About revisedhistory

I do historical research to find material that "historians" frequently leave out of our history books. I am the co-author, along with Walter Kennedy, of the book "Lincoln's Marxists." Although born and raised in the North, I have always loved the South and the West. My family and I currently live in Louisiana, where we have been for almost a decade now and we love it.

About Those “Domestic Terrorists”

by Al Benson Jr.

On Friday, the 18th of April I believe it was, two politicians appeared on a show called What’s Your Point? on KSNV, which is a TV news station in Las Vegas, Nevada.  One of them was that bastion of honesty and integrity, “Honest” Harry Reid ( I exaggerate slightly here) and the other was a Republican State Senator named Dean Heller.

You’ll recall that “Honest Harry” Reid (about as honest as Honest Abe was) said that the folks out at the Bundy Ranch were nothing but a bunch of “Domestic Terrorists.” Reid may have gotten a bit of flack from the blanket statement because he went on to note that he didn’t mean Mr. Bundy and his family were domestic terrorists–just those folks that showed up to help Mr. Bundy protect his life and property from what many consider the REAL domestic terrorists, the ones operating under cover of law.

Dean Heller said he considered those that showed up to help the Bundy’s patriots, not terrorists.  However, you are forced to look at Harry Reid’s worldview.  In his twisted thinking, anyone that dares to oppose beneficent  totalitarian government in order to maintain his liberties is, automatically, a domestic terrorist. In today’s skewed political situation all who dare to even think of opposing the Obama Regime’s program for the systematic dismantling of American liberty are “domestic terrorists.” Today, in order not to be labeled as a domestic terrorist you must be willing to become a good little Marxist wannabe, carrying a sign with a big hammer and sickle on it, and loudly proclaiming that those that refused to vote for Obama are all blatant “racists.” To be opposed to Obamacare is not yet treason, but it may well be in the future, depending on what Executive Orders get signed.

So it seems that Honest Harry had a big problem with the folks that showed up to help the Bundy’s resist government aggression (oh, excuse me, I meant “assistance”). Reid said: “600 people came armed, they had practiced, they had maneuvered,…they set up snipers in strategic locations…they had automatic weapons.” Is any of this against the law–yet? The thought that such people had the ability to resist government aggression seems to have scared the daylights out of Honest Harry. That armed citizens might just resist government aggression is one reason Honest Harry and Comrade Obama want your guns.  They want no resistance to their plans to merge this country into the New World Order, and armed citizens (patriots, not terrorists) just might be tempted to resist.  As far as snipers go, well, the BLM had them out there before the militia folks did. Several folks attested to that, but, of course, Honest Harry “forgot” to mention that–besides, under cover of law, they were “legal” snipers. The militia snipers didn’t do anything illegal, but we won’t mention that.

I’ve read that about 100 or so of the militia folks remain at the Bundy Ranch because they don’t quite trust the feds to leave Mr. Bundy alone–and why should they? Situations like the one in Waco several years ago show what the feds are capable of if left to their own devices. Many people feel that all we have at this point is a breather, that the feds will return, because, like Honest Harry, they don’t get mad, they get even–and then some.

David Hathaway, writing on http://www.lewrockwell.com on April 21st has said: “The federal response will definitely come. It will likely be in three areas; two of which don’t involve the Bundy’s specifically. First, a multi-faceted attack will be made on the Bundys; second, a broad-front regulatory response against other land users will be made for the purpose of retaliation against the whole group and as a deterrent; and third, new provocateur deployments will probably be made across the West into similar situations.”

This time they’ll probably send so many people against the Bundys that it will be harder to combat them. The federal leviathan has to prevail, no matter how many people it takes. If they can be resisted then their aggressive power will be gone. And, unfortunately, most of the militia people can’t stay at the Bundy Ranch forever, so unless those that have to leave can be replaced by others, they have a problem.

Second, the feds will now engage in an open display of the class struggle technique against the ranchers in the West.  The ranchers will, in essence, become the new “Kulaks” of the American Empire–to be starved out or driven off their land. After all, Honest Harry and his buddies in Red China need the acreage for new solar farms.

And third, the feds will probably set up more situations around the West like that of the Bundy Ranch, while at the same time, pushing a PR campaign, with the aid of the compliant lapdog media, that paints all ranchers and farmers as horrid, selfish people, who want only to protect their lives and property–something that is fast becoming a “class crime” in our new leftist-oriented society.

Mr. Hathaway estimates that it will probably be in the neighborhood of around three weeks before we are treated to a federal response, as the feds work all these factors into their agenda in a way most beneficial to them and most detrimental to ordinary citizens, who, in case you haven’t yet realized it, have now become the new “enemies of the state.”

The public will be conditioned, as they were after Oklahoma City, to be afraid of the militias, to view them with fear and loathing. So get ready, folks, for the next big anti-militia campaign. It’s all coming soon, brought to you by the same folks that gave us Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City.

About That Public Land In Nevada

by Al Benson Jr.

The day after I posted my last article on the situation at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, a man in North Carolina sent me a link to a legal case, U.S. v. Gardner, NO. CV-N-95-328-DWH. which was posted on http://www.leagle.com dealing with a case similar to that of the Bundy family.

It contained some interesting information and I’d like to quote a couple things: “On March 21, 1864, the United States Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute which authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union.” Among the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, this act granted “certain tracts of United States public lands to the State when it entered the Union…In addition, the Nevada Statehood statute  required the convention to adopt an ordinance decreeing and declaring that the inhabitants of the Territory of Nevada ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…The Nevada Constitution provides  that this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent   of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada’.” There’s more, but we could get bogged down in all the legal jargon and that’s sure not my long suit.  What it boils down to is that the folks in Nevada supposedly disclaimed any title to “unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…”In other words, the feds, way back in 1864, got to keep most of the land in Nevada and the people of that “state” promised not to contest that sticky little fact. Sounds like a bum deal, doesn’t it? It was (and still is).

