Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 296

Thread: Range War: Feds vs The People

  1. #121
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Feds retreat from Nevada ranch standoff

    End cattle gathering operation over 'serious concern' about safety

    Drew Zahn Drew Zahn is a WND news editor who cut his journalist teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. A former pastor, he is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."


    Federal officials have backed away from a growing confrontation over land rights in Clark County, Nev., citing “serious concern” about the safety of law enforcement officials and private citizens on the front lines of the standoff.
    As WND reported, helicopters, four-wheel-drive vehicles and an estimated 200 armed officers of the federal Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, were deployed to the Nevada ranch of Cliven Bundy, while citizen militias rallied to the property, prepared to support the rancher.


    The dispute escalated last weekend, when federal authorities began seizing cattle grazing on federal lands adjacent to Bundy’s property in Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, charging the rancher has been in violation of a law that aims to protect an endangered desert tortoise. The BLM also says Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees to the federal government.
    But now, according to a report by KSNV-TV in Las Vegas, the gathering of cattle has been stopped by the director of the BLM, and Bundy is meeting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie to discuss a possible solution.
    The station reported the following statement, made by Neil Kornze, director of the BLM: “As we have said from the beginning of the gather (sic) to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders, a safe and peaceful operation is our No. 1 priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.
    “Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement,” Kornze continued, “we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather (sic) because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.
    “We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he concluded.
    As WND reported, tensions rose Thursday when two men from Utah who had come to join the protest in support of Bundy were detained by federal officials.
    Brothers Tyler and Spencer Shillig said they walked through a gated area of land near Overton, Nev., when they were confronted by BLM rangers, according to KTNV-TV in Las Vegas.
    Spencer claims he was handcuffed and sustained cuts and scrapes to his head, neck and arms when he was detained. The BLM has stated “public safety is key to this operation’ and it has “minimal law enforcement in place to ensure public safety.”
    One of Cliven’s seven sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody Sunday after allegedly being roughed up for taking pictures along State Road 170, which has been closed. His camera was confiscated. Another son, Ammon, was tased Wednesday by authorities in a clash with about 50 protesters.
    The Washington Free Beacon reported Thursday that the BLM has brought in armed rangers from out of state to assist in security surrounding the Bundy ranch.
    Stetsy Bundy Cox, Cliven’s daughter, said the rangers are “almost like a hired gun.”
    “Because what they’re supposed to do is they each have a road, and are told to stay on that road, and they’re supposed to keep people off that road, whatever means possible. That’s their job,” she told the Free Beacon. “They don’t even know how many cows have been gathered.”
    ‘No cow justifies’
    Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval decried the federal government’s tactics.
    “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” Sandoval said. “The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”
    Sen. Heller, R-Nev., meanwhile said he told BLM Director Neil Kornze that “law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM.”
    Screenshot of video of confrontation with Ammon Bundy and other protesters

    Sandoval has criticized the federal government’s decision to confine protests to “First Amendment areas.” The move, he said, “tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution.”
    At a town hall meeting this week, Bundy’s sister Margaret Houston said she felt like she was in “a war zone” and “not in the United States,” the London Daily Mail reported.
    ‘Better have funeral plans’
    Sparking outrage, Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins warned that supporters of Bundy planning to come from Utah “better have funeral plans,” according to a Utah county commissioner who said he spoke with Collins.
    Darin Bushman, a commissioner in Piute County, Utah, said in a post on his Facebook page that Collins told him “all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of ‘inbred bastards” and if we are to come to [Clark County] to support Cliven Bundy we all ‘better have funeral plans.’”
    Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins (LasVegasCityLife.com)

    Adding fuel to the growing rhetorical fire, Arizona state Rep. Kelly Townsend said the roundup reminds her of the Tiananmen Square massacre in China.
    She is among about three dozen Arizona Republican state legislators who have signed a letter to federal and Nevada officials expressing concern about government heavy-handedness and the restriction of free speech.
    The lawmakers say aren’t arguing over whether Bundy has broken laws or violated grazing agreements.
    Townsend told the Las Vegas Review-Journal she was shocked after seeing video that showed federal police used a stun gun on one of Bundy’s sons.
    “Watching that video last night created a visceral reaction in me,” Townsend said. “It sounds dramatic, but it reminded me of Tiananmen Square. I don’t recognize my country at this point.”
    Who is the trespasser?
    Cliven Bundy’s son Ammon Bundy told WND this week that federal authorities have not been merely re-locating the cattle but engaging in actions that have killed many of the animals.
    “They are flying helicopters over the herd to chase them,” Ammon Bundy said. “It was over 90 degrees here today, and the cattle can’t run very far in this heat before collapsing. This is especially true for the young calves. We have a lot of them being born because it is springtime, and they don’t have the strength to keep up with their mothers when they are running. The cattle then become overheated and die.”
    Cliven Bundy

