013 (Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration)
• The Presidential memorandum of January 14, 2025 (Certification of Recission of Cuba’s Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism).

Reversing Enforcement Policies in Sensitive Areas

On January 20, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive rescinding the Biden administration’s guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement actions that undermine enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas. 

The previous policy provided safe harbor to aliens in churches, schools, and courthouses, allowing criminals to hide behind “sensitive” locations to evade enforcement.

Reinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols

On January 21, pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it would reinstate Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) to combat exploitation of our asylum system. That program, authorized by Section 235 of the INA, authorizes DHS to return certain aliens to the adjoining country from which they are arriving pending the completion of removal proceedings. 

In other words, illegal aliens seeking entry into the United States will be required to remain in Mexico until their asylum case can be heard. This policy was in place during the first Trump administration and had a deterrent effect until President Biden terminated it in 2021.

Suspending Categorical Parole Programs and Ending Abuse of the CBP One App

On January 21, pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that unlawful categorical parole programs – including the programs that specifically benefitted nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) and Afghanistan – had been immediately suspended. 

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the shutdown of the CBP One mobile application, which enabled 919,000 inadmissible aliens to schedule appointments at southern border points of entry and enter the United States since 2023.

Expanding Expedited Removal

On January 21, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a notice expanding the scope of Expedited Removal to the maximum permitted under federal law. Expedited Removal is a power granted by Congress that allows the government to bypass the immigration courts to effectuate deportation in a swift manner. 

The statute even permits aliens who claim asylum to be deported via expedited removal, unless they pass a credible fear interview conducted by an asylum officer. Prior to this notice, officers could only apply expedited removal to aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border and within two years of their arrival in the United States. 

However, as Trump officials stated in the new notice, “The effect of this change will be to enhance national security and public safety—while reducing government costs—by facilitating prompt immigration determinations.”

Delegating Immigration Enforcement Powers to Additional Federal Agencies

On January 22, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum granting four key federal law enforcement agencies the power to investigate and apprehend illegal aliens in the United States. Those agencies included the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Signing the Laken Riley Act into Law

On January 29, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law. The bill was passed in honor of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was brutally murdered on a run near the University of Georgia’s campus by a Venezuelan illegal alien with ties to Tren de Aragua. 

The Laken Riley Act requires the detention of inadmissible aliens for theft-related crimes, crimes resulting in death or serious injury, and for assaulting law enforcement officers. The bill further requires that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issue detainers for those aliens to transfer them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. It also provides state officials with legal standing to sue the federal government due to harm inflicted on their states or citizens from the failure to enforce immigration law.

Expanding Detention Capacity for Dangerous Illegal Aliens

On January 29, President Trump issued a memorandum entitled, “Expanding Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to Full Capacity.” 

Earlier in the day, the President announced that his administration will make 30,000 detention beds at the U.S. naval base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, available to house criminal migrants.

Thanks to Federation for American Immigration Reform for compiling this great information.

Tom Correa

Editor Shoots Rival Editor 1880

1880 Pocket Pistol Advertisement

In my last article, Slanderers Are Contemptible Creatures Akin To Venomous Snakes, I talked about how slanderers were seen as lowlifes and snakes even as far back as the 1800s. Well, part of the reason that I wrote that story is because I've been researching a story about a newspaper editor who shot and killed a rival newspaper editor in 1880. The murderer shot his victim while his victim was at their local courthouse in the process of filing a libel suit against him. Yes, a newspaper editor shot his rival over the fact that he was about to be sued for something that the killer printed in his newspaper.

Before we get into this story, let's remember that even in the 1880s, the law was the same as today in that there are two forms of defamation and a distinct difference between slander and libel. While they are both defamation, slander refers to spoken defamatory statements; libel refers to defamatory statements made in a permanent form, such as in writing or print. Either way, spoken or printed, they are an assault on someone's reputation.  Both are considered civil wrongs, with the focus being on the damage caused to a person's reputation. 

Someone can make the argument that someone's name and reputation were viewed as more of a valuable asset back in the Old West than it is today.  As for a slanderer's defense, his only real defense is to prove that the statement he made was true. Of course, the slanderer has no defense if his statement is proven false. And think about this, whether in the Old West or today, proving specific monetary loss from slander can be difficult. Because that's the case, it makes it hard to win a slander case unless the victim can prove monetary loss from what the slanderer said. 

As for libel laws, the growth of newspapers during the Civil War and into the late 1800s led to an increase in libel suits that impacted newspapers across the nation. In the 1880s, libel law in the United States favored plaintiffs, particularly those claiming reputational harm. It's true. A person who brings a case against another in a court of law could sue for libel and win because what was said was printed.

The primary focus was on "reputational harm" and protecting an individual's reputation from false and damaging statements. Because of that, in the 1880s, courts tended to favor those bringing libel suits. And here's something else, in many states, a defamatory statement was presumed false, and the defendant had the responsibility of proving what was written was true.

Yes, in some states, the courts placed the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate the truthfulness of what was printed. That was the way things were. Of course, that meant that defamation claims could be brought to court a lot easier, even for minor inaccuracies in newspapers. 

In the 1880s, libel law favored those claiming reputational harm. The plaintiff's burden of proof was often lower, and Constitutional protections were limited. That means there were a lot of challenges for newspapers back in the day. Yes, especially during the era of sensational journalism, also known as "Yellow Journalism," where newspapers felt they were above the law and showed they had no decency by printing just about anything they wanted to. 

