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

Let's Talk About Trump Hoaxes And Why Americans Don't Trust The News

Most miners made barely enough to get by during the California Gold Rush. Some were convinced that getting rich in California was all just a wicked hoax played on them. The California Gold Rush did see people get rich overnight. And no, that wasn't a hoax at all. But it wasn't the miners who got rich. In fact, those who ended up getting rich at the time were the people who supplied the miners with food, clothing, shovels, and everything else miners needed to get by during their search for those elusive nuggets. 

Like today, there have been small hoaxes and large hoaxes, famous hoaxes and not-so-famous hoaxes. As I was saying in my long six-part series on Was The Capt. Jonathan R. Davis 1854 Gunfight A Hoax? -- Part Four, back in the 1800s, hoaxes were very commonplace. Of course, though that was the case, hoaxes in newspapers didn't stop after 1900. In fact, just as what's taking place today with the Left's money-making Climate Change Hoax, and people trying to make rapists and murderers look like misunderstood victims to sell newspapers, fraud and people perpetrating such things seem eternal. 

A hoax that caught a lot of people off guard took place in 1931 in Dallas, Texas. The initial story of what supposedly took place was big enough. But then, when the fraudster came clean and owned up to the hoax that he tried to pull, well, that really made bigger news. 

The initial story was about how four men attempted to lynch a 30-year-old Baptist Minister by hanging him from a chandelier directly over the pulpit where he stood each Sunday morning. The story had people wanting to know what sort of degenerate would lynch a preacher right over the very spot where he preached the gospel on Sundays. The preacher was Rev. B. P. Brown. He was an assistant pastor at the North Dallas Baptist Church. And yes, it was all a fraud created by him. 

TEXAS PASTOR SAYS HANGING STORY A HOAX

Rev. Brown Confesses That He Lost Nerve In Attempt To Commit Suicide

DALLAS, Texas, June 20, 1931, (UPI) The story of how four men attempted to lynch a 30-year-old Baptist Minister by hanging him from a chandelier directly over the pulpit where he stood each Sunday morning was a hoax, the preacher confessed today. The Rev. B. P. Brown, supply pastor at the North Dallas Baptist Church, hanged himself in an attempt to commit suicide, but lost his nerve and then concocted the story of the lynching. A mental disorder brought on when he was slugged in the head early this year at Midland, Texas, was blamed for his actions.

Brown was beaten by burglars when he discovered them rifling a safe at the hotel where he was working at the time. He then came to Dallas, entered the ministry, and supported himself by working as a baggage clerk in the Adolphus Hotel. Brown confessed that his story was a hoax before his whole congregation, assembled for a revival meeting. He told of the elaborate plan he made to hang himself. 

He looped the rope over the chandelier, placed the loop around his neck, and climbed on a chair, he said. Then, he kicked the chair away and was suspended in mid-air, slowly choking to death. That's when Brown changed his mind and finally freed himself from the knotted rope. 

He was found by police, stripped of his clothing and his mouth bound with strips of adhesive tape, "I intended to kill myself, and then just couldn't do it when 1 was hanging there and looking death right in the face," he said. 

He gave no reason for his action. The "crime" had puzzled Dallas Police ever since Brown was found in the church early Thursday. The "lynching" was first believed to be the result of hatred held for Brown by various members of his church.

Even the Ku Klux Klan entered the case. It was reported that the Klan, once strong in the area, had attempted to punish the minister for Communist leanings. The story Brown first told was elaborate. He claimed to have been kidnapped shortly after midnight Thursday while walking home from work. His abductor, he said, took him to his own church, where three other masked men were awaiting him. They first stripped him of his clothing, bound his mouth with tape, and then hanged him, he told police. He said he was able to save himself only because the rope they used was new and stretched, allowing him to reach a nearby chair with the tips of his toes.

-- end of the 1931 news article.

_____________________

Before his confession, the newspapers in Texas put the news story on the wire and ran with it. They attributed the preacher's faked hanging to everyone but the preacher himself. With egg on their face, the newspapers that ran with the story never took responsibility for having published a false story. Yes, a story that many kept believing was true. Instead of waiting to ferret out the truth, the newspapers simply ran with it. 

While that was in the 1930s, nothing's changed. The news media today wants to be the first to publish a story -- true or not. And no, they don't seem to care if what they are saying is credible or if it's just another lie. They are not held accountable and see themselves above being held to standards of honesty and truthfulness. 