    Cliven Bundy, who has said he fears the standoff could turn into another Ruby Ridge or Waco disaster, insists he has been acting within his legal rights.
    “I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there, and why I can raise cattle there, is because I have preemptive rights,” he said, contending that among them is the right to forage.
    “Who is the trespasser here?” he asked. “Who is the trespasser on this land? Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Or is it Cliven Bundy who is trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Who’s the trespasser?”
    In 1992, in a confrontation with members of a militia movement Ruby Ridge, Idaho, federal agents shot an unarmed woman at who was holding an infant in her arms. In Waco, Texas, in 1993, federal and state law enforcement and military engaged in a siege of a compound belonging to the Branch Davidian cult that resulted in the deaths of 76 men, women and children.
    Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie has called for both sides to resolve the issue peacefully, telling the Las Vegas Review-Journal “no drop of human blood is worth spilling over any cow.”
    Ammon Bundy told WND that his family and others who are defending them believe they have been left unprotected because “the local sheriff has said they are not going to get involved in what is happening, saying this is a BLM issue.”
    “This means they are leaving us completely vulnerable, because the BLM are the only side with the weapons and if they decide to use violent force there is nothing we can do.”
    Last rancher in the county
    Cliven Bundy is the last rancher operating in Clark County, where he’s been grazing his cattle on a 600,000 acre portion of land managed by the BLM called Gold Butte. His family, whose ties to the land go back to the 1880s, has been engaged in a dispute since 1993 with the Bureau of Land Management over long-established cattle-grazing rights.
    Tyler and Spencer Shillig were detained Thursday evening by federal authorities (KLAS-TV, Las Vegas)

    After years of wrangling in the courts, last week BLM secured a federal court order declaring Bundy’s herd to be “trespass cattle” and began removing the animals.
    Since 1998, when it designated Gold Butte home of the protected desert tortoise, Gold Butte has been off-limits to cattle grazing. BLM has insisted it has exhausted all other options to stop citizens who are ignoring federal regulations.
    “For more than two decades, cattle have been grazed illegally on public lands in northeast Clark County,” BLM said in a statement. “BLM and (the National Park Service) have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort.”
    The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmentalist group, has praised the federal government for taking action.
    “Despite having no legal right to do so, cattle from Bundy’s ranch have continued to graze throughout the Gold Butte area, competing with tortoises for food, hindering the ability of plants to recover from extensive wildfires, trampling rare plants, damaging ancient American Indian cultural sites and threatening the safety of recreationists,” said spokesman Rob Mrowka in a statement.
    ‘Things got pretty ugly’
    Dave Bundy’s aunt, Kay Sessions, told WND that authorities who detained her nephew Sunday gave him a concussion and “stomped him on the ground,” causing kidney problems.
    Dave Bundy talks to media about his arrest (Las Vegas Review Journal)

    “They hauled him to jail and interrogated him all night before letting him go,” she said. “Before they took him to jail officials left him in a hot vehicle for three hours.”
    She explained that he was “trying to get pictures of what government officials are doing and they confiscated his camera and tablet.”
    Ammon Bundy said he was with a group of about 50 people “peacefully protesting the removal of the cattle” when “suddenly, 14 units with Rangers came off the mountain – 13 of them were armed ranger vehicles with two rangers per unit.”
    He said the protesters went over to see what was in a dump truck, “because we were afraid this might have been a rendering vehicle, and we wanted to know what was in the back of the truck.”
    See video of the confrontation with Ammon Bundy and protesters:

    You need to have the Adobe Flash Player to view this content.
    Please click here to continue.


    The rangers got out of their vehicles and the conflict escalated, he said.
    “Things got pretty ugly for awhile. They threw a 65-year-old woman on the ground, they tased me twice and they had dogs out there.”


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/feds-retr...1bWFkUtJYcD.99
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  2. #122
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,069
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Bundy Ranch : Fox coverage (Megan Kelly)



    Published on Apr 14, 2014
    Bundy Ranch coverage on Fox. I am not a fan of Fox, but I am paying attention to all MSM that is willing to cover it.
    Sorry for the bad quality, Im trying to get info out any way I can.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  3. #123
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    There is indeed a good chance this isn't over...

    Hannity is reporting on his radio program there is chatter of the Feds planning some type of dark-of-night raid on Bundy's ranch.

    A caller purporting to be on the ground there stated they were aware of the chatter and were planning on being ready.

  4. #124
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    I've been stewing over something most of today...

    We keep hearing how the Federal government supposedly "owns" about 87% of the state of Nevada.

    My question is, at what point does a state cease being a state because of percentage of controlled land? If one objectively looks at Nevada, it "owns" far less than half of it's land. I guess what I'm getting at is, is it really a state if they only control what happens on 13% of the land within their borders? Should it be considered a Federal district since the area they control is in the distinct minority?

  5. #125
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    So I looked them up (3rd ID) and the patch is a blue and white (silver) cross hatch design. I can't tell from the images WHAT those guys are wearing myself.

    Can anyone else shed some light on the subject? I asked the guy who sent me the note to find an image of the patch, as well as enlargement of the image he's talking about to verify.
    You are correct. The patch those goons are wearing is not a 3rd ID patch.

    Here's a higher res image from back on page 4 vector posted:
    One thing to note, guy in the back has the wrong flag patch on his right arm.

    Still don't know what the "3" patch means. It bears a slight resemblance to the 3%er logo with the Roman numeral 3 but it certainly isn't one of those. Looks like it says "L.D." on the one side of the patch.

