If the "Battle of Bunkerville" was really the first salvo of a new revolution, the second could come May 16, 2014

American Revolution, bunkervilleHas the second American Revolution begun? If you believe the militiamen that attended last week’s “Battle of Bunkerville” in Nevada, it’s here and they have won the first conflict. The “Battle of Bunkerville” is a direct reference to “Battle of Bunker Hill” in Boston during the American Revolutionary war. Fox Radio host Todd Starnes tweeted “Bunkerville is the first salvo of the American Revolution.” In fact, May 16, 2014, is listed as the next front in the Revolution.

The “Battle of Bunkerville” began with the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) seizure of cattle belonging to Cliven Bundy. The BLM seized the Bundy cattle due to his refusal to pay grazing fees for the last 20 years while allowing his cattle to graze on federal land. BLM states that Bundy owes taxpayers more than $1 million in fees and penalties. A court order was obtained by BLM requiring Bundy to remove his cattle from the land, but Bundy refused to comply.

After Bundy’s refusal, BLM planned to seize a thousand heads of Bundy’s cattle. BLM had penned 300 of them when hundreds of supporters, some heavily armed, began to arrive and set up camp around the road leading to Bundy’s ranch. One protestor, who would only identify himself as Scott, was dressed in a black flak jacket and armed with an AR-15 rifle. Scott said, “I’m ready to pull the trigger if fired upon,” as he crouched behind a concrete highway barrier.

BLM had called in armed rangers to complete the planned seizure, but backed down in the “interests of safety.” The protesters then began to storm the pens holding the seized cattle and released them. Bundy declared victory in the fight for freedom stating “we have been losing it for a long time.”

Operation American Spring

Using the “Battle of Bunkerville” as a rallying cry, a group called Patriots for America (PFA) is planning a massive march on Washington D.C. on May 16, 2014. The group’s mission is to “arrest all of Congress and throw them out of office.” The group’s founder Col. Harry Riley (Ret.) said, “We’re going to go to Washington, D.C. one last time…to let them know we the people are angry and fearful for our Nation.”

It’s that statement “one last time” that is the concern. What happens if PFA fails to get the results it desires? As Rob Mrowka, senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, put it “The sovereign militias are ruling the day. Now that this precedent (Bunkerville) has been set and they’re emboldened by the government’s capitulation, what’s to stop them from applying the same tactics and threats elsewhere?”

Riley is expecting 10 million people to show up on May 16, and expects many more to attend because of the “success in Nevada.” The goal of groups like PFA is to show up at protests heavily armed, but with no plan of firing any shots. This plan, according to PFA, will leave the Feds with only two choices:

Surrender and back down or unleash massive violence and bloodshed (and die en masse). It is option 2 that PFA wants; it gives the group an excuse to “set off armed revolutionary marches and backlash operations across the entire nation.” Mark your calendars and hope that Riley is just another right-wing, wacko with a keyboard. Stay tuned.

15 COMMENTS

  1. Wow, two comments about the Koch brothers. What is with this obsession with the Koch brothers?

    As to this incident, this just goes to show the importance of the Second Amendment. The federal government has no authority in this issue, the Constitution is quite clear. In fact, the BLM shouldn’t even exist.

    • Try again troll boy, you got your facts a little mixed up:

      “[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” – Article Four of the United States Constitution, since you probably never bothered to read the thing

      • Nevada isn’t a territory, it is a state. By your logic, Article 1, Section 8 is completely meaningless, as well as the 10th Amendment.

        But please, insult me, call me a troll, that makes your argument stronger.

        • I think this comment covers land as well. In fact, it says “property” in the same sentence.

          “[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” – Article Four of the United States Constitution,

          And about Article 1, Section 8, justifies these militia’s?

          • And then there’s this:

            It is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 115 that forbids “influencing, impeding, or retaliating violence against a federal official, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties.” One militia member said militias rushed to Nevada to provide an “armed response” to federal agents performing their official duties because “we need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.” Another militia organization published on several right-wing websites that “we have made the decision to mobilize to Nevada” and explicitly stated the “purpose of mobilizing was to spark a deadly conflict” and added that “All men are mortal, most pass simply because it is their time, a few however are blessed with the opportunity to chose (SIC) their time in performance of duty.” It is beyond question that the militias travelling to force federal agents to halt the performance of their duty was an act of sedition simply because their stated goal was starting a revolution against the United States government regardless Bundy does not recognize it as legal.

          • This land is not the rightful property of the United States. As to Article 1 Section 8, I bring it up because under QM’s logic, that Section would serve no purpose.

            These militia members were standing up to government officials acting beyond the powers of the federal government. In fact, the BLM is blatantly unconstitutional.

        • Actually Mike is right. Territory is the language used in Article IV because the borders were still evolving. Territories existed until 1959.
          Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare of the people.
          What is your concern?

          • Wendy, no, Mike is not correct. And actually, you aren’t really that accurate either. Article 1 Section 8 lays out the specific areas in which the federal government may legislate, it is not simply the authority to tax and spend. It is quite specific. There are actually 18 specific clauses. As I told Mike, by your logic, there would be absolutely no purpose to Article 1 Section 8, and the 10th Amendment would be completely pointless. There is no way the Framers, or the legislatures of the states at the time, would have ratified the document if Article IV was so all encompassing.

  2. Methinks more like 300 will show up in DC, unless the Kochs are paying their expenses. Another TeaTaliban showing that I’ll catch on the 6 o’clock news during dinner.

  3. Anybody know, is that law still on the books that limits a farm to irrigating 640 acres out of the Colorado River? (My knowledge of *that* subject may be 35 years out of date, so I’m asking…)

    If it is, then the natural follow up question would be whether there are any farms bigger than 640 acres — and how many 640 acre farms are surrounded no all eight sides and corners by similar farms belonging to wives, children, uncles, aunts, cats, dogs, etc… of the main operator?

    -dlj.

Leave a Comment