We have to bear in mind why the big push for Nevada to become a state in 1864. The rule used to be that, for a territory to become a state, it had to have a population of 60,000. Nevada had something like 40,000, but Nevada was pushed ahead of other candidates for statehood. If you’re like me, with a suspicious  mind, you might be tempted to wonder why. The site http://www.onlinenevada.org in an article on the 29th of October, 2009, observed: “As the 1864 presidential election approached there were certain perceived advantages in having an additional Republican state. For one thing, a Republican congressional delegation could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery, which earlier had narrowly failed to garner the necessary two thirds support of both houses of Congress.  More overriding, however, at least in the spring of 1864  was the real fear that there might be three major candidates running for President that year, and that no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Then, as required by the United States Constitution, the election would go into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote and where a Republican Nevada would have voting rights equal to those of populous New York or Pennsylvania.” To put it bluntly, getting statehood for Nevada was a political move to help Lincoln win the election.

And seeing that it was the Lincoln administration in office, with its collectivist, centralizing mindset, you can see why provisions allowing the federal government to hold onto most of the land in Nevada, with no recourse by the people of that state, were part of the deal. So the feds let Nevada in as a state to boost Lincoln’s election chances, while retaining control of 88% of the land in the state. Such a deal! Even Wikipedia noted that: “Statehood was rushed to help ensure three electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln’s re-election and add to the Republican congressional majorities.”

Interestingly enough, http://www.nevadaweb.com states that “Nevada Territory was a federal territory, a part of the Union, and President Abraham Lincoln appointed Governor James Warren Nye, a former Police Commissioner in New York City, to ensure that it stayed that way. Governor Nye put down any demonstration in support of the Confederacy, and there were some.” So they weren’t all Yankee/Marxists in Nevada.

You can see by reading some of this, that the current land problems in Nevada go all the way back to the Lincoln administration. For those that follow history, at least accurate history, are you really surprised? I’ve said, over the years, that many of the problems we still deal with today are a result of the Lincoln administration and its War of Northern Aggression.  The current situation in Nevada is a prime example.

I recently read a very good article by Steve Miller on http://www.zianet.com entitled Nevada: The Permanent Colony which dealt with the Sagebrush Rebellion I mentioned in my last article. Mr. Miller made several observations worth noting. If you can find this article on the Internet I’d recommend reading it.  Mr. Miller noted that Nevada Territory had too few people to meet requirements for statehood. This made no difference whatever.  Union and pro-Lincoln activists set up constitutional conventions anyway to try to get Nevada into the Union in 1863.  That attempt failed, so they came back again in 1864–so typical of the socialist agenda–if you lose, keep coming back and back until you wear down the opposition. At this point, I’d ask–if they didn’t have enough population to qualify, are they really, technically a state? They weren’t admitted under the required conditions.

Mr. Miller stated: :”Also, Lincoln needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate, where the Thirteenth Amendment waited to be passed.  Nevada’s admission would give him the three-fourths majority needed for a measure largely designed to help break the South…So Nevada had become a state, but it was only in a negligible sense.  For all practical purposes, Nevada remained essentially a territory ruled by those who dominated the federal government.”

And now comes the bombshell!

According to Steve Miller: “As part of the enabling legislation, Congress imposed conditions on the state that the Supreme Court, 19 years before, had already declared illegal, citing the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that new states should have ‘equal footing’ with the original thirteen. Under Nevada’s 1864 enabling act conditions, the people of the territory had to ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory,’ and turn them over to the federal government.” A great deal–but for who? Certainly not the people of Nevada.

Miller’s narrative continued: “But in 1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs. Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.” The Court said: “We think the proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were formed; except for temporary purposes…As soon as new states were formed out of the territory, ‘the power of the United States over these lands and property was to cease’.”

I submit, this is something to think about in the case of Nevada and all the many public acres the federal government controls there whereby they are setting out to deny the inhabitants of Nevada the use of public land–which the feds shouldn’t even control.

Does what has gone on in Nevada and other Western states sound a little like a federal land grab? If all the states agreed to abide by this 1845 Supreme Court decision, you would hardly need something like the BLM there to harass citizens. This is an aspect of this situation that ought to be considered by someone with legal training.  Mr. Bundy may well have a point when he refuses to recognize federal control over much of his state.  And remember, this problem goes back to Lincoln and his Marxist hoard. Something to think about.

“Dirty Harry” Won’t Get Mad–He’ll Get Even!

by Al Benson Jr.

Anyone remember the Sagebrush Rebellion back in the 1970s and 80s? In thirteen Western states the federal government controlls between 30% and 75-80% of the land, depending on which state you are in.

Although I don’t always believe everything Wikipedia says, by any means, once in awhile they get it right, and awhile back http://en.wikipedia.org  said of the Sagebrush Rebellion that it was: “An extension of the older controversy of state vs. federal powers, Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of federally owned Western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of Western economies.” As for the current regime in Washington, the last thing in the world they are concerned about is the growth of Western economies–unless that “growth” is administered by their friends who will make sweetheart deals with countries hostile to the US, so that both hostile countries and politicians can make big bucks selling off US sovereignty and helping to destroy the middle class. That’s what Marxism/corporate fascism is really all about, and our “public servants”  today abound in it!

Even Wikipedia sort of half-heartedly recognized the Sagebrush Rebellion as, basically a states rights issue. And what has been going on at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada is the same states rights issue. But the feds, as usual, don’t plan to taking NO for an answer. They didn’t at Waco and Ruby Ridge and they won’t here. They will exert their power in any way they have to in order to show that they run things, and if they end up having to kill a bunch of people off, so what? They believe in the Marxist principle  that the end justifies the means. When they incinerated those people at Waco, including the children, it was all for their own good, right? That’s the way those people think–whatever they do has to be good and right–because, after all, they are the go(d)vernment and they know best!