    Also... I've got those same Oakley gloves front and back dudes are sporting.

    And I've got the exact same Oakley sunglasses the coperator below is wearing. They're a special edition Desert Sage color Cerekoted model of their Fuel Cells.

    Is I Tier 1 too?
    Quote Originally Posted by vector7 View Post


  6. #126
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    I think they were wearing that patch to throw people off.

    It LOOKS like the 3%er patch. But it's not quite, but enough that anyone seeing it might think they are connected.

    A lot of others in the Patriots think similar.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  7. #127
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    The Armed Rebellion on a Nevada Cattle Ranch Could Be Just the Start





    Protesters gathered at the Bureau of Land Management's base camp, where cattle seized from rancher Cliven Bundy was being held, near Bunkerville, Nevada, April 12, 2014. Jim Urquhart—Reuters
    The Feds may have made a gross miscalculation by allowing a rancher and his followers to win an armed standoff over government authority

    It could have been a catastrophe. For several days last week, hundreds of angry protesters faced off with federal workers on an arid ranch near Bunkerville, Nev. Militiamen squatted among the sagebrush and crouched on a highway overpass, cradling guns and issuing barely veiled threats at the government officials massed behind makeshift barricades. The specter of a violent standoff hung over the high desert.


    The hair-trigger tension seemed at odds with the arcane origins of the dispute. Twenty years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decided to clear privately owned cattle off this patch of public land to protect the endangered Mojave Desert tortoise. Dozens of ranchers left. Cliven Bundy stayed.
    Rancher Cliven Bundy poses at his home in Bunkerville, Nevada, April 11, 2014. Jim Urquhart—Reuters
    Bundy, 68, has refused to recognize federal authority over the land, or to pay the feds for allowing his cattle to graze there. Those accumulated fees and fines now total more than $1 million, according to the government. Armed with fresh court orders, the government moved last week to impound a few hundred of the rancher’s cows.


    Bundy balked, and the far right-wing media sounded a clarion call for his cause, casting the standoff as a flashpoint in a broader struggle against federal oppression. A cavalry of patriots arrived, bearing weapons and a seemingly bottomless grudge against the government.
    On April 12, BLM retreated, abandoning the round-up amid “serious concerns” over the safety of federal employees. The cattle “gather is over,” BLM spokesman Craig Leff says. No shots were fired; no blood was spilled. Bundy declared victory in the Battle of Bunkerville. His supporters festooned a nearby bridge with a hand-lettered sign reading: “The West Has Now Been Won!”


    For the government, it is not yet clear what was lost. The decision to de-escalate the situation was a wise one, according to officials familiar with the perils posed by such confrontation. “There was no need to have a Ruby Ridge,” says Patrick Shea, a Utah lawyer and former national director of BLM, invoking the bloody 1992 siege at a remote Idaho cabin, which became a rallying cry for the far right. Shea praises BLM’s new director, Neil Kornze, for defusing the conflict and skirting the specter of violence. There are plenty of ways for the government to recoup the money Bundy owes, Shea says, from placing liens on his property to collecting proceeds when the cattle go to slaughter. When you have been waiting a generation to resolve a dispute, what’s another few weeks?


    But prudence may also set a dangerous precedent. Having backed down from one recalcitrant rancher, what does BLM do the next time another refuses to abide by the law? “After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million,” Kornze said in a statement. “The bureau will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially.” A BLM spokesman would not say what those remedies might be, and declined to make officials available to explain how the agency may treat similar situations in the future.


    The government’s legal case against Bundy is strong. It has been winning courtroom battles against the rancher since 1998, and over the past two years has obtained court orders requiring Bundy to remove his cattle from public lands. This month’s roundup was a long-threatened last resort, and Bundy’s success in spurning it could spark copycat rebellions.


    “I’m very concerned about that, as I’m sure others are,” says Bob Abbey, a former BLM director and state director for Nevada. Nearly all ranchers whose animals graze on public land are in compliance with federal statutes, Abbey says. But “there always is a chance that someone else may look at what happened with Mr. Bundy and decided to take a similar route.”


    Especially since Bundy has become something of a folk hero for people who resent federal control of the old American frontier. The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of land, including about 60% of the territory across a swath of 12 Western states. About 85% of the land in Nevada is managed by the feds.


    Bundy, whose ancestors have inhabited the disputed land since the 19th century, rejects this arrangement. The rancher, whose family did not respond to multiple interview requests from TIME, says he does not recognize federal authority over Nevada’s public land. “I abide by all state laws,” he said in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times. “But I abide by almost zero federal laws.” He has warned that the impoundment of his cattle would spark a “range war,” and said in a court deposition that he would attempt to block a federal incursion, using “whatever it takes.”


    Likeminded libertarians in the West have resurrected the spirit of the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion, a 1970s-era movement to transfer control of federal lands to the states. Demar Dahl, an Elko County, Nev., commissioner and longtime friend of Bundy, says the rancher is willing to pay the back fees he owes (though both dispute the amount) to the county or to the state, but not the federal government. “He says the federal government doesn’t have the authority to collect the fees,” Dahl says. “You can call him bullheaded. He’s a strong and moral person. He decides what needs to be done and how, and where he stands.”