As for running hoaxes, the Mainstream Media outdid themselves when they ran with the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax story. The false information they spread elevated them to a level of fakeness that will never be matched again in our history. They lied and lied and lied for years. They did so by bringing on so-called "legal experts" and others who pushed that story even though there was not an ounce of truth in it. 

After years of hype and distortion, with the Left in America calling for Trump's immediate arrest, Americans were able to read the full 316-page report from Justice Department special counsel John Durham. That report not only debunked the Left's vile assertions that President Trump committed treason, but it indicted some of our country’s leading institutions -- including the FBI. 

In fact, the Durham Report said that the FBI should have never launched an investigation into alleged Russian collusion with Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, given the suspicious evidence coming from biased Democratic Party sources. All in all, the FBI appeared to be either duped or was made a tool by members of the Democratic Party trying to smear President Trump in any way they could. 

President Trump's vindication was a huge win for him, especially after years of unfair treatment by the FBI, a "weaponized" Department of Justice, and a national press with a lynch mob mentality -- of hang him, then we'll find out what he did wrong. To say it was shameful would be an understatement. But no, even though they were proven wrong and exposed for being the political tool of the Democratic Party, that hasn't stopped the news media from continuing to conduct business as usual -- and still fire off lie after lie to attack President Trump.  

The attacks on President Trump from the news media showed them as all too willing to blame President Trump for everything -- just short of the 9-11 attack. The investigation into the "Russia Collusion" hoax affected President Trump’s entire first term. As for the people responsible for the hoax, the news media's complicity in the criminal fraud was brushed aside as Democrats were elated while trying to paint President Trump's first term as "illegitimate." 

To many, what was done to President Trump was criminal, and the people who perpetrated that fraud on the American people should be held to account for their actions. Sadly, because those behind the "Russia Collusion" hoax, those who actually orchestrated and coordinated that effort to unseat a sitting American President, are among the most powerful and wealthy Democrats in the United States, they are above the law and will most likely never be brought to justice. 

Whether some want to admit it or not, the ill effects of the "Russia Collusion" hoax have taken their toll on our society as a whole. While hoaxes and fraud being played on the people have been around forever, the news media lying and distorting the truth is now why only 3 out of 10 Americans trust the news media today. The biased reporting and obviously unfounded attacks on President Trump has ruined the credibility of the Mainstream News Media. 

And yes, while the news media will tell us that it is "essential to maintaining our freedoms," most Americans don't believe it and see their claim as "defenders of Democracy" as their way of trying to justify their criminal behavior. Because their Leftist Political Agenda supersedes their ability to be fair and honest, Americans see the news media today as both horridly unfair and dishonest.  

If you think the news media may have learned a lesson from the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax, they haven't. In fact, they are still doing the same thing by spreading hoax after hoax, lie after lie after lie. For example, take a look at these Trump hoaxes, which were tried and played out by the new media in just the last few months. Since President Trump took office this year, there has been a nonstop deluge of hoaxes and lies from Democrats and their allies in the news media. The news media lies because they know they have followers who will believe anything they say. That's the reason the news media publishes hoaxes, fake information, things that no honest person would think of repeating. 

Take a look at these examples of Fake News:

HOAX: Fake News CNN attempted to “fact check” President Trump’s claim that the Biden Administration spent millions on “making mice transgender.”

FACT: After their so-called “fact check” was thoroughly debunked, they were forced to update it in disgrace and admit the claim was, in fact, true.

_____________________

HOAX: The Fake News claimed the Department of Defense removed Gen. Colin Powell’s name from a list of notable Americans buried at Arlington Cemetery.

FACT: No service members’ names were removed from that section — and Gen. Powell’s name remains among those listed.

_____________________

HOAX: Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) claimed “no president” presided over more plane crashes during their first month in office as President Trump.

FACT: “There were 55 aviation accidents in the U.S. between Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 21, 2021, and Feb. 17, 2021, compared to 35 during the same period for Trump,” Fox News reported.

_____________________

HOAX: Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL) and Chicago Public Schools officials claimed, without bothering to verify, that ICE agents had conducted a “raid” at an elementary school — a false claim echoed by media outlets, including the Chicago Tribune.

FACT: It was actually the U.S. Secret Service investigating a threat unrelated to immigration.

_____________________

HOAX: Far-left influencers and other leftist hacks falsely claimed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Elon Musk were out to “cut Social Security.”

FACT: They were referencing an interview in which Musk was clearly referring to the tremendous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse within entitlement programs.

_____________________

HOAX: The media smeared DOGE as “young, inexperienced engineers” engineering a “government takeover.”