So yes, a lot of newspapers were sued and lost a lot of money for printing fake stories, out-and-out lies, and defamatory statements. Some newspapers even went bankrupt after being sued for libel. 

So why did I just tell you all of this? Well, it goes to why one newspaper editor shot his rival newspaper editor. You see, the murderer printed something in his newspaper about his rival editor that couldn't be proven, and he knew he'd lose a libel suit. He called the rival editor a "Horse Thief," in his newspaper. It wasn't a really smart move. 

The rival editor decided to sue for libel. On the day that he went to their local courthouse to start his lawsuit, the other newspaper editor, the one who printed the defamatory comment, showed up. So yes,  one newspaper editor was suing the other newspaper editor for libel over one calling the other a "Horse Thief" in print. What happened next makes the story especially sad. 

As reported in the Morning Press newspaper on February 16, 1880:

EDITOR SHOOTS RIVAL EDITOR

S. H. Brummett, editor of the Hollister Enterprise, was shot and killed by G. W. Carlton, publisher and editor of the Hollister Telegraph. It was the result of a newspaper quarrel. The deceased leaves a wife and two children.

The bitter newspaper war waged for some time past by George W. Carlton and E. S. Harrison, of the Hollister Telegraph on the one side, and S. H. Brummett, of the Hollister Enterprise, on the other, resulted on the 12th in the murder of the last mentioned editor. The causes which led to the murder may be briefly explained: 

It appears that the Supervisors of San Benito County invited bids from the three weeklies in the county to publish the delinquent tax list, which involves a profit to the contractor of $5OO. The proprietors of the aforesaid weeklies agreed among themselves to make a joint bid, so that they might all share in the profit. Such a bid was sent in, but one George W. Carlton got a fourth party, for a consideration, to put in a lower bid, and the contract was awarded to him. The bitter feeling this underhanded act caused was great, and an article on the subject appeared in the next issue of the Enterprise attacking Carlton, who retaliated by publishing statements most derogatory to Brummett’s character. 

On the day of the shooting, Carlton's Telegraph contained an article denouncing Brummett as 

"A HORSE THIEF, 

a debauchee, and a man whose whole life had been revolting in the extreme." 

Immediately on reading the article, Brummett started for the courthouse, saying that he would give Carlton a chance to prove his charges in court. While waiting there for the District Attorney, about 11 a.m., George W. Carlton came up with both hands in his pockets. 

Brummett asked him why he had “published such a lie about him?’’ 

Carlton, on the instant, without a word, drew a revolver and shot him through the head, the bullet penetrating the brain. 

Carlton's victim fell unconscious and remained so until his death, which occurred two hours afterwards. Carlton was at once arrested and placed in jail. Strong threats of lynching were made, but it was finally decided by an enraged, but sensible people, to let the law take its course. The murder was, from statements of eyewitnesses, entirely unprovoked and unjustifiable, and the affair caused more excitement than any event that ever happened in the county. The murdered editor leaves a wife and two little children, and the scene as they watched beside their dying protector was very affecting. The body was buried under the auspices of the Fire Department, of which the deceased was a member. 

THE HOLLISTER HOMICIDE 

— FUNERAL OF S. H. BRUMMETT. 

The obsequies of S. H. Brummett, an account of whose murder at Hollister has already appeared in the Press, took place there on the 13th. The funeral services were conducted in the Christian Church by the Rev. J. K. Wallace, who preached an affecting sermon. The church was filled to overflowing with a sympathetic congregation. The funeral was conducted by the Hollister Fire Department, and was attended by citizens in carriages and on foot, making the largest cortege ever seen there. The business houses were all closed till the obsequies had ended. The grief of the wife at the grave was heartrending. 

The deceased was born and raised in South San Juan and left many warm friends and relatives in the county. Everything possible has been done for the widow and her fatherless children. 

The Enterprise will be continued by John McGonigle, its former owner. No violence toward Carlton is apprehended, although the jail is double-guarded, as also is the Telegraph. Carlton has made no statement other than to claim that his action was done in self-defense.

-- end of article

The Pacific Rural Press published the following report on February 21, 1880:

Personality in Journalism.

The killing of one editor by another at Hollister, California, last week gives occasion for a brief preachment on one phase of journalistic ethics. It would indeed seem as though the affair at Hollister, the rise of the spirit of Cain, the shedding of blood, the wails of the widow, the silent eloquence of the grave, would have some power to put an end to petty warfare between editors, which, beginning in an ill-use of type, proceeds at length through steps of hate, vituperation and slander, until at last the personal encounter is reached and a life is taken, while the demoralizing excitement and useless expense of a murder trial are inflicted upon a peaceful community.

And Why? Simply because two men have forgotten their duties as citizens — have proved false to their mission as journalists; have outraged their own consciences, and instead of being public teachers and conservators of public morals, have become public brawlers —a menace to the peace of their neighborhoods; a curse to themselves and the land they live in. It is no part of honorable journalism to serve personal ends.

It is a sublime conceit which leads an editor to think that the public is more interested in his personal ambitions, disappointments, and grievances than they are in the private affairs of any other citizen of equal rank. It is true that there is a class of people who gloat over journalistic quarrels and roll under their tongues the sweet morsels of slander and abuse which quarreling editors defile their columns with.

As a rule, it is the same class that would stand in the wrapt contemplation of a dog fight. And while the editor who allows himself to indulge in personal thrusts at his neighbor is winning the plaudits of this element of society, he is losing the respect and esteem of those whose encouragement and support alone can make his paper an enduring power for good in the community. Thus, he abuses the trust committed to him, and if he reaches success by the stinging quality of his pen and the conscienceless nature of journalistic behavior, it is because he finds supporters who are thoughtlessly led into his low tone of thought, or are fitted by nature and surroundings to enjoy it.