    To Bundy’s supporters, the legal proceedings are nothing but a land grab. And some of them believe government invoked the protection of the desert tortoise as a pretext. This line of thinking holds that Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader whose former aide, Kornze, now runs the BLM, wants to requisition the land so that his son and Chinese investors can build a lucrative solar farm. At the same time, the left sees in the resistance the ubiquitous hand of the Koch brothers, whose main political outfit, Americans for Prosperity, has rallied support for Bundy.


    While the protesters have mostly dispersed, the standoff “isn’t over,” Reid declared Monday. And local officials know just how close they crept to a cataclysmic incident. “That was as close to a catastrophe as I think we’re ever going to see happen,” Dahl says.


    The high drama seemed to stoke a sense of theatrics in the protesters. At a press conference on April 14, they invoked battles against the British and shouted quotes from the Scottish revolutionary William Wallace, memorialized in the Hollywood blockbuster Braveheart. The men who rode to Bundy’s defense got to play the hero in the movies of their minds; the threat is that the next climax doesn’t have a peaceful ending.


    Bundy “would probably rather be a martyr than a profitable rancher,” says Shea, the former BLM director. “Eventually, you have to draw the line. We go through these sad episodes where fanaticism has to be brought under legal control. And inevitably, somebody is killed.”
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  8. #128
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    “Eventually, you have to draw the line. We go through these sad episodes where fanaticism has to be brought under legal control. And inevitably, somebody is killed.”
    Says the government goon.

    These goons need to know they will PERSONALLY be held accountable for their actions.

    If they start shooting, they need to fully understand the nature of their behavior and how it will be viewed when it is all over. Hitler's lieutenants were just following orders, it did not prevent them from being executed or put in prison for life.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  9. #129
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Shea isn't even a goon. He's a lazy, illiterate sloppy bureaucrat.

    They are worse, because - they are the jack asses giving the orders.

    He's a FORMER head of the BLM:


    Patrick Shea (Utah lawyer)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Patrick Shea
    Born Patrick A. Shea
    February 28, 1948 (age 66)
    United States
    Alma mater Stanford University (B.A.)
    University of Oxford (M.A.)
    Harvard University (J.D.)
    Occupation Attorney
    Political party Democratic
    Spouse(s) Debbie Kern (1980-present)
    Children Michael
    Paul

    Patrick A. Shea
    (born February 28, 1948) is a Salt Lake City based lawyer who has taken on many cases related to freedom of the press. He also held office in the United States Department of the Interior.

    Shea co-authored with Rodney K. Smith Religion and the Press: Keeping First Amendment Values in Balance, a book which argued that Freedom of the Press had been taken too far in allowing the media to publish unsubstantiated claims that demean religious leaders.[1]
    Shea also represented Massachusetts Democratic Party in seeking to gain enough information to exclude Romney from running for governor in Massachusetts.[2] He represented Skip Knowles in his case involving being fired by the Salt Lake Tribune for plagiarism.[3] He represented Steven Greenstreet's defense against Kay Anderson's attempts to revoke Greenstreet's use of an interview with Anderson in a documentary film This Divided State.[4] Shea also was one of the lawyers for Brent Jeffs in his sexual molestation suit against his uncle Warren Jeffs.[5] He is admitted to the bar in the District of Columbia and Utah.

    Political career

    Shea became chairman of Utah Democratic Party in 1983 and chaired state presidential campaigns of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton. he ran for Governor of Utah in 1992 (lost in the primary by a margin of 57% to 43%[6] to Stewart Hanson, who finished third behind Republican winner Mike Leavitt and Independent Merrill Cook in the general election), and was the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate against Orrin Hatch in 1994 (lost by 68.8%-28.3%).


    In 1997, Shea was appointed as the national director of the Bureau of Land Management. he served as the director of the Bureau of Land Management and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management under President Clinton.
    Prior to becoming head of the BLM, Shea was the head of City Creek Canyon Park in Salt Lake City.
    Shea is an Irish Catholic.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  10. #130
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    So this guy is

    1) A lawyer


    Shakespeare said:

    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
    (2 Henry VI, 4.2.59), Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade

    Charles Dickens said: "The law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience." (Oliver Twist, Chapter 51).
    Last edited by American Patriot; April 16th, 2014 at 17:39.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  11. #131
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Quote Originally Posted by Malsua View Post
    Says the government goon.

    These goons need to know they will PERSONALLY be held accountable for their actions.

    If they start shooting, they need to fully understand the nature of their behavior and how it will be viewed when it is all over. Hitler's lieutenants were just following orders, it did not prevent them from being executed or put in prison for life.
    Tyrants Names