FACT: In reality, DOGE is led by seasoned industry professionals, including successful CEOs who paused their lives to aid in the effort of streamlining government and holding the bureaucracy accountable.

_____________________

HOAX: NBC’s Peter Alexander peddled the lie that “constituents in some traditionally red districts” were unhappy with President Trump’s effort to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government.

FACT: The same “protests” cited by the Fake News were funded and organized by far-left special interest groups.

_____________________

HOAX: NPR claimed NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore — who were stuck on the International Space Station for more than nine months following problems with their spacecraft — were “not stranded.”

FACT: NPR itself had described the astronauts as stranded in prior reporting, and only seemed to take issue with the description once President Trump and Elon Musk made it a priority to bring them home.

_____________________

HOAX: A foreign Fake News outlet reported that President Trump “shut down” the British prime minister during a news conference.

FACT: In reality, President Trump was simply moving on from a reporter who was trying to goad the two leaders into division.

_____________________

HOAX: NPR falsely claimed the White House was actively searching for a new secretary of defense.

FACT: This lie was immediately shut down by multiple Trump Administration officials, including President Trump himself.

_____________________

HOAX: The Fake News attempted to paint illegal immigrant gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia as an innocent “Maryland father” who was unjustly deported by the Trump Administration — and actively censored the truth about him.

FACT: Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and was deported to his home country amid overwhelming evidence of his gang affiliation.

_____________________

HOAX: Deranged “filmmaker” Michael Moore questioned whether deported illegal immigrants would go on to cure cancer or stop “that asteroid (sic) that’s gonna hit us.”

FACT: Moore’s statement was a strong early contender for the dumbest, most ridiculous statement of the year, considering those deported illegal immigrants were violent criminals.

_____________________

HOAX: The Fake News portrayed Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Hamas radical who led violent protests at Columbia, as an innocent graduate student with an absolute right to remain in the U.S.

FACT: An immigration judge ruled Khalil — who is not a U.S. citizen — can be deported.

_____________________

HOAX: A foreign Fake News reporter claimed President Trump referred to European nations as “parasites.”

FACT: President Trump immediately pushed back on this ridiculous claim — as did the Italian prime minister.

_____________________

HOAX: Fake News CNN’s Brianna Keilar implied the Trump Administration was somehow wrong for stopping illegal immigrants from stealing taxpayer dollars in the form of welfare benefits.

FACT: Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller summarily embarrassed her with the facts: “The federal government will find EVERY illegal alien who is stealing American taxpayer dollars — and that’s what Americans expect to happen. I don’t even fathom the premise of your question.”

_____________________

HOAX: A favorite refrain of the Fake News is that Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is “anti-vaccine.”

FACT: Kennedy debunked the lie in his confirmation hearings: “This has been repeatedly debunked … Bringing this up right now is dishonest.”

_____________________

HOAX: Reuters falsely reported that the Trump Administration “stalled a United Nations program in Mexico aimed at stopping imported fentanyl chemicals from reaching the country’s drug cartels.”

FACT: The Department of State is actually trying to expand the initiative.

_____________________

HOAX: Fake News savant Tara Palmeri falsely reported that President Trump’s proposal for Gaza was conceived by Jared Kushner.

FACT: This lie was immediately and summarily debunked by the Trump Administration: “The worst reporter in America makes up fake news for clout because she has no real sources. Sit down, dummy.”

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Chris Murphy, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and media outlets claimed President Trump’s directive to pause radical, wasteful government spending meant an end to Medicaid, food assistance, and other individual assistance programs.

FACT: Individual assistance programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. — were explicitly excluded, as was made clear by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and the Office of Management and Budget. Only unnecessary spending — DEI, Green New Scam, NGOs that undermine the national interest — were included in the directive.

_____________________

HOAX: A “physicians advocacy group” was widely cited as opposing President Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

FACT: The “advocacy group” was really an astroturfed partisan organization funded by prominent left-wing donors — and accepted fake signatures.

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and other Democrats pushed the lie that DOGE posted “classified information” on their website.

FACT: That alleged “classified information” was really just an employment headcount — which has been publicly available for years.

_____________________

HOAX: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) claimed Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem called all Venezuelan immigrants “dirtbags.”

FACT: Secretary Noem actually called illegal immigrant members of the vicious Tren de Aragua gang “dirtbags,” which is true.

_____________________

HOAX: The New York Times wrote that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., wanted to “ban fluoride in drinking water” and “reverse … one of the most important public health practices in the country’s history.”

FACT: New York Times made no mention of their own reporting that fluoride may be “linked to lower IQ scores in children.”

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly lied about President Trump “going after” Social Security.