Of course, we do not mean that editors should be incited by unity of thought, and, like birds in their little nests, agree. So long as the imperfections of human knowledge cause differences of opinion, it must be expected that journals will disagree, and it is in the interest of the determination of truth that they should. It is well that journalists maintain the faith that is in them by the most vigorous writing within their power.

There is enough in ideas and principles to employ a writer's most acute thought and trenchant style, and the exercise of such abilities will win him renown. But to forget that this is the mission of his calling, and to till his sheet with ill-natured attacks upon the personality of his rival papers, is an insult to the community and a breach of contract with readers who are fed upon petty personal passions, hates and slanders instead of the news and the truths of general value which it is the office of the newspaper to disseminate.

We trust that all journals which are disposed to make their personal quarrels the subjects of their heaviest journalistic labor will take warning from the Hollister episode. Summon a little self-respect and a little respect for the calling of the journalist, and the evil influence of personality in journalism will be no more.

-- end of article.

The Stockton Independent newspaper reported the following on August 7, 1880:

George W. Carlton is now on trial at San Jose for the killing of S. H. Brummett at Hollister last February. Brummett was editor of the Enterprise at Hollister, while Carlton edited the Telegraph in the same town. Carlton denounced Brummett as a "horse thief." The next day, Brummett met Carlton and asked, “What made you put in that d—d lie about me?” At this, Carlton drew a pistol and shot Brummett dead. Carlton is only indicted for manslaughter.

-- end of article.

The Ventura Signal newspaper reported the following on August 28, 1880:

Carlton Convicted.

San Luis Obispo Tribune, The editor Carlton, who killed a business rival at Hollister and unjustly escaped indictment for murder, was convicted by a jury in San Jose last week of the crime of manslaughter. Every means was afforded this murderer to evade the penalty of his cowardly crime. The grand jury indicted him for manslaughter when the presentment ought to have been for murder. 

A change of venue was given him, and the trial was transferred to Santa Clara County. Notwithstanding all these advantages, Carlton was convicted. The prompt conviction of this fellow is an indication that the people of California are becoming weary of the bloody dramas, which have been so frequently enacted during the last few years, and are determined to discourage future assassinations by enforcing the statutes against the assassins. If juries will but do their oath-imposed duty, the murder era in California will speedily close. Carlton has been sentenced to six years in the penitentiary.

-- end of the article.

So now, you may be asking yourself how Carlton, though intentionally going to the courthouse with a pistol in his pocket to shoot Brummett, and did without provocation, was not charged with murder instead of manslaughter? We know that Carlton approached his rival newspaperman, Brummett, and shot him in the face because Brummett was in the process of suing him for libel. And no, it's not every day that I read about one newspaper editor shooting a rival newspaper editor over something printed in a rival paper. 

Most folks at the time believed that Carlton simply drew a pistol from his pocket and shot his fellow journalist in the face because the dead man was about to sue the killer and would have probably won a lot of money for what he printed. It was believed by many in San Benito County that Brummett may have even put Carlton's newspaper out of business. 

And with local tempers running pretty hot, Carlton's defense requested and got a change of venue to a place where he was not known. Then Carlton claimed "self-defense," and he had his charges reduced to manslaughter instead of murder. And a jury, yes, in 1880, only awarded Carlton six years in prison for killing Brummett by shooting him in the face. 

Of course, as I said before, "What happened next makes the story especially sad." 

George W. Carlton went to San Quentin Prison. But he wasn't there very long at all. He was only there for a couple of months when his conviction was overturned on a technicality. While the people in Hollister, California, were said to have regretted their decision not to lynch him when they should have, Carlton was ordered to be tried again. The second trial ended with a judge ordering a new trial. During the third trial, there were problems with the jury. After that, a judge is said to have become exasperated with problems taking place during the trial and simply dismissed the charges on a technicality. With that, George W. Carlton was set free. 

So yes, George W. Carlton shot a man in the head to stop from being sued for libel and got away with murder. Some say the system failed. Others said that he and his lawyers played the system. Either way, Carlton got away scot-free without ever having to pay for what he did.  

In the end, people read about how S. H. Brummett, editor of the Hollister Enterprise, was shot and killed by George W. Carlton, publisher and editor of the Hollister Telegraph. They read what happened and how the deceased left behind a wife and two children. And to the amazement of most who followed the story in the newspapers in 1880 and 1881, they read about how his murderer ended up walking away a free man because the courts failed to convict someone who willfully and without provocation took the life of S. H. Brummett.  

Which, of course, with all of us knowing how such things still take place with regularity today, shows us that times haven't changed much after all.

Tom Correa

Slanderers Are Contemptible Creatures Akin To Venomous Snakes

Libel and slander are both forms of defamation, which involve making false statements that damage a person's reputation. Libel is defamation that is written or broadcast, such as in a newspaper, online, or on television. Slander is defamation that is spoken. It is a false statement told to others. Both libel and slander can be the basis for a civil defamation lawsuit. 

I found the article below in the Russian River Flag newspaper published on April 2, 1874. I found it interesting simply because the person writing the article viewed slanderous individuals as most folks did back in the day -- as contemptible, low-character, snakes. Yes, like how they are viewed today.

Read it, and see if you come to the same conclusion. 