Comrade Reid (aka “Dirty Harry”) had an ominous message for Mr. Bundy and his family according to http://www.foxnews.com when he said: “Well, it’s not over, we can’t have, in America, people that violate the law and just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” What he really meant was that he was ticked off because all the controversy raised by the Bundy Ranch situaton exposed his and his son’s sweet deal with a Chinese solar farm company and made him look bad. He wasn’t all that happy about that. So he and our Marxist-in-Chief and probably his “Attorney General” will have to find some way to get back at those nasty ranchers and make them pay, in spades, for daring to defy “national authority.” Fox News noted Reid’s hesitancy to speak on this issue and said: “That’s perhaps due to Reid’s  reported lobbying of the (Bureau of Land Management) to change the desert tortoise’s mapped habitat, allowing Nevada real estate mogul Harvey Whittemore to build on land near the Bundy Ranch. Last year Whittemore was convicted of making illegal campaign  contributions to Reid, and the Majority Leader’s former senior adviser was confirmed as the new head of BLM just last week.” Is this a great kountry or what?

The site http://thecommonsenseshow.com carried an article by Dave Hodges on April 14th  that noted: “China, allied with Russia, is in the process of taking over the United States, or should I say that our public officials are giving away the country to them…In my previous article, it was clearly demonstrated  that the Chinese are preparing, among other things, to assume control of supplying America’s energy needs at a cost they deem appropriate. It is a simple business proposition. They own our debt, we have defaulted and they are here to be compensated.”

Mr. Hodges continued: “The Bundy affair affirmed the fact that  Chinese are being handed control of solar energy inside the United States and that this is being facilitated by Senator Harry Reid. The takeover of American energy is being manifested on many fronts, but in particular, it is being concentrated on the takeover of the solar energy industry in the new Agenda 21 designation with the so-called ‘Solar Energy Zones’.” So there is a lot more involved here than the habitat of the desert tortoise–the UN’s Agenda 21 project is their blueprint and that bodes no good for the American public.

As if to reassert what much of this is all about http://townhall.com stated in an article on 4/14 that “Outraged over the heavy-handed tactics, about 1,000 states rights activists traveled to Mesquite (Nevada) to support Bundy. Many gun owners showed up lawfully carrying firearms, and local cowboys came riding in on horses. They were afraid they could be the next targets of  a federal government overreach, and felt it was time to take a stand.” Men, as far as you all being the next federal targets–depend on it–the federal drones have recorded who was there, and after the feds get through getting even with the Bundys, they will come looking for you, especially if you own any land they want in the “national interest.”

Sadly, this isn’t over and those governmental Marxist mentalities don’t quit. Part of our problem in this country is that we do quit and they don’t–until they get what they want–and at that point we all begin to experience what the Communists refer to as “peaceful co-existence.”

The question hasn’t arisen much, but I think it should.  Why should the federal government own so much land in so many states? Once a state has been given statehood, the land in that state should belong to that state, not to the federal government. If you have a state, anywhere, where the feds control 75% of the land in that state, is that state really a sovereign state or is it, in effect, still mostly a federal territory with the feds calling all the shots? What states rights do the people in any state have if the feds still control 75% of the real estate in their state?

This should concern Southern folks as well as Western folks. Seems to me we are all fighting the same battle. Folks in the South fought it first, but we are all fighting it now–maybe on different levels depending how much land the feds control in different states–but it’s still the same battle.  Maybe the Cowboys and the Confederates ought to get together.  We have a lot of the same problems and the same people, in many cases, are causing the problems we both experience.  Maybe it’s time for a Cowboy/Confederate Alliance.

Chinese Solar Farm in Nevada Could Kill Birds—Environmentalists Beware!!!

By Al Benson Jr.
It’s a known fact that many types of environmentalists around the country are very concerned about any project anywhere that might contribute to the killing off of wildlife. Some environmentalists have been so concerned for the lives of various frogs, toads, insects, and other creeping wildlife that they have actually worked to get laws passed that prohibited people from working their own land and making a living because to do so might disrupt the existence of the 16-legged whatchamacallit.

That being the case, the environmental types should be concerned about an article that appeared on http://www.washingtontimes.com for April 11, 2014 that was written by Douglas Ernst. The title of the article was Death by solar farms: 71 species of birds killed, ‘entire food chains’ disrupted. The article noted that: “A new report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that solar facilities in California are acting like ‘mega traps’ that kill and injure birds. As a result, ‘entire food chains’ are being disrupted.” The study found that over a two year period over 320 dead birds were found at three different solar farms, representing birds from 71 different species, and it went on to list the three primary causes, which I will not get into here because that’s a different story.

The point I want to make here is that Chinese solar farms in the Southern Nevada desert country have been listed in several articles as the real reason that the BLM was attempting to harass rancher Clivan Bundy off his grazing land. And that bastion of Senate honesty, Harry Reid, christened “Dirty Harry” by some is up to his neck in a deal with the Chinese Commnists in which they get to start solar farms, guess where,–on the land where Mr. Bundy has been grazing his cattle.

We were told the desert tortoise was the reason Bundy and his cattle needed to go, because their being there was detrimental to the tortoise habitat. I won’t even dignify that drivel with a comment, other than to say it just ain’t so. Joseph Farah, writing on http://www.wnd.com made the astute comment: “…I don’t think it was about tortoises…This was about something else. It’s always about something else. Maybe—just maybe—it had to do with another Nevadan by the name of Harry Reid. It seems that the Senate majority leader has been doing favors for a Chinese energy giant ENN, which has plans to build massive solar facilities in that area—tortoises or no tortoises. It seems the director of BLM is Reid’s former senior advisor, Neil Kornze. BLM has posted on its website documents stating the agency wanted Bundy’s cattle off the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations. The agency removed it when the standoff became national news…They were getting a mega-deal. On Alpril 3, 2012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of ENN, had teamed up with Harry Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value. But the story gets better. Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5 billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.” So, what it amounts to is that if this land is sold to this Chinese outfit, than China controls this land in the US. They will own it. US real estate will be under the control and ownership of a Chinese “company” but who will really own it an independent company or the Chinese government?