FACT: President Trump has repeatedly pledged to protect Social Security and make it more robust for American citizens.

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Mark Kelley (D-AZ) attempted to scare veterans by shamelessly claiming their care was in jeopardy due to “layoffs” at VA hospitals.

FACT: The lie was debunked by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins: “What changes are you talking about? We’ve not had those layoffs… I put $360 million back into community care… It’s concerning to me that a veteran would actually tell stories to veterans that are not true.”

_____________________

HOAX: Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) exploited the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport plane crash tragedy by claiming President Trump “froze the hiring” of air traffic controllers.

FACT: Air traffic controllers were exempt from the federal hiring freeze.

_____________________

HOAX: Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) implied that “cutting” members of an aviation advisory committee was somehow a cause of the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport plane crash tragedy.

FACT: The advisory group hadn’t met since 2023 and was comprised of business and union leaders who gave “advice” to the TSA and had nothing to do with actual air travel.

_____________________

HOAX: A far-left writer claimed Elon Musk and DOGE staffers “illegally installed a commercial server to control federal HR databases that contain sensitive personal information, including SSNs, home addresses, and medical histories.”

FACT: A top official confirmed “there’s nothing illegal and no server, just more made up tall tales from uninformed career bureaucrats.”

_____________________

HOAX: The Washington Post alleged the Trump Administration was setting “quotas” for immigration authorities — and gave the administration just four minutes to comment before publishing.

FACT: As usual, this was a fake story.

_____________________

HOAX: Online liberal activists claimed President Trump “took down” President Obama’s portrait in the White House.

FACT: Obama’s portrait was not taken down — it was simply moved only feet away from its previous location.

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) claimed Attorney General Pam Bondi created a “weaponizing task force.”

FACT: It was a task force to END weaponization at the Department of Justice.

_____________________

HOAX: CBS News reported that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a “makeup studio” be installed inside the Pentagon.

FACT: It was a “totally fake story,” and the alleged studio was really an existing green room with no frills.

_____________________

HOAX: Politico reported the Trump Administration was debating lifting sanctions on Russian energy assets, including the Nord Stream pipeline.

FACT: This was debunked by both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.

_____________________

HOAX: An illegal immigrant in U.S. custody “simply disappeared,” The New York Times reported.

FACT: The illegal immigrant was a confirmed member of the vicious Tren de Aragua gang. An immigration judge ordered his removal, and he was deported along with other threats to national security.

_____________________

HOAX: The Wall Street Journal alleged that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was receiving sensitive information on a personal phone while in Moscow and that Russian Intelligence must’ve had access to the information.

FACT: This was a total fabrication. Special Envoy Witkoff did not even have a personal phone with him in Russia. He had only a government phone; a secure line of communication.

_____________________

HOAX: The Wall Street Journal claimed the Trump Administration “sought to portray” deported criminal illegal immigrant gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia as “violent.”

FACT: Abrego Garcia’s own wife filed an order of protection against him and testified that he brutally beat her.

_____________________

HOAX: An AP reporter claimed that FAA staff who worked on “radar, landing and navigational aid maintenance, among others” were “harassed on Facebook” by DOGE.

FACT: That was a total lie. DOGE doesn’t have a Facebook page and no professionals who perform critical safety functions were fired.

_____________________

HOAX: The Daily Beast claimed Vice President JD Vance “broke one of the most notorious Vatican rules during his Easter weekend visit” by being photographed in the Sistine Chapel.

FACT: Buried all the way down in the 14th paragraph, The Daily Beast admitted the vice president was given special permission by the Vatican to have photographs taken inside the Sistine Chapel.

_____________________

HOAX: Left-wing social media accounts promoted fake, AI-generated audio of Vice President Vance “disparaging Elon Musk in private.”

FACT: The audio was debunked as fake.

_____________________

HOAX: The New York Times reported that funding for the Women’s Health Initiative was being slashed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

FACT: Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., himself declared this Fake News and recognized the project is “mission critical.”

_____________________

HOAX: Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin gave legitimacy to a hoax from delusional Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth requested nearly $140,000 in “upgrades” to his government residence.

FACT: This lie was debunked by Secretary Hegseth — and it was so outrageous, even the Associated Press was forced to admit it was completely fake.

_____________________

HOAX: Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and many others claimed the Supreme Court ordered the return of illegal immigrant gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States.

FACT: Even CNN admitted that’s not what happened: “They did not order the administration to return him to the United States … they could’ve said ‘we order him returned,’ but they didn’t do that.”