Slander

Slander, says an old proverb, is the revenge of a coward. He who uses it will find it a two-edged sword, for though it may wound one to whom it is applied, yet it will finally prove more destructive to the person wielding it. Slander is the offspring of a vicious, envious mind, the poisonous expression of those who are strangers to honor, truth, and justice; it should, therefore, be treated by all with the contempt it merits. 

Those who allow this vice to become a habit are pessimists of the worst sort; mankind is to them only on aggregation of foes placed on earth for the sole purpose of opposing and annoying them, and beating them in the contest of life; hence they exhale their venom on every occasion, hoping that some of it will prove effectual and accomplish the purpose for which it was ejected. 

The purest in the world cannot escape the voice of slander, for its upas-like breath permeates every condition in life, from the lowly to the most exalted. It is rife alike in the professional, as well as in the social circle, and the innocent maiden is no more apt to be free from its sting than the man of the world. The ablest soldiers, the most subtle statesmen, the boldest navigators, and even the most exemplary professors and teachers of the Gospel, have been subjected to the slanderer's venom; so it would seem the more exalted the position, the more actively it is attacked by this social curse. 

In fact, it is proverbial that the more successful and distinguished one becomes, the more he is assailed by the envious; for the latter, with their jaundiced minds, envy all who tower above them, so they try to pull the exalted from the high position which they cannot attain themselves. Such being the purpose of those addicted to the habit of vilifying their more successful fellow beings, their assertions should be treated with contumely by all persons who are imbued with a sense of truth and honor. 

Similes are not required to describe these vilifyers, for one can detect them by every mode of expression. When you hear a politician speak of a rival in discourteous tones, giving him no attributes but the basest; when you hear a man speak slightingly of a young lady, or a professional man speak in terms of disrespect of another in the same profession, because both do not agree in every detail—they belong to the low order of the slanderer, and their expressions are merely the utterances of base, envious minds, and they are therefore devoid of a sense of propriety, let alone honor. 

While it is necessary that scientific men should keep their profession free of charlatans, yet they should adopt the dignified manner of gentlemen, and not the plaintive, scolding tone of a costermonger. If ladies traduce each other without any apparent cause, they are in the category of the slanderer and they should be avoided; for one who will vilify another from mere prejudice is apt to speak in the same tone of even the dearest friend, for the slanderer is guarded by no higher principle than more selfish pleasure. 

You know, for instance, a lady with a nez retrousse [a turned-up nose], as our Gallic friends term it, and another with a beautiful Grecian or aquiline appendage of the same sort. Now speak to the former of the beautiful nasal outlines of the latter, and in nine cases out of ten, she will say: “Oh yes, she has a good nose, but she has a most horrible mouth." This proves that she lacks a sense of truth and justice, and therefore, no attention should be paid to her remarks, for their cause is evident. 

The pure, the honorable, are never addicted to this habit, for they have too much dignity of character to allow themselves to indulge in a vice so base and unwarrantable. All persons, then, should avoid slanderers as they would avoid the venom of a serpent, for they are the most contemptible creatures in the world and the curse of society.

-- end of Russian River Flag newspaper 1874 article.

There are reasons why those who libel and slander others are seen as being similar in nature and character to cold-blooded snakes. Slander can inflict significant harm on folks. That includes damage to reputation, emotional distress, and, in some cases, financial losses. It can lead to the loss of clients, missed opportunities, and even job termination due to the spread of false statements. Furthermore, the lies that a slanderer spreads can cause lasting damage to personal and working relationships.

Slander can severely damage a person's reputation, particularly if the false statements are widely circulated. False statements about a person's abilities, ethics, or behavior can undermine their credibility and professional standing while also leading to a decrease in their social standing.

Slanderous statements can also damage personal relationships with friends, family, and colleagues. The spread of false information can create division and mistrust within social circles and professional networks. Speaking from my own experience with people spreading lies, someone who has experienced real slander and not just back-biting gossip firsthand, it is absolutely no fun. Besides making someone angry, it can cause significant emotional distress, including anxiety, depression, and distrust. 

In some cases, slander can create financial losses, such as leading to job loss, loss of income, missed promotions, and missed business opportunities. If a business's reputation is tarnished by slander, it can result in a decline in customers and sales. It can even lead to difficulty finding new employment.

Of course, there are also the costs associated with repairing one's reputation. Again, from my own experience, I've spent thousands of dollars on lawsuits to fight false accusations in the past. And when accusations are proven to be false, most slanderers, those individuals of low character, don't even have the decency to apologize for falsely accusing someone. 

And frankly speaking, that proves that those low-character individuals are morally weak people who lack any sort of personal integrity. They are dishonest and essentially the complete opposite of people with good morals and ethics. They enjoy being liars. They enjoy being fakes. They relish intentionally hurting others, not respecting others, and believe they are never wrong. There is nothing good about them.

 

So what do you think? Have things changed? Have things changed that much at all? Are slanderous individuals still seen as venomous snakes, two-faced people with no redeeming qualities, horrid individuals who should be avoided? Should they still be seen as some of the "most contemptible creatures in the world and the curse of society"? 

I think so. Just as they were seen in 1874, I believe slanderous individuals are contemptible creatures akin to venomous snakes. They are just low-character lowlifes that we need to avoid. They're not worth spit. 

Tom Correa

Rescuing Big Joe -- A Salute To Rancher Don Mickelsen

The caption on this YouTube video reads: 

This horse is named Big Joe. He is a draft cross that was donated to the Horseshoeing School a few years ago. Riley trained him to ride and taught him the basics. Riley’s father, Don, owner of Rocking M Quarter Horses, found him to be a phenomenal ranch horse. Joe found his home at Don’s Horse ranch in central Idaho. 