World Net Daily had reported, back in January of 2013 that the Obama administration “…had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.” In other words, Obama is in the process of allowing Red China to have a major interest in our natural resources. What if their “interest” gets to the point where they control some of our natural resources? Oh, no, Washington would never let that happen! Yeah, right! Remember, this president is a Marxist and the Chinese government is also Marxist, to one extent or another. Oh, they may have allowed a bit of controlled “free enterprise” into China because, like the Soviets, they finally learned that pure Marxism, or communism, is financially untenable.

So much in this game really smells. There are some questions about the people that the BLM had out a Mr. Bundy’s ranch. One report I read on http://beforeitsnews.com for April 11th mentioned “…reports that have come out placing heavy Russian accents on the voices of members of the sniper teams deployed by the FEDS; could these be Russian Spetsnaz agents we’ve been warned about the past few years…With China now buying out what remains of America, as Clivan Bundy is now finding out, how long will it be until the rest of their plans will be put into place?”

An Oathkeeper who was at the Bundy ranch said that: “…the FEDS at Bundy Ranch are actually Russians and speak with heavy accents.” And as far as the BLM finally giving up and leaving, an article on http://www.infowars.com for April 12th said: “The Infowars exclusive yesterday exposing U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s involvement in the Bureau of Land Management’s land grab, which was meant to push out American ranchers such as Clivan Bundy in order to make way for Chinese solar farms, was the #1 news story in the entire world over the past 24 hours thanks to the Drudge Report and others, forcing the BLM to retreat from the standoff.”

I’m just wondering, at this point, given the info I read about solar farms such as Harry Reid and his son are trying to pave the way for in this country, being responsible for killing birds in more than one place in California, if Reid manages, somehow, to finagle a deal to get them into Nevada, how will the environmentalists, who are so concerned about animal life, respond? Surely they will be forced to protest Harry Reid’s plan to allow Chinese solar farms in, won’t they? Let’s wait and see. I could well be wrong, but I’d be willing to bet that the environmentalist movement in this country won’t say “boo” about what Comrade Reid and his son want to do, or how much money they will make off of it, or how many birds it will kill.
Why? Because over the years I have found much of the environmentalist movement to be like a watermelon—green on the outside, but RED on the inside.

What happened at the Bundy Ranch woke some folks up. Let’s hope they will stay awake—and active because, as I said in the last article—this administration is at war with its own people. They want to transform us either into a total Marxist state or pattern us after the socialist countries in Europe. Either way, we lose. Let’s let them know we ain’t goin’ easy!

Before I even finished this article I got an article sent to me from http://bobpowell.blogspot.com that stated that the situation at the Bundy Ranch was a test. The article read: “The entire standoff was…a real world exercise designed to determine what kind of resistance the federal government will face should gun confiscation begin.” I can’t verify the total accuracy of this, but it is food for thought. Eternal vigilance must still be the price of liberty.

In Nevada the Feds Back Off–for now

by Al Benson Jr.

It seems as if the good folks won one for a change instead of the government’s thugs. Today it was announced that the BLM will remove themselves from the area of Clivan Bundy’s ranch and will no longer try to remove his cattle, either by running them to death in the heat with helicopters or just by rounding them up and rustling them.

The BLM totally misread the intent of the folks that showed up to help Mr. Bundy resist their “government” aggression. They thought all they had to do to stave off resistance was to shout “one step closer and you’re dead.” This time it didn’t work. The assembled crowd just kept coming slowly, one step at a time. The BLM would have had to start shooting people to stop them and even the lapdog media would not have been able to cover that up satisfactorily–and besides, some of the assembled crowd probably might have returned fire. They were ticked off enough.

The county sheriff finally got enough backbone to do what he should have done in the first place–disarm the BLM and order them out of the area, which he did, after an ultimatum from Mr. Bundy to step up and do his constitutional duty.

Today an article on http://www.infowars.com stated: “Despite the fact that Bureau of Land Management officials agreed to cease their operation to seize Bundy’s cattle after a massive public backlash, Bundy demanded that Sheriff Gillespie disarm BLM officials and return his stolen cows. When this didn’t happen, hundreds of Bundy supporters, including cowboys on horseback, descended on a nearby cattle pen outside of Mesquite where the seized cows were being held. In a tense standoff, armed BLM feds, backed up by at least one SWAT team, threatened to shoot at Bundy supporters if they marched any closer to a line of vehicles…Despite threats of ‘one more step and you’re dead’ the protesters continued their slow march towards BLM agents as bullhorns blared. Refusing to back down, the protesters marched straight past the armed men and towards the cattle pen. Sheriff Gillespie eventually appeared to inform Bundy supporters that the BLM had finally caved and agreed to release the 100 cattle they had seized that were inside the pen.”

Ammon Bundy, Clivan’s son, said “The people have power when they unite. The war has just begun.” Ammon was correct. The war has, indeed, just begun and the patriotic folks in Nevada have won one battle. But there will be more. Who is to say the BLM, or some other quazi-government agency won’t try to sneak back into Clark County six months from now, under cover of night, and try to pull off a sneak raid, in which Mr. Bundy may well be shot “while trying to resist arrest.” With this government stranger things have happened. And Harry Reid and his son and their Chinese Communist buddies still want Mr. Bundy’s land. They won’t quit this easily.