_____________________

HOAX: Joe Biden accused the Trump Administration of “taking aim at Social Security.”

FACT: As usual, he was lying — President Trump has repeatedly pledged to protect Social Security.

_____________________

HOAX: Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) claimed the arrest of a Milwaukee judge who helped an illegal immigrant evade arrest was “unprecedented.”

FACT: It wasn’t; it has happened before.

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) called the arrest of a Milwaukee judge who helped an illegal immigrant evade arrest a “gravely serious and drastic move.”

FACT: The judge violated the law by obstructing an ICE arrest of an illegal immigrant.

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) claimed the arrest of the Milwaukee judge who obstructed an apprehension of a criminal illegal immigrant “threatens the rule of law.”

FACT: It literally does the opposite because no one is above the law.

_____________________

HOAX: Politico claimed the Trump Administration “wipe[d] out firefighter health and safety programs.”

FACT: The programs remain a top priority for the administration — and will remain intact.

_____________________

HOAX: Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed that President Trump’s policies make it so “no one wants to make investments in the United States.”

FACT: President Trump has secured more than $5 trillion in investments since taking office, which is expected to create more than 451,000 new jobs — and the list is only expected to grow.

_____________________

HOAX: NBC’s Kristen Welker peddled a Fake News hoax that the Trump Administration was deporting children.

FACT: Secretary of State Marco Rubio shut down her desperate attempt at a hoax by highlighting how the mother, who was in the country illegally, made that choice all on her own.

_____________________

HOAX: The New York Times implied President Trump was alone in wearing a blue suit to the funeral of Pope Francis.

FACT: Photos show dozens of world leaders and other attendees — many situated near President Trump — also wearing blue clothing.

_____________________

HOAX: Teachers’ union boss Randi Weingarten accused President Trump of taking teachers’ salaries and giving them to “billionaires” by cutting the Department of Education.

FACT: President Trump has repeatedly called teachers “the most important people in this country” who should be paid more, not less. The federal government does not pay the salaries of teachers; state and local governments do.

_____________________

HOAX: The Fake News and their predictable allies ran with a story that claimed an American citizen was detained by authorities after he informed them he was, in fact, a citizen.

FACT: That’s not what happened. The individual “approached Border Patrol in Tucson and stated he had entered the U.S. illegally through Nogales. He said he wanted to turn himself in and completed a sworn statement identifying as a Mexican citizen who had entered unlawfully … A few days later, his family presented documents showing U.S. citizenship. The charges were dismissed, and he was released to his family.”

_____________________

HOAX: PBS News claimed “DOGE operatives attempted to gain access to secure spaces,” implying they attempted to access classified information without approval.

FACT: This wasn’t even remotely true.

_____________________

HOAX: The AP falsely claimed Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said President Trump is “very good friends” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

FACT: The AP was humiliatingly forced to retract its story, admitting they were wrong. Stephanie Ruhle also had to issue a correction. DNI Gabbard was referencing President Trump’s relationship with Indian PM Narendra Modi.

_____________________

HOAX: Student visa holders should have unfettered access to do whatever they want in the United States.

FACT: Wrong. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest… If you tell us when you apply for a visa ‘I’m coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events,’ that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States… If you had told us you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa.”

_____________________

Today, the worst fraud carried out on the American people has nothing to do with some shady character standing on a corner trying to trick you out of your money. Americans today have learned the hard way that believing the lies that the Mainstream Media pushes -- actually demands that we all believe in hoax after hoax after hoax -- lie after lie after lie. And really, that's why the news media as a whole is not trusted today. They lie. 

They lie because they know that political hoaxes are believed. Also known as "Fake News," those deliberately false stories and claims are designed to deceive or manipulate public opinion. And yes, people believe them even after those stories have been debunked. It seems as though it just doesn't matter. The world is such that people would rather believe the lie, even when they've been given the truth. 

Of course, because the Mainstream Media is primarily in bed with the Democratic Party and the extreme Left, the lies that are spread are used to advance a particular political agenda of the Left. Because fraud is being perpetrated on a lot more people today, simply because technology is such that a lie can be spread far and wide in no time at all, the Mainstream Media uses fraud, hoaxes, and lies to promote their Leftist political agenda. That's just the way it is. And really, it doesn't look like it will ever stop.

It's sad, but that's why the Mainstream Media, the news media, the entertainment industry, and other forms of media sympathetic to the agenda of the Democratic Party have lost the trust of the American people. As seen above in example after example, the news media has almost zero credibility today. That's the reason the Mainstream Media is now commonly referred to as "Fake News." 

Tom Correa