A few days ago, Joe fell into a deep hole in a pasture while checking cows. The hole was made by a leaky water mainline and was just big enough for Joe to wedge his whole body in. Thanks to quick thinking by Don Mickelsen, they saved him, and he is making a full recovery.

The description of the video that I saw online stated: 

"Joe’s near demise. Ranching isn't always romance. Often, we are in the middle of a crisis. This morning, we nearly lost Joe, one of our good ranch horses. Thanks to River and Bre, we managed to save him. Pay no mind to the fat guy doing all the yelling. Enjoy the video. We sure didn't enjoy making it. My good wife, Cathy, stayed there through the whole thing, filming it. Thanks to her, we have it recorded."

To me, Don Mickelsen epitomises the can-do spirit of the American Cowboy and the resilience of American Ranchers. He is a prime example of the sort of man who tackles problems with fierce determination and a "never quit" attitude. Cold, wet, and exhausting didn't matter. So yes, if Americans today need an example of toughness and what it is to do right in a stressful situation, this is it. 

I salute Mr. Mickelsen. He's the sort of American that others can learn from. As for River, Bre, and Mrs. Mickelsen, who filmed the rescue, God bless you all.   

Tom Correa

James McCrory Deserved Hanging 1872

An old friend used to say, "Some people deserve hanging." There was no question about what he was talking about. After all, some people are evil. Sadly, some people live to prove that evil exists. It's not merely that they don't have any redeeming qualities; they are evil and need to be dealt with in the harshest manner imaginable. To say, "Some people deserve hanging" is one way, a blunt way, of expressing one's extreme disapproval for someone's heinous behavior.  

Take the case of murderer James G. McCrory in Visalia, California, as an example. He was someone who deserved to be hanged. And frankly, after reading about him, I'm sort of surprised that he evaded dancing on the end of a rope for as long as he did. Was he evil? Well, decide for yourself after reading what he did -- especially what he did to Charles Allen.

James G. McCrory supposedly originated in Arizona, where he supposedly had quite the reputation as a gunman and desperado. For my readers who know that I use the word "supposedly" because there's nothing to confirm the myths about people, though James McCrory was supposedly a badman who is said by some to have killed 13 men -- there's no proof of that. Other than the 2 killings that we know he did for certain, there's no proof that he killed 13 men anywhere -- including in Arizona. 

As with a lot of stories of badmen in the Old West, we need to figure out what's an inflated myth and what's true information. That being the case, we should take note of the fact that the first mention of James McCrory in a newspaper story syndicated by telegraph was on February 16, 1867. I found this small news tidbit in the Sacramento Daily Union and the Mariposa Gazette. 

It wasn't about James McCrory being in a gunfight or prospecting. No, it was about the death of his 9-year-old son James William McCrory. The small notice simply read: 

DIED 

At Visalia, February 4th, 1867, JAMES WIILLIAM McCRORY, son of James G. McCrory, aged 9 years, 1 month, and 6 days.

__________________________________

The next time James G. McCrory was mentioned in a newspaper story was on April 2, 1870, when the Sacramento Daily Union newspaper reported the following:

Shooting at Visalia.

March 30th - On Saturday night last, there was a shooting scrape between a Mexican and James McCrory, which came near resulting fatally to the Mexican. There are two rumors about town in regard to the shooting - some say that there were two, and some say four shots were fired. As we do not know the particulars, we will forbear all comment regarding it until McCrory has his examination, which has been set for next Friday. This is the same Spaniard who was arrested by McCrory and Billy Moore some time last year, for which he has threatened to kill both of them, and this shooting grew out of that in some manner. McCrory was arrested and given bail for his appearance for examination before Justice Bradley.

_________________________________

Did you pick up on the newspaper saying that James McCrory arrested the Mexican? Yes, he was a lawman once. But, while I haven't been able to find out if he was a deputy with Tulare County or a Visalia town deputy, it appears he was a lawman who turned badman. 

About six months later, a second story came out on October 26, 1870, the Sacramento Daily Union reported the following:

Murder in Tulare County

Visalia. October 25th., -  A Mexican, named Manuel Barales, was shot and instantly killed Friday night by James McCrory. Barales was standing in a saloon engaged in conversation with his back to the door when McCrory appeared at the door with a shotgun loaded with buckshot and fired at Barates, blowing nearly half his head off. The testimony at the preliminary examination yesterday fails to show any previous trouble, though McCrory claims the deceased had threatened his life. The prisoner was committed to await the action of the Grand Jury.

_________________________________

A few days later, on October 29, 1870, the Sacramento Daily Union reported a follow-up on the story above with a few more details of how McCrory shot his victim with a shotgun.

Homicide at Visalia.

The Delta [newspaper] of October 26th gives these particulars of a late homicide in its midst: On Friday night last, about half past 11 o'clock, James McCrory shot and killed a Spaniard named Manuel Barales, under the following circumstances: It appears that the Spaniard and McCrory had been running together, drinking with each other all the evening, and while at the Fashion Saloon, McCrory lent him some money, and shortly after left the house. In a few moments after his departure, while Manuel and Thomas Harper were standing talking at the bar.

McCrory returned and pushed the front door open, first with his hand and then with the muzzle of his shotgun. Harper happened to turn his head and saw McCrory in the act of raising the gun, but thought he was only in fun until he heard the gun cocked, when he stepped back one or two steps and the gun was discharged.