The feds don’t like resistance to their agendas. They got it once in Kanawha County, West Virginia forty years ago this year and they eventually found a way to beat it (literally) into submission. They will find a way to combat this resistance also, so the Bundys and other patriotic folks in Nevada and in the West in general have got to learn to be eternally vigilant and not let themselves go back to sleep because, one way or another, this Marxist regime in Washington intends to have its way. They don’t recognize the constitutional rights of American citizens, no matter how many platitudes they peddle out there.

This current regime, as well as others before it, is at war with the American people, and Christians in particular. We better wake up to that fact and learn how to defend ourselves when federal aggression rears its head in one way or another, because it will, as sure as the turning of the earth.

Update on Federal Cattle Rustlers in Nevada article

by Al Benson Jr.

Just a few hours ago I posted an article on the situation in Clark County, Nevada where the BLM is trying to force rancher Cliven Bundy off his land and to get his cattle off public land. Supposedly all this is to protect a desert tortoise. As more news comes out the desert tortoise story quickly turns into balderdash. And the BLM assumes the role of jack-booted thugs in even greater proportion than before.

According to http://www.freerepublic.com  for April 11th the following is stated: “The Bureau of Land Management, whose Director was Sen. Harry Reid’s former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.”

“Corrupt Democratic Sen. Harry Reid working with the Chinese government to take land from hard-working Americans.”

“Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled ‘Cattle Trespass Impacts’ directly states that Bundy’s cattle ‘impacts’ solar development, more specifically the construction of ‘utility-scale solar power generation facilities’ on ‘public lands.’”

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence  of “trespass cattle” the document states.”

So there is a lot more than unpaid land use fees and desert tortoises involved in all this. Dirty Harry Reid and the Red Chinese want Mr. Bundy’s land for their solar development agenda, so Mr. Bundy and his cattle have to go–simple as that. Interesting that the present head of the BLM just happens to have been Dirty Harry’s former senior adviser. Pure coincidence of course. I wonder how much Dirty Harry and his BLM buddies will get out of this deal. Dirty Harry gets the goldmine and Mr. Bundy gets the shaft! Ain’t it just wonderful that we have such a “transparent” administration in Washington?

Federal Cattle Rustlers in Nevada?

By Al Benson Jr.
When is private property not really private property? When the federal government says it isn’t. When is public land not really public land? When the federal government says it isn’t and when they try to run you off for using it. Who does Clark County, Nevada really belong to? Well, that depends on who you ask. With the situation in Clark County right now the federal government seems to think it owns most of the county and that it can tell natives of the area what to do or not do on “their” land.

Back in September, 2006, I did an article for the old Sierra Times website (now defunct) called ‘There Is No Private Property in the American Empire.” I think there are one or two sites out there that might still have it up, but the current situation in Nevada strongly reminded me of that article.
A rancher in Clark County, Nevada (the only rancher left in the county) has had a run-in the the Bureau of Land Management. Ask most folks in the rural West about the BLM and you get answers that run the gamut from flat-out cusswords to worse. Ive talked to folks in Colorado when we’ve been out there on more than one occasion and let’s just say the BLM is not held in especially high esteem. They’ve been accused of land grabbing and other offenses, and in the situation in Clark County they have been accused of being cattle rustlers. Doesn’t surprise me in the least. The BLM thinks they are God out in the sagebrush and they pretty much do what they want.

The one remaining Clark County rancher, Cliven Bundy, has roots on the land he grazes his cattle on that go back to before the turn of the 20th century, back to the days when people actually owned their property and federal thugs like the BLM were only a fond dream in the mind of some corrupt bureaucrat. Much of the land Mr. Bundy grazes his cattle on is public land, which he contends should belong to the state of Nevada rather than the federal government. He is correct. The statistics I saw noted that the feds own over 70% of the land in Nevada. Why? Either it’s part of the state of Nevada and should be state land or when the State of Nevada became a state only around 30% of it really became Nevada.

At any rate, after Mr. Bundy’s family has used this public range for well over 100 years, along comes the BLM and assesses him for grazing fees and whatnot—and now they are telling him his cattle can’t graze there anymore because they are disturbing the habitat of the Desert Tortoise. Really? Cattle grazing in that area for the last century don’t seem to have bothered the tortoises all that much. Mr. Bundy refused to stop using the land and ignored the feds financial levies on his use of the land. Mr. Bundy has a “unique concept” in regard to public land. He actually believes it is for the public to use, not to be cordoned off into some sort of turtle paradise. Needless to say, he ideas are at variance with those of the federal bureaucrats who, in their heart of hearts, really believe it all belongs to the government. The bureaucrats have the mindset of a dictator. Mr. Bundy has the mindset of a free man. Never the twain shall meet!

Since Mr. Bundy ignored the BLM entreaties for plunder (grazing fees) they have decided to round up his cattle, (those they can’t kill) and “sell” them off. Wonder who gets to keep the money. Mr. Bundy stated: “Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights. Who is the trespasser here?…Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? The Bureau of Land Management has ‘overstepped its boundaries by not letting me access my rights, not recognizing the state’s sovereignty, and having over 200 armed officers watching our every move and stealing our cattle.”

The situation got worse last Sunday after Bundy’s son, Dave, was arrested for filming federal agents while he was not within the “designated” area for “First Amendment” activity. So now the feds can restrict First Amendment activity to certain areas and only in those areas can you exercise your First Amendment rights. Anywhere else you don’t have them. Is this a first step to removing them altogether? You be the judge.

Even Nevada’s governor has criticized the high-handed way the BLM is doing this, though he hasn’t done much else and the county sheriff, who is the county’s highest elected official, seem to have “gone fishin” rather than to exercise the authority he has to eject the feds from his county. Good luck in your next election, buddy, because most of the folks in Clark County seem to be in support of what Mr. Bundy is doing.