    by American Patriot
    I think I shall never understand the words that play from the lips of some men.
    In an article today I read, I see a man named Patrick Shea speak of Mr. Bundy:
    Bundy “would probably rather be a martyr than a profitable rancher,” says Shea, the former BLM director. “Eventually, you have to draw the line. We go through these sad episodes where fanaticism has to be brought under legal control. And inevitably, somebody is killed.”
    Mr. Shea, aka Patrick Shea form Director of the BLM under Bill Clinton’s reign, is apparently a leader of the Leftist Goon Squad – at least in name and talking-deeds.
    I personally consider the guy a tactless illiterate of the law of which is allegedly “practices” (practices, because apparently he ain’t yet got it right….). He’s a Utah Lawyer who really should shut his mouth and stop egging on the situation. Here’s an entry about the fella in Wikipedia (I’m loathe to use that Lefty-assed, wanna be commie encyclopedia but at times like this it’s pretty obvious the Left is proud of this asshat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick...Utah_lawyer%29
    Then there’s good Ole Tom Collins, the man who called Mormons (in general) and those helping Bundy (specifically) names like “inbred bastards” and anyone who might be marching into Nevada from Utah was told by him to “have funeral arrangements”.
    Funny, there’s no “recall” going on for this guy Collins yet? I’m surprised – and yet, I’m really not.
    Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins is drawing fire after his comments on the Bundy roundup.
    Patrick Shea
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  12. #132
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Quote Originally Posted by Malsua View Post
    Says the government goon.

    These goons need to know they will PERSONALLY be held accountable for their actions.

    If they start shooting, they need to fully understand the nature of their behavior and how it will be viewed when it is all over. Hitler's lieutenants were just following orders, it did not prevent them from being executed or put in prison for life.

  13. #133
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Mussolini, Ceausescu, et. al. are examples of out of control government and the ultimate blow back that will inevitably occur.

    It's much better for everyone if you can convince the people in the government not to overreach. Once the government no longer has the consent of the governed there are two courses of actions; Back down or be destroyed.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  14. #134
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Once the government no longer has the consent of the governed there are two courses of actions; Back down or be destroyed.
    Don't you think, Mal, that the government has reached that point already?

    If you stop to consider the fact we as a people have been lied to, spied on, persecuted for political stance, religious beliefs, treated like subjects of the King, ordered to "pay for something you didn't buy" (health care), forced to give up guns, ordered to turn in gun parts, pieces and ammo in some places and are being treated like cattle most of the time - don't you think we've reached the point of no return?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  15. #135
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Why Ranchers Support “Hero” Bundy

    April 16, 2014

    tags: America, BLM, Cliven Bundy Family, Families, government control, Nevada Ranchers, politics


    At first I started this post with some clever comments about liberals. But I changed my mind. I stated what I think about them in my previous post.


    Moving on, the following letter will give some understanding to those who care about what the government can do to any American family. We need to support each other when that government through heavy-handed and overbearing tactics attempt to usurp authority on the American public.


    I’m going to post the letter in it’s entirety.


    Via: BIZPAC Review



    Fellow rancher’s viral letter explains so much about why ranchers support ‘hero’ Bundy



    Photo Credit: egoswick blogspot

    These are some of the many photographs I ( Emily, ‘The Rancher’s Daughter’) have taken at ropings, brandings, or simply just out my back door. I am the daughter of a 5th generation cattle rancher. Note: Photo does not depict anyone named in this article.





    With debate raging over whether the Bureau of Land Management is overstepping its authority in stopping rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle from grazing on public land, one of Bundy’s neighbors offered to settle the question.


    In an open letter, Bundy’s neighbor, Kena Lytle Gloeckner, explained why ranchers are supporting Bundy. Her letter, which has been posted on numerous blogs, said:
    There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.


    In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non-ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada.

    Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price.


    If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
    A letter from Bundy’s daughter can also be read on “Stand With Cliven and Carol Bundy.”
    SOURCE
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  16. #136
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    Don't you think, Mal, that the government has reached that point already?

    If you stop to consider the fact we as a people have been lied to, spied on, persecuted for political stance, religious beliefs, treated like subjects of the King, ordered to "pay for something you didn't buy" (health care), forced to give up guns, ordered to turn in gun parts, pieces and ammo in some places and are being treated like cattle most of the time - don't you think we've reached the point of no return?
    The answer to your question is simple. It depends on who you are.

    If you supply the government with Largesse, you are mistreated, shat upon and hated as being rich and see nothing but scorn for your contribution. You are not voluntarily consenting to this parasitic relationship.

    If you are a beneficiary of the government largesse, you are coddled, treated like a victim and have had benefits showered upon you. You are a willing participant and are indeed consenting to the government. You consent for the government to take every thing it can from those filthy scumbags who are rich.

    The only outcome of this upside down situation is a revolution. If the government can disarm the producers, the threat of revolution diminishes.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  17. #137
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Thus, your answer is "yes" to my question.

    Because the government has done those things.

    Because we must pay our taxes like good subjects or be forced to die in some cases, lose our livelihood in others, go to jail in still other other cases.

    Because there are those who are the beneficiaries of the government largesse, etc etc.

    So - I don't foresee America fixing this any longer at the voting booth. I would like to see a complete and total rout of the Leftists this time around in elections, but I believe that something will happen soon like the Turtle Rebellion which will trigger something the US government can't believe will happen.

    I actually feel sorry for those who are the leftist government goons who "follow the orders" of the lying bureaucrats because they won't actually understand why they are the targets.

    I'm one guy. You're one guy. They can come and take us just for discussing this stuff in public - but they won't take everyone.

    I was trying to figure out how many US Government employees there actually are but can't get numbers that are even close to what I THINK they are.