The whole charge struck the Spaniard full under the left ear, in the neck, and passed through, making a terrible wound and killing him instantly. McCrory surrendered himself to Sheriff Glasscock. On Monday afternoon, he was examined before Justice Shearer and remanded to jail to await the action of the Grand Jury.

_________________________________

So now, though I haven't been able to find any newspaper coverage of his trial in the archives, we can all see that he was convicted of that killing -- since it says that in the May 1, 1871, the Daily Alta California newspaper report: 

For the Penitentiary.

James McCrory was brought down from Tulare County yesterday, en route to San Quentin Prison, having been convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.

_________________________________

Okay, so here's a twist that most folks today think only happens today and didn't happen in the Old West. James McCrory was released from prison after being locked up for about a month and a half. He was to have a new trial because of a technical error at his first trial. It's true. On June 16, 1871, this report was in the Sacramento Daily Union newspaper:

People vs. McCrory

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial, with leave to the appellant to withdraw his plea of "guilty of murder in the second degree."

_________________________________

While I've tried to find out why the judgment was reversed, I couldn't. I searched the archives and I couldn't find a report of his new trial. But, in this case, I can safely say that he must have been set free. We know that because he killed again on Christmas Eve of 1872. In that shooting, as with his others, he killed an unarmed man.

The following was reported in the Daily Alta California on December 25, 1872:

LYNCH LAW AT VISALIA.

A Well-known Desperado Kills a Man and is Immediately Hanged by a Vigilance Committee.

Visalia, December 24th, James McCrory, a noted desperado, who has already killed several men in this place, shot and killed Charles Allen about five o'clock this afternoon. He was arrested within a few minutes by an officer in an out-house to which he had fled. He was armed to the teeth. He was twice taken from the officers by an exasperated crowd amid cries of "Hang him, shoot him," but the officers finally succeeded in lodging him in jail.

A vigilance committee was at once organized around the jail door, and a demand made for the prisoner. The sheriff and deputies were overpowered and the keys taken from them. McCrory was taken from the jail and hanged from a bridge in the vicinity. The excitement has all subsided. The body is still hanging from the bridge amid the pouring rain. The unanimous sentiment of the people is "well done." Great praise is due to the Sheriff and deputies for their efforts to avert the hanging.

More details came out in the Marin Journal, Volume 12, Number 41, on 28 December 1872:

Details of the Visalia Tragedy.

The following dispatch to the San Francisco Chronicle is dated Christmas Day: The town has been very quiet all day after the exciting scenes of last night. The body of the murderer, McCrory, after hanging an hour and a half, was moved to an undertaker's. There was not the slightest provocation for the murder. McCrory was abusing a third party in Allen's saloon when the latter entered from the rear door, and accosting McCrory, asked what was the matter. McCrory answered, "I would just as soon shoot you as anyone else," and opened fire on him with a Navy revolver in each hand.

Allen threw up his hands after the first shot, exclaiming, "I am unarmed; for God's sake, don't kill me."

McCrory fired again, one shot penetrating the chest and one going through the skull, making a wound from which the brain oozed out. Allen then sank into a sitting posture against the counter, with his head resting on his breast, insensible. But the murderer, not yet satisfied with his bloody work, fired another shot into the victim's abdomen, and then coolly walked to the back door and took refuge in a small out-house.

When taken from his cell by the vigilantes, the murderer showed fight, but a rope was instantly thrown over his neck and he was dragged to the scene of his execution. The vigilantes were composed of the best men in the community—men who, wearied of the uncertainty of the law, were determined to mete out justice themselves.

McCrory had been previously acquitted of two or three cowardly murders and would probably have been again turned loose in our midst. There is but one expression today in regard to last night's proceedings —it meets unanimous approval. A determination is expressed to keep it up as long as murderers are allowed to escape through the meshes of the law.

_________________________________

Here are more details of his hanging at the hands of Vigilantes in Visalia, as reported in the San Jose Weekly Mercury newspaper on January 2, 1873:

Swift Execution

In Visalia, on Tuesday, James McCrory, a noted desperado, who, it is stated, has killed four or five persons, shot and killed one Chas. Allen, without any apparent cause. He fired five shots into the brain, chest, and abdomen of Allen, either one of which was fatal, firing the last shot as his victim lay prostrate on the floor.

McCrory attempted to escape, but was brought to bay in an outhouse, where he faced the crowd with a Navy revolver in each hand. Deputy Sheriff Reynolds advanced on him and, by the aid of the citizens, succeeded in disarming him. On his way to the jail, a crowd of excited citizens captured him from the officers, but he was retaken and convoyed to jail. The crowd becoming reinforced, moved upon the the jail, broke open the outer door, overpowered the officers, took from them the keys to the cells, went to McCrory's cell, opened it and placing a rope around the neck of the murderer, led him out on to Court street bridge, tied the rope to the railing and swung him into eternity. 

The murderer and his victim died at about the same moment. That sort of swift vengeance is, of course, all wrong, but it is about the only sort of treatment that such desperadoes can appreciate.

__________________________________

James Greenville "Jim" McCrory was born sometime in 1836 in Arkansas. On Christmas Eve in 1872, murderer James McCrory, age 35 or 36, was hanged in the town of Visalia, in Tulare County, California, by local Vigilantes after he killed one of the owners of the El Dorado Saloon. It's said the citizens took McCrory from the jail, dragged him to the Mill Creek Bridge, put a noose around his neck, and threw him over the side of the bridge to hang him. The reason for the hanging is said to be the citizens' frustration with the lawlessness in the town. 