Now we have folks from other states coming in to stand with him in support, including, according to http://patdollard.com some militia groups.
The Pat Dollard article noted that: “On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundy’s property,…Mr. Bundy’s view is that he owns his property—that it’s been in his families hands for centuries…” However the BLM view is that the land belongs to them, I guess not only the “public” land, but all of it. After all, when you are the jack-booted thug in charge you can pretty much do what you want. And the BLM knows it will get the backing of the Marxist regime in Washington—compliments of Comrades Obama and Holder.

Let’s hope there can be a peaceful (and just) resolution to all this and that, somehow, Mr. Bundy doesn’t end up being “shot while resisting arrest.”

Lincoln’s Leftist Associates—Part 4

By Al Benson Jr.

The Communist website http://www.worker-communist.org carries quite a bit of commentary on the War of Northern Aggression. This site claims that the War brought the communists in America and those in Europe “back into regular contact.” Actually, that contact had never been severed. Actually it was reinforced due to the “news” items that appeared in Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune and the New York Daily Herald that were written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Even “Civil War historians” according to the Communist website, have been forced to admit how important Marx’s articles were. If they’ve been forced to admit that, then they must have limited their admissions to each other because they sure haven’t bothered writing enough about it to inform the American public. This has been one of those little secrets among the “historians” that has been studiously ignored, or if dealt with, they briefly mention it in one or two sentences—not enough to give folks any real information.
The Communists claimed that by the end of the War of Northern Aggression, all of the pieces were in place for “an explosive growth of the movement in the U.S. The mass exposure of workers in the U.S.—both ‘native’ and immigrant—to communist political figures and ideas during the war made it possible for the movement to move beyond its previous organizational forms as propaganda societies and ‘experiments’ and work directly toward becoming a mass force in American politics.” I don’t know if they were quite as influential as they like to let on, but they were definitely in place in this country and making their presence felt.

For instance, their website contains a photo of Wendell Phillips, and the caption under his photo says: “…renowned abolitionist who joined the International Working Men’s Association and became a self-described communist following the end of the Civil War.” What book have you ever read that told you this about Wendell Phillips?

The Worker article had a little more interesting info. It stated that: “In 1866, an emissary for the IWMA,…came to the U.S. and met with prominent leftwing Republicans Charles Sumner, Wendell Phillips and Horace Greeley. Orsini interviewed each of them and, when finished, all three joined the International. At the time, Sumner was also the senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, thus it can be argued that he was the first elected communist official in U.S. history (albeit one who was not elected as a communist per se). Phillips pledged to donate money he received from his lectures and speeches to the International, and Greeley became a regular publicist for both Marx and the International.” More “memory hole” material! And the article refers to “leftwing Republicans. The Republican Party was already to the left in the 1860s. I guess these guys must have been to the left of left.

These people are mentioned in yet another article on http://www.columbia.edu entitled Marx, Woodhull and Sorge. The article notes: “The people who launched a section of the Communist International in the USA were veteran radicals, who had fought against slavery and for women’s rights for many years. They saw the emerging anti-capitalist struggles in Europe, most especially the Paris Commune of 1871, as consistent with their own. They saw revolutionary socialism as the best way to guarantee of the broader democratic movement…The names of some of the early recruits should give you an indication of the political character of the new movement. Included were abolitionists Horace Greeley, Wendell Phillips and Charles Sumner. Feminist Victoria Woodhull joined in and put her magazine Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly at its disposal. The weekly not only included communications from Karl Marx, but spiritualist musings from Woodhull. The native radical movement of the 1870s was a mixed bag. Socialism, anti-racism, feminism, pacifism and spiritualism co-existed comfortably…Victoria Woodhull was unquestionably the biggest irritant, since she defended all these deviations while at the same time she spoke out forcefully for free love, the biggest deviation imaginable in the Victorian age.”

Even the book Radical Spirits by Ann Braude mentions Woodhull in this connection. Braude comments on her “…participation in the formation of Section 12 of the socialist International Workingman’s Association (commonly known as the First International), both of which offered great potential for Woodhulls self-promotion.”

Way back in 1999, about ten years this side of the Neanderthal period, I did an article for my old website http://www.csa-dixie.com/copperheadchronicle which, believe it or not, is still up there, though nothing has been added to it for years now, called Beast Butler and the Free Love Feminist. It goes into the unusual political relationship between the Beast and Ms. Woodhull in which the Beast, then in Congress, arranged for Ms. Woodhull to speak before the congressional committee he was part of. This was somewhat unusual for the day, but then, we are dealing with leftists here all around and so anything they can get by with goes.

Even Wikipedia cannot dodge Woodhull’s involvement with the far left. On http://en.wikipedia.org we are informed that “Woodhull joined the International Workingmen’s Association, also known as the First International. She supported it goals by articles in her newspaper. In the United States, many Yankee radicals, former abolitionists and other progressive activists became involved in the organization which had been founded in England.” However, all was not well in Marxist la-la land in this country. Because in 1871 the Germans managed to expel most English-speaking members in the First International’s U.S affiliates, which contributed to a speedy decline of the group here. Imagine, a communist group founded in London expelling English-speaking members in this country. And even though Woodhull and promoted Marx and his excuses for writing, he approved the expulsions which gave her the boot along with others. There’s just no gratefulness among communists and socialists!

Even though Lincoln had gone to his eternal reward, whatever that might be, in 1865, just about all the people mentioned here in connection with the International Workingman’s Association had had come connection with him somewhere over on the far left of the political spectrum in the Republican Party with the possible exception of Ms. Woodhull, and she had connections with Beast Butler.

I couldn’t possibly go into it all here, but there was an amazing interlocking relationship between many of these people, Republicans, communists, socialists, abolitionists and others that all, to one degree or another, supported each other’s socialist agendas.