    But let's assume a minute there are 2 million government employees - not counting the US military.

    Let's say a portion of them are armed "officers" of some kind or another.

    Just pulling numbers out of my ass here - if 10% of them are "federal armed officers" then there will be 20-30 k armed men/women in all the agencies.

    There's 300 million Americans. More than 1/2 of them own guns. Most of those own more than one gun. In fact, stats tell me that there's a gun for every man, woman and child out there.

    That would be 150 million armed Americans vs 30,000 armed officers.

    Count in city and county and state cops and you get another 50,000 people who are stuck on the battle lines.

    That's 150 million vs 80,000 people.

    Call in the military and you get 150 million vs 4 million.

    Yeah, they have tanks, and planes and other shit. But they don't have right on their side.

    (Just postulating what could happen and approximate numbers. I know many won't show. Most won't fight and it'll be more even, but those in charge will be the first gone after)

    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  18. #138
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    Thus, your answer is "yes" to my question.

    Because the government has done those things.

    Because we must pay our taxes like good subjects or be forced to die in some cases, lose our livelihood in others, go to jail in still other other cases.

    Because there are those who are the beneficiaries of the government largesse, etc etc.

    So - I don't foresee America fixing this any longer at the voting booth. I would like to see a complete and total rout of the Leftists this time around in elections, but I believe that something will happen soon like the Turtle Rebellion which will trigger something the US government can't believe will happen.

    I actually feel sorry for those who are the leftist government goons who "follow the orders" of the lying bureaucrats because they won't actually understand why they are the targets.

    I'm one guy. You're one guy. They can come and take us just for discussing this stuff in public - but they won't take everyone.

    I was trying to figure out how many US Government employees there actually are but can't get numbers that are even close to what I THINK they are.

    But let's assume a minute there are 2 million government employees - not counting the US military.

    Let's say a portion of them are armed "officers" of some kind or another.

    Just pulling numbers out of my ass here - if 10% of them are "federal armed officers" then there will be 20-30 k armed men/women in all the agencies.

    There's 300 million Americans. More than 1/2 of them own guns. Most of those own more than one gun. In fact, stats tell me that there's a gun for every man, woman and child out there.

    That would be 150 million armed Americans vs 30,000 armed officers.

    Count in city and county and state cops and you get another 50,000 people who are stuck on the battle lines.

    That's 150 million vs 80,000 people.

    Call in the military and you get 150 million vs 4 million.

    Yeah, they have tanks, and planes and other shit. But they don't have right on their side.

    (Just postulating what could happen and approximate numbers. I know many won't show. Most won't fight and it'll be more even, but those in charge will be the first gone after)

    The Neo-Bolsheviks in America, when they are ready for Revolution and Civil War in the USA, will do what they did in Russia; empty out all the prisons, jails, and detention centers in this country, round up all the criminals, and draft them and any other unfortunate they can find at gunpoint into their American Red Army. They'll have the help of every goon and degenerate looting scum and trash in this Nation to try to enslave the rest of us. They will be merciless and exterminate all possible sources of counter-revolution. They will kill every priest or minister of any religion they can get their hands on, kill every political leader retired or active that isn't co-opted by them and a member of their Party to begin with. They will murder veterans and active military personnel unless they aid in the revolutionary cause. They will take hostages, burn towns and cities, engage in mass 'expropriation' and mass rape . 'Massacre' will be an understatement; the streets will run red with blood.


    And the Anticommunist forces? They will have to be more cruel and merciless then the Bolsheviks to win; we will be looking up to the memory of Franco in Spain and the White Russian armies in their Civil War, and ther anticommunist fighters of the past and emulating their example by then, if we want to win.

    Because nobody will help us and be on our side by then.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  19. #139
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    "Russian Civil War



    ARTICLE

    from the
    Encyclopædia Britannica


    Get involved Share





    Russian Civil War, (1918–20), conflict in which the Red Army successfully defended the newly formed Bolshevik government against various Russian and interventionist anti-Bolshevik armies.
    Seeds of conflict

    The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, whereby Russia yielded large portions of its territory to Germany, caused a breach between the Bolsheviks (Communists) and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, who thereupon left the coalition. In the next months there was a marked drawing together of two main groups of Russian opponents of Vladimir I. Lenin: (1) the non-Bolshevik left, who had been finally alienated from Lenin by his dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and (2) the rightist whites, whose main asset was the Volunteer Army in the Kuban steppes. This army, which had survived great hardships in the winter of 1917–18 and which came under the command of Gen. Anton I. Denikin (April 1918), was now a fine fighting force, though small in numbers.
    At the same time, the Western Allies, desperately pressed by a new German offensive in northern France in the spring of 1918, were eager to create another front in the east by reviving at least a part of the Russian army. In March 1918 a small British force was landed at Murmansk with the consent of the local soviet. On April 5 Japanese forces landed at Vladivostok, without any approval.
    A further factor was the Czechoslovak Legion, composed of Czech and Slovak deserters from the Austro-Hungarian army, whom previous Russian governments had allowed to form their own units. In March 1918 the Bolshevik government agreed to let these units leave Russia by the Far East, but in May violent incidents took place during the evacuation, and on May 29 Leon Trotsky, commissar for war, ordered them to surrender their arms. They refused, defeated attempts of the local soviets to disarm them, and took control of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. In the vacuum created by this action, two anti-Bolshevik authorities appeared: the West Siberian Commissariat, of predominantly liberal complexion, based at Omsk; and the Committee of Members of the Constituent Assembly, composed of Socialist Revolutionaries, based at Samara.
    These events caused the Moscow government to crack down heavily on non-Bolshevik socialists. The Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary deputies were expelled from the central and local soviets and prevented from engaging in any organized political activity. Eventually, in September, the government proclaimed a campaign of “Red terror,” including shooting hostages and giving increased powers to the Cheka (political police) of summary arrest, trial, and execution of suspects.
    Assassination of the tsar and the battle for Ukraine