It's said the vigilantes decided to leave his body hanging there for a few hours as a warning to others. Before cutting him down, those who lynched him collected money to provide a decent burial. Imagine that. They collected funds for the burial of McCrory while he swung from that bridge.

It should be noted that James G. McCrory was married once to Julia Ann Bozeman. She had 5 children by her first husband, James G. McCrory: Charles, Ambrose, Mary Frances, Martha, and James. After he was cut down from the Mill Creek Bridge, James G. McCrory was buried in the Visalia Public Cemetery with his 9-year-old son, who died in 1867. The birth year on his headstone is said to be wrong.

  

Tom Correa

A Wild Girl in the Swamp 1855

Below is an interesting news story taken off the syndicated telegraph wire and published by the Los Angeles Star on October 13, 1855:

A Wild Girl in the Swamp

The people of Eaton County, Michigan, have been excited for some time past by the story that a wild girl has been seen wandering in a swamp near the town of Chester. The Eaton Republican gives a long account of the circumstances which seem to prove that some lost child has been changed into a savage, and wanders in a wild condition in the forest. The people had turned out en masse to search for this strange creature, and for more than a week, the pursuit has been kept up.

The Detroit Tribune says, "The girl is described as a white child, apparently of seven or eight years old, with long hair, dressed in what seems to have been once a light colored gown, now very much torn and soiled, and something like an old sun bonnet on her head. School children report having seen the wild girl at various times, on the outside of the swamp, into which, however, she invariably disappeared.

Inquiry has failed to discover that any child has ever been lost in that vicinity, and some of the people are disposed to pronounce the whole affair a delusion or a hoax, but as these reports have been made, in some cases, by children of an age, judgment and character to be respected, the largest portion of the people think there must be something in the matter, of sufficient importance to demand attention.

Handbills have been issued offering a $50 reward for the capture of the child, and the swamp in which the singular creature must be concealed has been thoroughly and repeatedly scoured by the citizens, but without success. Foot prints, however, were discovered, plainly enough to convince those in search that a child had been wandering barefoot through the swamp, and a place was found which was believed to be the sleeping place of the child —a dry, comfortable place, underneath the roots ot a tree.

The swamp contains about forty acres, is quite wet and miry, and rendered nearly impassable by a dense growth of underbrush, but there are roads all around it. and quite a number of cleared fields in its vicinity. At last accounts, an Indian, somewhat noted for his sagacity and intelligence, together with a half-breed friend, had commenced a cautious and deliberate search for the wanderer. 

By next week, we hope to be able to inform our readers whether this story of the lost child is a premeditated hoax, a childish delusion, or a sad reality."

--- end of news story. 

The "Swamp Girl" hoax is today a common urban legend told around campfires. Yes, more or less just a folklore story. While folklore refers to the traditional beliefs, legends, and customs of a people, urban legends are a specific type of folklore that involves stories passed down about unusual or scary events. Those stories are often presented as true, but lack any sort of real, verifiable evidence. Of course, as with most folklore, there are different versions to these stories depending on the region where the story is being told and who is telling the story.

It's a very popular and well-circulated urban legend in the Southern states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The core of the urban legend is said to be a woman, or spirit, often called "The Swamp Girl" or a similar name, who roams around in a swamp. Supposedly, she haunts a swamp in search of a child. 

The most common thread is that it's a woman. Some versions say she's lost, abandoned, in search of her lost child, grieving the loss of a child, or involved with seeking revenge for being left to die in the swamp. Some versions suggest her child drowned in the swamp, while others say her child was kidnapped by Indian Warriors.  And yes, there are even versions that warn listeners to stay out of swamps. But if you are dumb enough to enter and say, "I have your baby" three times, then she will attack you. Imagine that. A ritual saying, "I have your baby" three times, to trigger the Swamp Girl's attack. 

The specific details of "The Swamp Girl," her age, what she's wearing, if she's searching for her child, her child's fate, and having to recite the triggering ritual in a specific manner, all change and vary from region to region. And yes, the story's "facts" also change from one storyteller to another. It is said that such stories have been around for a long time because this type of folklore has something to do with our anxieties regarding swamps, the unknown of what may be found there, or what has disappeared there. 

So, how long has "The Swamp Girl" tale been around? 

Well, while the 1855 newspaper report above came out of the Northeast and not the South, where "The Swamp Girl" urban legend is supposedly fairly common, the 1855 news story just shows us how such hoaxes were well circulated around the country even back in the day. Also, the age of "The Swamp Girl" is much younger than other versions. In the 1855 story she's a young girl instead of an older woman, and in the case of the "Wild Girl in the Swamp" story, readers have no clue how she ended up in the swamp or why she hides there. That just adds to that mystery of the story. 

Tom Correa

 

Let's Talk About American Hero 1st Lt. Sharon A. Lane, 67th Medical Group, 44th Medical Brigade

Since this is Memorial Day, let's talk about U.S. Army First Lieutenant Sharon A. Lane, who was with the 67th Medical Group, 44th Medical Brigade, in Vietnam on June 8, 1969. 

According to the U.S. Army Museum, Sharon Ann Lane was born on July 7, 1943, in Zanesville, Ohio. Her family moved to Canton, Ohio, when she was two. That is where she spent her childhood. That's where she grew up. That's where her character was formed and where she dreamt of being a nurse. 

After graduating from Canton High School in 1961, she enrolled at Aultman Hospital School of Nursing, which is now Aultman College of Nursing. She graduated in 1965 before spending the next two years in the Obstetrics Unit at Aultman Hospital. Then, in 1968, supposedly after never having ever talked about joining the military, it's said she surprised her family and friends by joining the U.S. Army Nurse Corps Reserves in April of 1968. 