Even Hollyweird has, to a limited extent, had to acknowledge Lincoln’s leftism and that of his associates. In a short article on http://www.breitbart.com the actor Tommy Lee Jones notes “Lincoln’s GOP was left-wing.” Jones is supposed to be somewhat of a history expert so he just might know what lots of others don’t seem to grasp. Lincoln’s Republican Party was left-wing. So was Lincoln. Our problems with socialism and communism in this country go back much further than most folks really want to think about. To sum up, might I suggest folks reading Walter Kennedy’s and my book “Lincoln’s Marxists”? If you don’t want to spend the money to buy it then see if your local library can get a copy so you can read it for free, but read it either way.

Lincoln’s Leftist Associates–Part 3

by Al Benson Jr.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the Republican Party nomination for president, with lots of help from Horace Greeley, and also lots of help from socialist Carl Schurz, who worked at rallying the German-American Forty-eighters and ordinary German voters as well.  Your ordinary German voter had no idea what was being pulled on him via Schurz and the rest of the Forty-eighter immigrants in this country. They were all being recruited to combat the “slaveholding capitalists” in the South while ignoring Northern railroad and banking capitalists.  As I stated earlier, it was really the Southern capitalists they were after. The Northern variety got an automatic pass–and most folks never noticed, just like they’ve been conditioned via the media today to not notice the almost total lack of any substantive information about the individual sitting in the White (Red) House.

In the very early days of the Republican Party a man most folks have probably never heard of surfaced. This was Alvin Earl Bovay. He had lived in New York State and become a lawyer there in 1846. He was really into both the Abolitionist and Free Soil Movements.  He became secretary of something called the National Reform Association. This group was mainly concerned with people concentrating too much wealth. According to http://www.abovetopsecret.com “They felt there should not be a right to the unlimited accumulation of wealth in this country. The association soon turned toward what is described as ‘a spectrum (of) the most revolutionary anarchist and socialist currents in American life.’ This hostility toward concentrated wealth made them hostile to the South especially seeing as how it was governed largely by wealthy gentry using slavery in replace of paid labor,…Some historians have charged the NRA’s most important members to being under the influence of Socialism, Trade Unionism, and of course Abolitionism.”

By the late 1840s Bovay had moved his family from New York out to the new town of Ripon, Wisconsin. Prior to the forming of the town, the area had been used by a utopian socialist commune, which still seemed to have quite a bit of influence in the area.  Bovay was instrumental in the formation of the new Republican Party, having been in contact with Horace Greeley who was, after all, a utopian socialist. Bovay had suggested that the name of the new party be the “Republican Party.”  Greeley liked that name, as he had also thought of it himself.

Another biggy on the agendas of both the NRA and the new Republican Party was the Homestead Act, which allowed all adult citizens to claim 160 acres of land then in the public domain. Greeley felt it was one of “the most vital reforms ever attempted”  and thought it would bring in a new era of prosperity.  Even though they agreed on the idea of homesteading, Greeley and Lincoln differed over the timing of it. At this time, Greeley and Frederick Douglas  joined forces in demanding of Lincoln that he make the War of Northern Aggression not only a crusade of “preserve the Union” but also an “Abolition war.” Lincoln wasn’t quite ready to do this, being as he had a lot of slaveholding voters in four states that had remained in the Union thorough one way or another.

By this time, Charles Dana was no longer working for Horace Greeley, but was working instead for Lincoln. He was officially assigned to the War Department, which organization he would eventually serve as assistant secretary of.  So already in the 1860s you had an admitted socialist and confidant of Karl Marx serving as Assistant Secretary of War in the United States. That fact is hardly a reassuring one. But it points to the fact that socialism and communism were alive and well in this country much earlier than we have been told about. That just may be why they omit it from our history books. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along!

Part of Dana’s assignment was to be an advisor and an aide to Lincoln pertaining to what has been described as “judicious, humane, and wise uses of executive authority.” So we have a socialist advising Lincoln on the “humane” use of executive authority.  Wonder is such advice had anything to do with why so many Northern folks who disagreed with Lincoln on so many issues wound up in prison with no trials, no lawyers, often their own families not even knowing where they were. I guess some might consider this “judicious” use of executive authority. At least Lincoln didn’t have them executed! But, then, there were so many of them that such might have proved a tad embarrassing.

Appearing on http://historyengine.richmond.edu  was an article entitled The People’s Lincoln. It stated: “In Lincoln’s time, public opinion vigilantly labeled a danger posed by their anti-Constitution imperialist.  Lincoln was widely hated, caricatured, and actively opposed. His concern for the government outweighed his concern for the people, their freedom and prosperity. The Lincoln depicted with loyal troops and grateful slaves is far from the man exposed in John A. Marshall’s series from 1869 American Bastille: A History of the Illegal Arrests and Imprisonment of American Citizens in the Northern and Border States on Account of Their Political Opinions During the Late Civil War. This was eventually published in 1883 as a book, American Bastille.” I recall seeing a copy of this once at a Civil War book sale. It wasn’t in very good shape and I didn’t have the money to buy it–but I thought about it. The History Engine article observed: “Once an arrest was made, not only was the right to a trial denied, but also seeking council was itself considered active rebellion.” It sounds so much like something a socialist would have come up with. The article noted one man who was arrested and, as of 1883, he had yet to be informed why. He had been released long before that, but with never any information as to why he was picked up in the first place. Welcome to the American Gulag–19th century style!

Lincoln spent a good part of his presidency reading dispatches from and seeking the counsel of the man who hired Karl Marx to write for Greeley’s newspaper. John Nichols, who was mentioned earlier, noted in his article that he (Lincoln) “…awarded military commissions to the numerous comrades of the author of The Communist Manifesto who had come to the United States as political refugees  following the failed European revolutions of 1848–is a shard of history rarely seen in the hagiographic accounts that produced a sanitized version of the sixteenth president’s story.”