    Among the early victims of the civil war, which may be considered to have begun in earnest in June 1918, were the former imperial family. Tsar Nicholas II, his wife, and his children had been moved in August 1917 to Tobolsk and in the spring of 1918 to Yekaterinburg. With the development of anti-Bolshevik forces in Siberia, the local soviet feared that Nicholas might be liberated. In the night of July 16–17, 1918, all the members of the family were taken to the cellar of their prison house and shot.
    In the late summer the Communists’ hastily reorganized armed forces, the Red Army, recovered most of eastern European Russia. At Omsk, which became the centre of the anti-Communists, a new army was hastily trained under the command of Adm. Aleksandr V. Kolchak, with the assistance of British and U.S. military missions. Meanwhile the British forces at Murmansk were at war with the Communists. In August further British forces landed at Arkhangelsk, and the Japanese forces in the Far Eastern territories of Russia had been greatly reinforced.
    In Omsk relations between the Socialist Revolutionaries and Kolchak steadily deteriorated. Kolchak and his officers disliked the left-wing views of the politicians and found it difficult to distinguish between Socialist Revolutionaries and Communists, lumping together all “Reds” as enemies. The conflict came to a head when, on November 18, 1918, Kolchak set up his own dictatorship. Kolchak’s coup d’état coincided with the collapse of Germany and the end of the European war.
    At the beginning of 1919 Red Army forces invaded Ukraine. The remnants of the forces of the Socialist Revolutionaries, headed by Simon Petlyura, retreated westward, where they joined forces with Ukrainian nationalist forces from formerly Austrian Galicia. For the next months the mixed Petlyurist-Galician forces held parts of Ukraine; other areas were in the hands of anarchist bands led by Nestor Makhno; and the main cities were held by the Communists, ruling not directly from Moscow but through a puppet Ukrainian “government” in Kharkov (now Kharkiv). The defeat of Germany had also opened the Black Sea to the Allies, and in mid-December 1918 some mixed forces under French command were landed at Odessa and Sevastopol, and in the next months at Kherson and Nikolayev.
    Foreign intervention

    The Allied governments now had to decide on their policy in the confused Russian situation. The original purpose of intervention, to revive an eastern front against Germany, was now meaningless. Russian exiles argued that, since the pre-Bolshevik governments of Russia had remained loyal to the Allies, the Allies were bound to help them. To this moral argument was added the political argument that the Communist regime in Moscow was a menace to the whole of Europe, with its subversive propaganda and its determination to spread revolution.
    At the beginning of 1919 the French and Italian governments favoured strong support (in the form of munitions and supplies rather than in men) to the Whites (as the anti-Communist forces now came to be called), while the British and U.S. governments were more cautious and even hoped to reconcile the warring Russian parties. In January the Allies, on U.S. initiative, proposed to all Russian belligerents to hold armistice talks on the island of Prinkipo in the Sea of Marmara. The Communists accepted, but the Whites refused. In March the U.S. diplomat William C. Bullitt went to Moscow and returned with peace proposals from the Communists, which were not accepted by the Allies. After this the Allies ceased trying to come to terms with the Communists and gave increased assistance to Kolchak and Denikin.
    Direct intervention by Allied military forces was, however, on a very small scale, involving a total of perhaps 200,000 soldiers. The French in Ukraine were bewildered by the confused struggle between Russian Communists, Russian Whites, and Ukrainian nationalists, and they withdrew their forces during March and April 1919, having hardly fired a shot. The British in the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk areas did some fighting, but the northern front was of only minor importance to the civil war as a whole. The last British forces were withdrawn from Arkhangelsk and from Murmansk in the early fall of 1919. The only “interventionists” who represented a real danger were the Japanese, who established themselves systematically in the Far Eastern provinces.
    Victory of the Red Army