Let's remember that 1968 was a year of significant anti-military sentiment in the United States. College campuses were rioting, and student protests were common and fueled by the unpopular Vietnam War and pro-Communism professors. The anti-war movement gained momentum throughout the decade, but really reached a peak in 1968. 

The war in Vietnam, which began escalating in the mid-1960s,  and the Tet Offensive in early 1968, where the North Vietnamese launched a surprise attack, significantly shook public confidence in the war's progress and the government's handling of it. Anti-war protests were widespread. The anti-war movement had a significant impact on fueling an anti-military sentiment that plagued American society for many years. The anti-war sentiment had a major impact on how Americans looked down on those serving our country in our military.

It was not uncommon for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to return home from duty in Vietnam to people spitting on them. Most who served in the military at the time, including those who never served in Vietnam, were treated horribly by Americans -- especially in colleges and universities, but also by being discriminated against when it came to finding jobs and adjusting to civilian life. Many veterans at the time found it easier to say they never served, rather than put up with disdain and ridicule for serving. 

The anti-war movement had a lasting impact on our American culture for years. It contributed to the shift in public opinion of anyone serving in the military. The 1960s and 1970s were a time when Americans serving our country were treated with disdain and loathing. As for Lt. Lane volunteering to join the military in 1968, I can definitely understand why she would keep her interest in a career in the military a secret. It was extremely unpopular to join the military back in those days. 

For me personally, I remember having to wade through protestors outside of a Marine Corps Recruiting Office in 1972 when I went there for information on enlisting. I also remember later, while being in the Marine Corps and attending an event at a California University in 1976. Even though it was just a year after the fall of Saigon, I was pelted with food and spit on by students who called me all sorts of vile things. And yes, I remember how the faculty looked on with approval. They might not have said they agreed or approved of the actions of their students, but their silence and unwillingness to hold those students to account for their horrid behavior was proof enough for me to understand that they supported what their students were doing. 

As for women in the military in 1968, we should understand that American women were officially forbidden from combat roles in our military until 2013. Women did serve in other areas of the military. Mostly working as rear-echelon nurses. The fact is, it was not until the establishment of the Army Nurse Corps of the Medical Department under the Army Reorganization Act of 1901 that women nurses were allowed to join the Army in a formal capacity. 

Sharon Lane underwent basic training at Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. She graduated in June of 1968 with the rank of Second Lieutenant. Her first post was at the Army’s Fitzsimons General Hospital in Denver, Colorado, in the Tuberculosis Ward. She was soon promoted to First Lieutenant. Her promotion allowed her to move to the Cardiac Care Unit and the recovery room. 

It's said, while Lt. Lane liked her work, she soon requested a transfer to a place far more challenging. She requested duty in Vietnam. Many nurses who served in the Vietnam War were recent graduates and were ordered to go after receiving stipends from the Army while in school. In contrast to others, Lt. Lane volunteered to be sent to Vietnam. 

She arrived at the 312th Evacuation Hospital in Chu Lai, South Vietnam, on April 29, 1969. And yes, it's said that not long after arriving there, Lt. Lane volunteered for one of the most unpopular wards at the hospital. She volunteered to work in the Vietnamese ward where American doctors and nurses not only looked after injured Vietnamese civilians and children. But also, that ward was where wounded Viet Cong prisoners were kept. And yes, they would often spit, kick, and insult the American doctors and nurses there. 

Martha Green, who worked with Lt. Lane, remembered her taking everything in stride. “She didn’t make a big deal out of it,” recalled Green, “she said she was a nurse, and she had to take care of patients. It didn’t make a difference whether they were Vietnamese or POWs or our own soldiers.” 

Attending to her patients kept Lane extremely busy. She worked five days a week for 12 hours each day. During her days off, she volunteered to care for critically injured American Soldiers in the hospital’s intensive care unit. Being so close to the frontlines was dangerous, however, and within weeks of arriving, two enemy rockets struck the hospital compound. 

While it's said that Lt. Lane remained unfazed, in a letter to her parents, she summed up her new environment by saying, “… hardly anyone is scared though. It is just like part of the job.” 

Her attitude and dedication, not only to those she cared for but those she worked with, earned her instant admiration and respect. Forty-one days after she arrived in Vietnam, 1st Lt. Sharon A. Lane was killed by shrapnel from a 122-mm rocket that hit the hospital. She died while trying to protect her patients from the incoming blasts. 

She was laid to rest with full military honors, and the Army posthumously awarded her several medals, including a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star with the “V” for valor decoration. She was the only American servicewoman to be awarded such an honor at the time. Her name can be found on panel 23W, line 112 of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. 

Lt. Lane’s time in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War, while short, left a lasting impression on all those who met her. Since her death, a memorial has gone up in her honor at Aultman College of Nursing, and she was inducted into the Ohio Military Hall of Fame. 

It's said America's military is full of heroes and heroines. Sharon A. Lane was one such heroine. A member of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, Lt. Lane has been remembered for being quiet, hardworking, and dedicated to her patients. And while other nurses died in Vietnam, she has the tragic distinction of being the only U.S. military nurse killed by enemy fire in the Vietnam War. 

So, if we talk about a common thread that runs through those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, the character of those who should not be forgotten. We must talk about their caring, their devotion to duty, their devotion to their comrades, their selflessness, their love for others, and their doing what's right -- even if it's at the expense of their own lives.  

Tom Correa