The Communists, themselves, tell us some interesting things if we can discern between the truth and the propaganda. An article on http://www.worker-communist.org  informs us that the communists were active in the abolitionist movement. No surprise there if you’ve read anything about the abolitionists. Several years ago the chief theoritician  for the Communist Party, Herbert Aptheker, wrote a book called Aboltionism–a Revolutionary Movement. Aptheker had glowing praise for the Abolitionist Movement, which shows that their agenda and that of the Communists coincided. William Lloyd Garrison, one of the leaders among the most radical of the abolitionists once said the same thing. He made a statement that, after the slavery issue had been resolved, the abolitionists would set their sights on “world peace” and the “women’s rights movement”–both of which are on the Marxist agenda. The article also mentions that communists “were active in the left wing of the Republican Party.” Remember, folks, this was in the late 1850s-1860s. Who, in your “history” books, ever read about the “left wing” of the Republican Party in the 1860s, or even today? But they also tell us that the left wing of the GOP was in favor of a “centralized democratic republic.” That would have coincided with Lincoln’s version of what he wanted for a government.

Some of you may have heard of the International Working Men’s Association.  This was the organization that officially sent the letter that Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln congratulating him on his re-election to a second term.  This organization had some very interesting people that ended up as members.  This was a group founded in 1864, which sought to unite a plethora of left-wing, socialist, communist and anarchist groups and trade unions that were based on the working class and class struggle. This is what Wikipedia said about them, and this time they were pretty much on target. More about them in the next installment.

To be continued.

Lincoln’s Leftist Associates–Part Two

by Al Benson Jr.

In 2009 Adam Max Tuchinsky, associate professor at the University of Southern Maine, wrote an informative book called Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune: Civil War Era Socialism and the Crisis of Free Labor. Tuchinsky noted that Greeley’s paper had, among its contributors, Charles Dana, Albert Brisbane, George Ripley, and the ever-present Karl Marx–all socialists.  It seems that the leftist intelligentsia in this country all had a working relationship with “Friend Greeley.” I never read any of this in my public school “history” books. Did anyone else?

Dana eventually went to Europe, where he could witness the convulsions caused by the 1848 socialist revolts firsthand. He felt those revolts were a “historical turning point.” Unfortunately, he was correct, more correct than even he could know. While in Europe, Dana spent time scrounging around for “alternative strains of socialist thought” and ended up in Cologne. At this juncture, a friend of poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ferdinand Freiligrath, worked for a leftist periodical whose editor had lately co-authored a pamphlet called Das Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. One of its co-authors, the editor, was a deadbeat hack of a writer whose name did not even appear on the first edition–because the ideas in it were not totally his. He was hired by a group called The League of the Just to author the pamphlet and its content was more theirs than his.

And so socialist Charles Dana met socialist Karl Marx. Socialist Carl Schurz had once met Marx and in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, Walter Kennedy and I commented on that. We noted that, according to Carl Schurz, Karl Marx had an ego as big as the plant Pluto and was constantly berating and insulting those that dared to disagree with his exalted pronouncements. So typical for those on the left! They love it when you totally agree with them, but dare to disagree with them on anything and you become chopped liver in their estimation. Somehow, in spite of all the leftist vitriol, Marx and Dana seemed to hit it off. So much so that Dana got Marx probably the only real job he ever had in his life as a columnist for Horace Greeley’s left-leaning paper.

By the time Lincoln and Greeley both left Congress in 1849, Lincoln had developed a close circle of friends which eventually included a batch of the socialist Forty-eighters, and they were working at turning the states of Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois into seething points of agitation. So what we had, in effect, was almost constant socialist agitation in the upper Midwest in the very late 1840s and 1850s. Again, did you ever see any of this in your “history” books in public school? I never did. This is all “memory hole” material we are never supposed to be aware of. Oh, I recall reading about the Kansas-Missouri problems, but that was mostly blamed on Southerners. No mention of Lincoln’s socialist friends stirring the pot at all. In fact, I often wonder how much of this kind of history appears even in home school history studies. I saw very little when we were home schooling our kids, and I’ve seen several history books from Christian schools and none of this was mentioned in any of them. Why not? Wouldn’t our young folks have a much better grasp of our real history if this aspect of it were noted in their history books? Maybe that’s why it’s not there.

John Nichols, in his article in the International Socialist Review has noted, quite accurately, that: “While studies of Lincoln place appropriate focus on his domestic engagements, there has been far too little attention paid to his global interests, especially during the period ‘in the wilderness’ between the end of his congressional term and his return to the political stage. Yet there can be no doubt that the future president was conscious of and highly engaged with developments in foreign lands–thanks no doubt to his close reading of the Tribune…Lincoln invoked the struggles of the European revolutionaries and denounced ‘oppression in any of its forms…’” The invader and destroyer of the South denounces oppression–how touching!

As he got ready for the presidential race in 1860 (he was hardly a reluctant candidate) Lincoln took the time and trouble to align himself with those whose position is “…that labor is the superior–greatly the superior–of capital.” That’s part of the old Marxist line and it comes off sounding somewhat hypocritical from the man who was a lobbyist for the Illinois Central Railroad. You don’t get much more “capitalist” than the railroad people. And Thomas DiLorenzo, in his excellent and informative book The Real Lincoln noted that “…Lincoln was a devoted protectionist over his entire political career. He and other Whigs took this position because it created a stream of economic benefits for a wealthy and powerful constituency group…Having the government dispense special privileges to the wealthy and influential was always the core of the Whig political program to which Lincoln devoted his political career.”  Sounds like the sainted Mr. Lincoln was only opposed to capitalism and capital if they were Southern. He didn’t seem to have all that much problem with Northern capitalism–in fact he profited from it. Interesting that the socialist and communists that fled the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe, when they came to this country, ended up joining or allying themselves with the Republican Party–the party of corporate fascism and big government. And they did this because they knew that the party of big government would help them get what they wanted–power and control. The supposed leftist concern for the “poor and oppressed” is nothing more than a self-serving sham.

To be continued.