    In the first half of 1919 the main fighting was in the east. Kolchak advanced in the Urals and had attained his greatest success by April. On April 28 the Red Army’s counteroffensive began. Ufa fell in June, and Kolchak’s armies retreated through Siberia, harassed by partisans. By the end of summer the retreat had become a rout. Kolchak set up an administration in November at Irkutsk, but it was overthrown in December by Socialist Revolutionaries. He himself was handed over to the Communists in January 1920 and shot on February 7.
    Meanwhile, in the late summer of 1919, Denikin had made a last effort in European Russia. By the end of August most of Ukraine was in White hands. The Communists had been driven out, and the Ukrainian nationalists were divided in their attitude to Denikin, Petlyura being hostile to him, but the Galicians preferring him to the Poles, whom they considered their main enemy. In September the White forces moved northward from Ukraine and from the lower Volga toward Moscow. On October 13 they took Oryol. At the same time, Gen. Nikolay N. Yudenich advanced from Estonia to the outskirts of Petrograd (St. Petersburg). But both cities were saved by Red Army counterattacks. Yudenich retreated into Estonia, and Denikin, his communications greatly overextended, was driven back from Oryol in an increasingly disorderly march, which ended with the evacuation of the remnants of his army, in March 1920, from Novorossiysk.
    In 1920 there was still an organized White force in Crimea, under Gen. Pyotr N. Wrangel, who struck northward at the Red Army and, for a time, occupied part of Ukraine and Kuban. The Red Army eventually battered Wrangel’s forces, whose rearguards held out long enough to ensure the evacuation of 150,000 soldiers and civilians by sea from Crimea. This ended the Russian Civil War in November 1920.
    Consequences of the war

    The Communist victory was at the same time a defeat for the various nationalist movements of the non-Russian peoples. The hopes of the Tatars and Bashkirs, between the Kazan area and the southern Urals, were ruined in the course of the civil war. The Communists proclaimed the right of self-determination, but in practice they imposed the dictatorship of the Russian Communist Party on them. In Tashkent the Muslim population remained mistrustful of any Russian authorities, and for some years guerrilla bands of nationalists, known as Basmachi, harassed the Communist authorities.
    The defeat of Turkey in World War I had resulted in the temporary revival of the three separate Transcaucasian republics—Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. The Moscow government did not intend to respect Transcaucasian independence for long. In April 1920 the Azerbaijan government surrendered to the double threat of invasion by the Red Army and rebellion in Baku. In December 1920 the formerly Russian portion of Armenia was incorporated into Soviet Russia, and the Moscow government recognized the rest of Armenia as part of Turkey. From February to April 1921 the Red Army invaded and conquered Georgia.
    For the territory around Lake Baikal and east of it, from the spring of 1920, the fiction of a Far Eastern Republic, independent of Soviet Russia, was maintained. This government was in practice fully controlled from Moscow. The Japanese delegates at the Washington Conference of 1921–22 promised the U.S. government that they would withdraw all their troops from Russian territory. This they did at the end of October 1922. The Far Eastern Republic had now served its purpose, and its assembly in November formally voted it out of existence and united it to Soviet Russia.
    The political system that emerged victorious from the civil war bore the name Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. In fact the soviets were of small importance. All power belonged to the Communist Party, members of which occupied all the posts in the Soviet of People’s Commissars and the key posts at all lower levels of the machinery of government. The party itself was governed by its Central Committee, which Lenin dominated.
    Second only to Lenin was Trotsky, who as commissar for war not only had supreme command of the armed forces but was also largely responsible for organizing supplies and for the mobilization of manpower. By 1919 the Red Army had become much better than the armies of its White opponents. The victory of the Communists in the civil war is indeed mainly due to this simple fact of military superiority, reinforced by the fact that, holding the central core of European Russia throughout the war, they could plan operations and move men more easily than their enemies, whose bases were on the periphery and cut off from one another."


    I emphasized parts in bold to make the point that when the Bolsheviks take over in America, they will be of one mind politically and strategically, with many in the American Military willing to join their side for promise of advancement in a new Red Military that would otherwise be blocked in normal times by career politics. This is like what happened with Napoleon after the French Revolution and Tuckachevsky after the bolshevik revolution. Officers will also find themselves in the American Red Army and providing training and support because their families will be held hostage, like former Czarist Russian officers during the Russian Civil War.


    Also, the Conservative/Right Wing opponents of Bolshevism in America will be faced with the prospect of many Americans being politically against the Communists, but scarcely less loathsome than the Reds after the collapse of the Pre-Commie Coup American Political system. Like Admiral Kolchak they will have to try to overthrow Liberals, Anarchists, and other Leftist degenerates behind their own lines.

    No, it won't be easy-recall that the Russian Peasantry were fully armed too, just like the American public, due to their desertion from the trenches of the eastern front in WW1. The Red Army subdued them by all means fair and foul, including the widespread use of poison gas and the drafting of prisoners, little mentioned in the history books. The Reds will be united, while we will not be except in trying to overthrow them.

    So too with Russia's example there was the pressure of fighting a world war and losing, but also, the Provisional Government of Kerensky was doing all it could to make a perfect preperation for the later Bolshevik Revolution. Prior to any Communist Coup in the United States, there will be a period in which the duly elected US Government will be doing all it can, filled as it is with liberals and leftists and time-serving stupid reactionaries, to make way for the Communists and hand them the keys to power with hardly a shot being fired.

    I don't want this to happen, but this is what I see if the trends prior to this 'Bundy Incident' continue.
    Last edited by Avvakum; April 16th, 2014 at 23:58.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  20. #140
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Range War: Feds vs The People

    Thanks for the Russian (and soon to be American) history lesson.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 12th, 2013, 21:12
  2. Soft People, Hard People
    By Ryan Ruck in forum Miscellaneous Trans-Asian Axis Topics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 24th, 2007, 23:40

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •