YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #pet #waterproof #cable
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Jobs Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Jobs

Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
47 w

EMERGENCY UPDATE!! U.S. SAYS "SEVERE CONSEQUENCES" FOR IRAN!! MASSIVE EARTH FACING SOLAR FLARE!!
Favicon 
prepping.com

EMERGENCY UPDATE!! U.S. SAYS "SEVERE CONSEQUENCES" FOR IRAN!! MASSIVE EARTH FACING SOLAR FLARE!!

#nyprepper #WW3 #breakingnews GET 25% OFF THE THREE MONTH EMERGENCY FOOD SUPPLY FROM MY PATRIOT SUPPLY HERE: http://preparewithnyprepper.com For first access to breaking news updates check out my Patreon $3/month and direct messaging to me: https://www.patreon.com/NYPrepper Leave a tip if you feel compelled: https://paypal.me/NYPrepper?locale.x=en_US "CULINARY NIGHT" - https://rumble.com/v58d1g5-culinary-night-the-night-we-came-close-to-nuclear-war.html Rumble: https://rumble.com/NYPrepper Telegram: t.me/nyprepper1 Twitter: @nyprepper1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR GREAT DEALS ON VARIOUS PREPPING PRODUCTS CHECK MY SPONSORS BELOW!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MY WEBSITE - http://www.newyorkprepper.com for a FREE DISCUSSION FORUM, blog, and articles. SIGN UP FOR E-MAIL ALERTS AT THE BOTTOM OF MY WEBPAGE FOR CRITICAL & BREAKING UPDATES TO YOUR E-MAIL!! (I DO NOT SEND SPAM) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MY MERCHANDISE (T-shirts, mugs, towels, bags): https://teespring.com/stores/nyprepper-merchandise ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact me at nyprepper85@gmail.com to speak anonymously and share any information you feel would be good to share with my audience. All sources will remain confidential! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MASON LEATHER - leather products made in Texas, VETERAN OWNED: http://www.masonleather.com USE PROMO CODE "NY10" for 10% OFF CRAFT HOLSTERS - fine hand-made european holsters http://www.craftholsters.com/holsters USE PROMO CODE "NYPrepper5" for 5% OFF!! OLIGHT - high quality flashlights at a good price USE PROMO CODE "NYPrepper10" for 10% OFF!! Use my affiliate link: https://www.olightstore.com?streamerId=1434870235842121731&channel=default GET 70% OFF Virtual Shield VPN use my link: https://virtualshield.com/deals/nyprepper -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like
Comment
Share
Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
47 w

? Walmart issues Serious WARNING about Port Strike - 40 Items to Stock Pile before they are GONE
Favicon 
prepping.com

? Walmart issues Serious WARNING about Port Strike - 40 Items to Stock Pile before they are GONE

Email Signup Just in Case https://www.sustainableseasons.com/ Follow me on Twitter X Just in Case https://twitter.com/PatrickHumphre Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEb2N54-fMYvtCs2i7P40gg/join Walmart has issued a warning about the union port strike. Costco is also getting prepared for the strike and has a stockpile to help with shortages. Watch Patrick Humphrey prepper news updates. We could see supply chain disruptions and shortages of food and goods. Walmart prices could go higher if the strike prolongs. “Stand firm, and you will win life.” Luke 21:19
Like
Comment
Share
Science Explorer
Science Explorer
47 w

US Breast Cancer Cases Rising Despite Declining Death Rates, Study Finds
Favicon 
www.sciencealert.com

US Breast Cancer Cases Rising Despite Declining Death Rates, Study Finds

There's an uneven impact.
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
47 w News & Oppinion

rumbleRumble
The Prophetic Report with Stacy Whited
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
47 w

Vance vs. Walz: A Royal Ass-Kicking That Was
Favicon 
spectator.org

Vance vs. Walz: A Royal Ass-Kicking That Was

“The moderators were obnoxious,” said Brit Hume of Fox News in his opening reaction to Tuesday’s debate. And Hume was right. For some reason, Democrat propaganda news organs are allowed to control the presidential debates, and every time they get an opportunity to present one of these affairs they never cease to disappoint. Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan were the moderators of Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate, and the terms agreed to were that they wouldn’t fact-check the candidates as ABC’s propagandists David Muir and Linzey Davis did to Donald Trump in the previous debate. They violated those terms, of course, but that backfired. Badly. An example… JD Vance just TOOK COMMAND of this debate by fact-checking these debate "moderators" who tried to fact-check him! This is how it's DONE. pic.twitter.com/X2ONBCNOo3 — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 2, 2024 They didn’t try to fact-check Vance again, though there were a few snide editorial comments and a host of attempted “gotcha” questions Vance casually batted away with aplomb. This, in a nutshell, is why it was a great choice for Trump to nominate J.D. Vance as his running mate. In fact, it’s an exposition of a massive difference in leadership between Trump and Kamala Harris – or Joe Biden, for that matter. Strong, effective leaders surround themselves with capable people. They actually seek to be the dumbest person in the room where decisions in their organizations are made. In Trump’s first term, that wasn’t as successful as it could have been – or as it’s been in his private sector exploits – because he’d never worked in government before and didn’t have a lot of personal contacts to draw from. He also represented a sizable sea change from a Republican Party which had utterly squandered the legacy Ronald Reagan left it, and so Trump didn’t have a deep well of proven leaders. So he got stuck with the H.R. McMasters, Rex Tillersons and John Kellys, who had solid resumes but not the relationships or orientations Trump needed to drain the swamp. And Mike Pence was another good example of Trump’s inexperience in 2016. Vance is an example of his experience in 2024. Trump has a running mate who, thanks to the benefit of his own experience, is on board with his agenda in a way Pence never was. And what you saw from Vance was that Trump was not afraid to pick someone even more polished, even more composed, and even more in command of facts and details than he is. That’s not what you saw with Kamala Harris, who refused Josh Shapiro as her VP choice out of insecurity over his talent relative to hers. Vance is far and away the best communicator – in the old political sense – of the four presidential and vice-presidential nominees of both parties. And he showed it Tuesday night. He made zero mistakes. He was never stumped. He didn’t stumble. He never lost his cool. He saw all the questions coming and had devastating answers ready. And he was an island of sanity in a sea of absurdity. Vance was asked to defend the simple, obvious notion that deluging America with 15 million illegal aliens will necessarily pump up the demand for a basic necessity like housing, something which would have irritated most politicians, much less ordinary people. He offered up a Federal Reserve study proving it, which showed great preparation, but the question itself indicated how dumbed-down and ridiculous the intersection of politics and media have become. Tim Walz whined about illegals, a not-small number of whom (over 600,000) are criminals and a shocking number of whom (13,000) are murderers, not to mention the unknown number who might have walked across our southern border with a backpack full of deadly Chinese fentanyl meant to poison Americans slung on their backs, being “demonized.” Walz was so rattled by a question giving him an opportunity to explain the lie he told about having been in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre in China that he melted down. He failed to give the easy answer that he’d flubbed the timeline mostly for political effect, but that what he was trying to get across was an understanding of how China works. That wouldn’t have been wonderful, but Walz might have at least limited the damage from that lie being exposed. Instead, he called himself a “knucklehead.” And then he claimed, perhaps by mistake, that he’d been friends with school shooters. Walz managed to recover, mostly once he was given a softball question on abortion, and he spent the second half of the debate composed, if not particularly effective. But Vance did nonetheless hang Walz on the infanticide bill in Minnesota that he signed, which allows doctors to escape responsibility for the well-being of babies born after surviving abortions. Walz denied that was what the bill did, and failed to take advantage of an opportunity Vance gave him to parse his answer to make sense. “What was I wrong about?” Vance challenged Walz. He had no answer, just a blanket denial. Which resulted in this image on TV sets all over America… For 90 minutes Americans got to see a master class in how a political debate should be conducted. Vance was cool, in every sense of the word, and he utterly dismantled Walz, and more importantly, Kamala Harris. He was hopeful, but he was also dismissive of the ruling class’ fraudulent narratives. What value are “experts,” he noted, when their supposed “expertise” yields poor results predictable by sheer common sense? Brennan and O’Donnell acted like he was from Mars when he said that. Most of the American people, who see those poor results, know exactly what he meant. It was a blowout. An utter rout. Walz wasn’t awful in a general sense, but against Vance he failed miserably. And he knew it. It was so bad that Walz spent half the time writing notes when Vance was talking (Vance took none), and it looked like he was literally getting schooled. And a list of questions beginning with climate change idiocy and ending with an ad nauseam discussion of January 6 couldn’t save him. Vance refused to allow himself to get dragged into the latter discussion, and instead forced a conversation about censorship and its corrosive effect on democracy. And when Walz brought up the canard that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, Vance buried him on the government abuse of social media platforms to suppress true information. When he was done, all Walz could say was “I don’t run Facebook.” That hardly helped his cause when the point was that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris improperly have been for much of the past four years. We are a very, very long way away from Walz calling Vance “weird.” It was Walz who looked weird on Tuesday night. No one expected the vice presidential debate to move the needle in the 2024 race for the White House. But nobody expected the beatdown Vance laid on Walz, either. We’ll see if the public is swayed. The post Vance vs. Walz: A Royal Ass-Kicking That Was appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
47 w

LIVE W/ Alex Jones & Roger Stone: Vance vs. Walz, HOT CONFLICT Igniting!
Favicon 
api.bitchute.com

LIVE W/ Alex Jones & Roger Stone: Vance vs. Walz, HOT CONFLICT Igniting!

YOU CAN NOW CALL IN and send us videos to react to by signing up to https://wearechange.org/subscribe/ Please super chat/donate via: https://streamlabs.com/infowrc/tip $10.00+ = displayed on screen $49.99+ = read/answer $99+ = INSTANT TTS (text to speech) $199+ = Canadian school teacher BREAKING: The Wider War Just Began! Subscribe to our main channel http://Youtube.com/WeAreChange
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
47 w

STEERING STORMS: HIGH OCTANE SPECULATION ABOUT HELENA
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

STEERING STORMS: HIGH OCTANE SPECULATION ABOUT HELENA

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star: It has only been a few days since hurricane Helena slammed into Florida’s big bend, leaving destruction and, unfortunately, death in her wake. Normally I am not disposed to begin high octane speculations so soon after a disaster, and when so many people are suffering. It seems to […]
Like
Comment
Share
History Traveler
History Traveler
47 w

The Expanding Nation: How Westward Expansion Shaped Early US Elections
Favicon 
www.thecollector.com

The Expanding Nation: How Westward Expansion Shaped Early US Elections

  For about one hundred years, a frontier existed for the United States of America, even longer if you count Alaska and Hawaii. The continental United States did not formalize its 48 states until 1912, and the final two states were not added until 1959. Some would even consider westward expansion to include American imperialism in the late 1890s as the US looked to add islands in the Pacific to its sphere of influence. How did all of this westward expansion, beginning with the Northwest Territory in 1787, affect US elections? What opportunities and challenges did westward expansion present to political candidates, especially those hoping to become president?   1804: Louisiana Purchase & Lewis and Clark Expedition A map of the Lewis and Clark Expedition through the territory gained in the Louisiana Purchase, superimposed over modern state boundaries. Source: Internet Archive   In 1803, US President Thomas Jefferson was serving his first term in office after winning the contentious election of 1800 against incumbent John Adams. A new French leader, Napoleon Bonaparte, needed money for his planned offensives across Europe…and offered to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States for $15 million. Jefferson was faced with a constitutional dilemma—could he make the purchase? Nothing in the nation’s guiding document mentioned the president being able to purchase land. Making an executive decision, Jefferson agreed to the deal and effectively doubled the size of the country.   The Louisiana Purchase was highly popular with Americans, who felt invigorated by the bountiful new land. They saw it as a sign of the United States’ growing strength, and many were inspired by the Lewis and Clark Expedition that Jefferson sent west to explore the new land. The purchase gave the United States the important port city of New Orleans, which opened up trade along the Mississippi River valley. Some Federalists in the northeast were uneasy with the Louisiana Purchase, however, because it proportionally increased the economic power of the western territories, which could now use New Orleans instead of traditional eastern cities.   1832: Andrew Jackson & Challenges With Native Americans Contrasting views of Native American chief Osceola (left) and US President Andrew Jackson (right) in regard to Indian Removal policies. Source: Smithsonian Institution   The Louisiana Purchase added a considerable amount of western land to the United States. By the 1820s, many Americans were eager to settle it. This quickly increased conflicts between white settlers and Native Americans. In 1828, notable “Indian fighter” Andrew Jackson was elected president four years after his controversial rejection by the US House of Representatives despite winning the most popular and the most electoral votes. His only major proposed legislation to become law was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Native Americans in the South were forced to either move west or become citizens of the states in which they resided—and lose much of their traditional land to settlers.   Despite Jackson’s strong popularity as president, many Americans protested the Indian Removal Act as inhumane. Some Native American tribes signed agreements with the federal and state governments, which promised to protect their remaining lands in those states. However, the governments rarely followed through, allowing much of the protected land to be pillaged. Jackson easily won re-election in 1832, signaling that most voters accepted the Indian Removal Act and its results.   1844: Annexing Texas (and Pursuing Oregon) An 1836 map of the Republic of Texas, which had just won its independence from Mexico and would later be annexed into the United States. Source: Tennessee Virtual Archive   While Andrew Jackson’s reforms opened up land in the West to American settlement, a foreign policy drama was brewing on the US border with Mexico. The northeastern province of Mexico, Texas, declared its independence and fought a revolutionary war. In 1836, the Republic of Texas secured its freedom but remained wary of Mexican attempts to reclaim it. Many Texans were immigrants from the United States and felt an affinity for their country of origin. Quickly, many Texans and Americans began exploring the possibility of Texas being annexed by the United States.   The 1872 painting Spirit of the Frontier epitomized Manifest Destiny in the United States, which was the belief that the nation should cover the continent. Source: Government of Canada   In 1841, pro-slavery Vice President John Tyler was elevated to the Oval Office upon the sudden death of William Henry Harrison. He quickly looked to annex Texas, arguing that the vulnerable republic would be taken by another power. The debate over Texas annexation became a major issue in the 1844 presidential election. It was strongly supported by Democratic nominee James K. Polk, who was a firm believer in Manifest Destiny. Polk won the election, and Congress approved Texas’ annexation as the 28th US state the following year.   1848: The Mexican-American War  A painting of Mexican soldiers defending high ground against charging American soldiers during the Battle of Cerro Gordo. Source: National Park Service   The annexation of Texas by the United States restored a US-Mexico border. Neither nation agreed on the true border, with the United States claiming the further south Rio Grande River and Mexico claiming the further north Nueces River. The disputed territory in the Nueces Strip resulted in bloodshed in 1846, with Mexican troops firing on United States soldiers. Quickly, the Polk administration asked for a declaration of war. Even early in the war, politicians jockeyed for power regarding what should be done with the land inevitably won from Mexico, which fought with obsolete weaponry and tactics.   A resounding American triumph in the war in 1848 helped make General Zachary Taylor—a war hero after battlefield victories at Monterrey and Buena Vista—the next US president. Taylor took a hands-off approach to the heated debate over how the Mexican Cession would be divided between slave and free territories, letting Congress decide. He encouraged citizens in the new western territories of California and Utah to pursue statehood, through which they could decide to ban slavery. Despite Taylor’s wartime popularity, he showed little strong leadership regarding America’s war-gained territory during his short tenure in office; he died after only 16 months in the White House.   1852 and 1856: Slavery in the Post-War Territories A map of the Compromise of 1850 that occurred in the territory gained in the Mexican Cession after the Mexican-American War. Source: Library of Congress   The Compromise of 1850 ended the slave trade in Washington DC, admitted California into the United States as a free state, and left the territories between it and Texas to decide for themselves. To appease angry slave states, the Compromise included a stronger fugitive slave act, making it easier for Southern enslavers to retrieve escaped enslaved people. Instead of solving any debates over slavery, Zachary Taylor’s brief tenure in office prolonged the tensions. In 1852, slavery made the presidential election particularly contentious and was hotly debated in new territories like Utah.   US President Franklin Pierce, elected in 1852, did little to resolve the debate. The Kansas-Nebraska Act furthered the concept of popular sovereignty in determining whether a territory would be slave or free. This resulted in violence in Kansas and Nebraska as outsiders rushed into those territories to try to influence governments. The next presidential election, in 1856, saw the new Republican Party, which opposed slavery, nominate famous western explorer John C. Fremont as its nominee. Despite Fremont’s popularity as an explorer of the Rocky Mountain region, Democratic nominee James Buchanan won the election…but also sought to avoid the issue of slavery.   1868 and 1872: The Railroads and Westward Expansion A famous photograph of the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad on May 10, 1869 at Promontory Point, Utah. Source: Northwest Railway Museum   The horrendous American Civil War (1861-65) finally ended the decades-old debate over slavery. A wounded America tried to heal and move on from its deep divisions and looked to the West as a source of inspiration and rebirth. Thanks to new railroads, the territories that had debated slavery in the 1850s were now open to mass settlement. Railroads had been a major key to Union victory in the Civil War, and the Republican administration of US President Abraham Lincoln greatly bolstered that industry.   In 1868, Lincoln’s wartime military leader, Ulysses S. Grant, easily won the Republican nomination and the White House. His administration presided over the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in May 1869, boosting Grant’s popularity further by uniting the nation from east to west. Three years later, Grant signed into law the first national park: Yellowstone. Grant’s support of western exploration combined with his military victories made him a popular leader, and he won re-election to the presidency that November.   1876-1892: The Indian Wars and Mormons An 1899 painting of the Battle of Little Bighorn, often known as Custer’s Last Stand. Source: Independence Hall Association   As the West was settled thanks to the railroads, there were increasing clashes between white settlers and Native Americans. When settlers or companies had a dispute with Native Americans, they often called on the US Army. Additionally, Native Americans were forced into desperate straits by the destruction of the American bison. Tribes often followed massive bison herds, utilizing all parts of the animal. Many Americans supported government policies that destroyed Native American traditions, such as nomadic lifestyles. Rutherford B. Hayes, elected in 1876, presided over much of the end of the Indian War era.   The destruction of Native American tribes’ ways of life was not protested by the voting public, which wanted western land freed for settlement or investment. In these western territories, the sparse populations prevented them from having much voice in the Electoral College, thus meaning little impact on presidential elections. Resentment against the growing Mormon populations in Idaho and other territories in the 1880s became a political issue as the territorial legislatures tried to prevent Mormons from voting. In 1890, Utah was only allowed to become a state after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or Mormon church, banned polygamy.   1898: The Spanish-American War Maps of the Spanish territories seized by the United States in the brief Spanish-American War of 1898. Source: Library of Congress   The 1890 US Census reported that the West was settled. However, westward expansion continued into the Pacific Ocean as an increasingly industrialized America looked to build spheres of influence overseas. Since the 1850s, the United States had been eager to increase trade with China and Japan. There was lots of profit to be made by importing exotic goods from Asia. To support regular trade, the US wanted to control islands in the Pacific to allow ships to refuel. This led to eagerness for the US to exploit tensions with Spain, which controlled islands in both the Caribbean and the Pacific.   Goaded by yellow journalism, the US rushed into war with Spain in 1898. The four-month war was a tremendous victory. President William McKinley toured the nation in the aftermath and felt out public opinion on what to do with the territories captured from Spain. When he felt that the public supported annexing the territories, he did so. This helped bolster McKinley’s image as a wartime president and a steward of a growing American empire—he won re-election in 1900, aided by adding Spanish-American War hero Theodore Roosevelt to the ticket as his running mate.   1956 and 1960: Alaska and Hawaii A pamphlet promoting Hawaii as the 49th state to join the United States, which it did in 1959. Source: National Archives   Some fifty years later, the United States was still not fully formed as we know it today! Although the continental United States formalized its last two states in the early 1910s, elevating them from territories, Alaska and Hawaii remained two prominent territories isolated from the mainland. Alaska had been purchased from Russia in 1867 in a move originally criticized as “[William] Seward’s Folly,” but later discoveries of gold and oil proved the $7.2 million purchase to be a sound investment. Hawaii had been annexed by the United States in 1898 to assist with controlling the Pacific Ocean during the Spanish-American War.   In the 1950s, questions about elevating Alaska and Hawaii to statehood were mired in partisan politics. Granting statehood would provide each territory two US senators and at least one US representative—would that shift the balance of power in Congress? In 1956, both the Democratic and Republican parties put Alaska and Hawaii statehood in their party platforms, but things were less unified behind the scenes. Democrats were strong supporters of statehood, but Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower accepted statehood for the two territories on national security grounds. With the Cold War ongoing, making Alaska and Hawaii states would give the US more reason to project power into the Pacific region.   Summary of Western Expansion on US Elections Maps showing the progressive settlement of the United States from east to west over two centuries. Source: Library of Congress   In the early decades of westward expansion, the process was supported by political candidates as a sign of America’s growing size and strength. By the 1850s, however, westward expansion was seen more as a potential expansion of slavery than a sign of economic growth, leading some to oppose adding new states. The spirit of expansion returned to politics after the Civil War, but only briefly. By the 1880s and 1890s, turning western territories into states raised questions of partisan politics in Congress, as new states got US senators and US representatives. This led to some resistance to adding new states.   Adding new territories to the United States, however, was widely embraced during that era. This showed American strength and power projection but did not threaten the balance of power in Washington DC. Alaska and Hawaii were finally admitted to the union in 1959 only as part of Cold War politicking: They were vital for national defense, and admitting pro-Republican Hawaii balanced well with admitting pro-Democrat Alaska.   Currently, a similar balance-of-power debate remains regarding the potential statehood of two more territories: Washington DC and Puerto Rico. Both of these territories, however, currently lean toward the Democratic Party.
Like
Comment
Share
History Traveler
History Traveler
47 w

5 Infamous Pretenders in Russian History
Favicon 
www.thecollector.com

5 Infamous Pretenders in Russian History

  Throughout Russian history, dozens of individuals have claimed to be members of the ruling family. The following list of pretenders includes two rebel leaders, two women who made their claims in the quest for power and wealth, and an enigmatic religious elder who was rumored to have been a former tsar.   1. False Dmitry I Tsarevich Dmitry by Mikhail Nesterov, 1899. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Russian Museum, St Petersburg)   The most successful pretender in Russian history was a man known as False Dmitry I. He came to prominence during the Time of Troubles, a chaotic period of Russian history at the turn of the 17th century after the extinction of the Rurikid dynasty.   The extinction of the Rurikids was in large part due to Tsar Ivan the Terrible, who, in his quest to eliminate rivals to the throne, executed his cousin Vladimir of Staritsa in 1569. Ivan’s eldest son, Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, was destined to inherit the throne until his death in 1581 when he was rumored to have been killed by his father in a fit of rage.   When Tsar Ivan died in 1584, he had two surviving sons, the sickly 27-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich and the 17-month-old Dmitry Ivanovich. The former became Tsar Fyodor I but left real political power in the hands of his brother-in-law, the boyar Boris Godunov.   Godunov sent the young Tsarevich Dmitry and his mother, Maria Nagaya, to the distant town of Uglich supposedly to keep them safe. In 1591, the nine-year-old Dmitry was found dead with his throat cut. In an effort to silence rumors that Godunov was responsible, an official delegation from Moscow concluded that the child had an epileptic fit while playing with a dagger.   False Dmitry Swearing an Oath to King Sigismund III of Poland by Nikolai Nevrev, 1874. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Radishchev Art Museum, Saratov, Russia)   When Fyodor died childless in 1598, the Assembly of the Land proclaimed Boris Godunov the new tsar. Boris’s initial popularity was undermined by a series of poor harvests that resulted in widespread famine. The Tsar’s financial support to the peasantry depleted the treasury and led to further inflation, while corrupt merchants bought up all the grain and sold it to the peasants at high prices.   Amid the economic crisis, a young man claiming to be the murdered Tsarevich Dmitry emerged in Poland and sought assistance from King Sigismund III to take Russia from the “usurper” Boris. In March 1605, he led a small army to invade Russia and was joined by Cossacks and disaffected Russian nobles. Tsar Boris claimed that his opponent was actually a fugitive monk named Grigory Otrepyev.   Although Boris’s forces managed to win a major battle, he died of illness on April 13. His teenage son succeeded to the throne as Fyodor II, but after less than a month, the anti-Godunov faction staged a coup and imprisoned the tsar and his mother.   Last Minutes of False Dmitry I by Karl Wenig, 1879. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Nizhny Novgorod State Museum of Art)   This removed the final obstacle to the false Dmitry’s triumphal entry into Moscow on June 20, 1605. After being proclaimed Tsar Dmitry, he ordered the execution of the Godunovs. Dmitry bolstered his legitimacy by meeting Tsar Ivan’s widow, Maria Nagaya, who recognized him as her son.   The new tsar’s alliance with Poland and his embrace of Roman Catholicism soon provoked opposition from the Russian boyars, which broke out into the open after his marriage to the Polish noblewoman Marina Mniszech on May 8, 1606. The boyar Vasily Shuisky spread rumors that a Polish army was set to enter Moscow to massacre all the Russians in the city, and on May 17, an enraged Muscovite mob stormed the Kremlin.   False Dmitry’s attendants urged him to escape, but he stumbled as he jumped out of a window and was cornered and killed. They burned his body and fired his ashes from a cannon toward Poland. Vasily Shuisky was subsequently enthroned as Tsar Vasily IV.   Unlike the real Dmitry of Uglich, False Dmitry met his death very publicly in the center of Moscow. Nevertheless, several other pretenders emerged, claiming to be Dmitry. A second False Dmitry appeared in 1607 and was accepted by Tsarina Marina as her husband, but his army was defeated outside Moscow, and he was killed in 1610. False Dmitry III appeared in 1611 but was eliminated the following year.   2. Princess Tarakanova Catherine the Great in her coronation robes by Virgilius Eriksen, 1764. Source: State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg   In July 1762, Empress Catherine II of Russia took the Russian throne by overthrowing her husband Peter III in a coup. A week later, Peter was dead, likely murdered on Catherine’s orders. Although she was born a German princess with no Russian blood, Catherine had grand ambitions for her adopted homeland and would later be known as Catherine the Great.   In 1772, Catherine faced a challenge to her authority when an enigmatic young woman in Paris calling herself Princess Vladimirskaya claimed to be the illegitimate daughter of Empress Elizabeth of Russia, the daughter of Peter the Great and Peter III’s immediate predecessor.   Although Elizabeth remained unmarried her whole life, she was rumored to have had a child with her favorite, Count Alexei Razumovsky. “Princess Vladimirskaya” enjoyed the patronage of a “Baron Embs,” but the latter turned out to be a Flemish merchant who was soon bankrupted. The pretender was obliged to travel throughout Europe until she arrived in Venice in May 1774.   The Russian empress was alarmed to hear of the emergence of a woman whose claims, if genuine, would give her a better claim to the Russian throne. The empress decided to lay a trap by instructing Count Alexei Orlov, the brother of her lover Grigory Orlov, to entice the supposed princess to Russia.   Princess Tarakanova, by Konstantin Flavitsky, 1864. Source: Wikimedia Commons (State Tretyakov Museum, Moscow)   After spreading rumors that the Orlovs had fallen out of favor with Catherine, Alexei signaled support for the princess’s desire to seize the Russian throne. As the commander of the Russian Mediterranean fleet, Orlov was stationed in the port of Livorno in Tuscany and invited her to meet him there. During their rendezvous, Orlov pretended to fall in love with her and proposed marriage, which was accepted.   Orlov invited his prospective bride to hold the wedding on board his ship, but as soon as she stepped on board, he led a band of armed men and arrested her. The ship sailed to St Petersburg, and she was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where she was interrogated about her identity.   The prisoner refused to drop her claims and continued to languish in her damp and dirty prison cell, earning herself the nickname Princess Tarakanova, or Princess Cockroach. The prison records indicate that she died in December 1775, with her identity forever remaining a mystery.   3. Emelyan Pugachev Emperor Peter III. Anonymous painter, c. 1762. Source: State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg   Catherine the Great had to face several challenges to her rule, the most prominent of which was a Cossack rebellion led by Emelyan Pugachev, who pretended to be her late husband, Tsar Peter III.   Born in 1742, Pugachev was a Cossack from the Lower Volga region who served with the Don Cossacks but later escaped to join a group of Yaik Cossacks who lived near the eponymous river close to the Volga.   Pugachev soon discovered considerable unrest among the Cossacks, whose freedoms and privileges were gradually being eroded by the imperial government. By 1773, he found himself the leader of a rebellion. He realized that by claiming to be Peter III and issuing imperial decrees in his name, he could attract a large following among the serfs and undermine the empress’s authority.   Pugachev administering justice by Vasily Perov, 1875. Source: Wikimedia Commons (State Historical Museum, Moscow)   In late September 1773, Pugachev led his men to besiege the city of Orenburg. Since isolated peasant and Cossack uprisings were not uncommon, Catherine was slow to respond to the crisis. Eventually, she mobilized her armies and forced Pugachev to raise the siege after six months. Pugachev escaped and launched a counterattack against the major city of Kazan in July 1774, but despite surrounding the city’s Kremlin, the rebels were defeated by General Ivan Mikhelson’s army.   Despite this setback, Pugachev’s rebel army remained over 30,000 strong, and he evaded capture and captured major cities along the banks of the Volga. Pugachev’s luck eventually ran out in August when he was defeated decisively by Mikhelson near Tsaritsyn, modern-day Volgograd. The following month, Pugachev’s subordinates arrested him and delivered him to the authorities. He was sent to Moscow and executed on January 21, 1775.   4. Fyodor Kuzmich Alexander I, Emperor of Russia by George Dawe, 1818-25. Source: Royal Collection Trust, London   Unlike the other individuals in this list, the enigmatic Fyodor Kuzmich did not personally make any claims to be anyone else and enjoys a positive reputation. Kuzmich’s emergence in Tomsk in the 1830s inspired rumors that he was Tsar Alexander I, who ruled Russia between 1801 and 1825.   As the grandson of Catherine the Great, Alexander received his education from the Swiss Enlightenment philosopher and statesman Frédéric-César de La Harpe. As a young man, Alexander had been an idealist and wrote about renouncing the succession to the imperial throne and moving abroad to live a quieter life.   In 1801, Alexander became tsar after his father, Paul I, was overthrown and killed in a palace coup. Although Alexander was aware of the plans, he did not expect his father to be killed and expressed regret at Paul’s death. Alexander sought to introduce liberal reforms, but aristocratic opposition forced him to scale down his ambitions.   Alexander faced his greatest crisis in 1812 when Napoleon invaded Russia. Although Napoleon was eventually defeated, the experience had a major psychological impact on Alexander. After the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, he was drawn to religion and spiritualism, inspiring his later nickname, Alexander the Blessed.   Fyodor Kuzmich by Anonymous Tomsk painter, 2nd half of 19th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Tomsk Provincial History Museum)   In 1825, Alexander accompanied his sick wife, Empress Elizabeth, on a tour of southern Russia in an effort to recover her health. The tsar fell ill and died on December 1 in the Black Sea port of Taganrog.   Since Taganrog was far removed from the major cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow, the tsar’s sudden demise at the age of 50 inspired rumors that he had faked his death.   In 1836, an old holy man named Fyodor Kuzmich appeared near the Siberian city of Perm, where he was soon compelled by the imperial authorities to relocate to Tomsk. His background was unknown, but he lived an ascetic lifestyle and the local population began to attribute various miracles to him.   The mysterious hermit soon attracted prominent visitors from the Russian Orthodox Church, and in 1837, he met Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich, the future Tsar Alexander II. Visitors reported that the old man had an aristocratic bearing, could speak French, and displayed an extensive knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars and the leading ministers in St. Petersburg. In 1864, as Kuzmich was on his deathbed, his priest asked him whether he was Tsar Alexander. The dying man uttered, “Your works are wonderful, Lord … There is no secret which is not opened.”   The future Tsar Nicholas II was taught as a child that Alexander I and Fyodor Kuzmich were the same person, and he visited the hermit’s grave in 1891 during his eastern tour. However, most historians reject the theory that Alexander I had faked his death.   5. Anna Anderson Nicholas II and his family, photograph by Rafail Levitsky, 1913. Source: Wikimedia Commons (State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg)   In the early hours of July 17, 1918, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was brutally murdered along with his wife Alexandra, their five children, and four servants in the basement of the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg, designated the “House of Special Purpose.”   The execution was carried out by Yakov Yurovsky, commandant of the Ipatiev House, on the orders of the Ural Regional Soviet, with approval from Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik government in Moscow. The timing of the execution was motivated by reports that anti-Bolshevik White armies were approaching Ekaterinburg and could liberate the tsar and his family.   Yurovsky was keen to destroy and dispose of the bodies quickly after the killings, but the operation was carried out haphazardly, and the task was not complete by daybreak. A week later, on July 25, the White armies took control of Ekaterinburg. Admiral Alexander Kolchak, the commander of the White Russian forces, ordered Nikolai Sokolov to investigate reports that the imperial family had been murdered.   While Sokolov did not find the main grave site, he uncovered various artifacts deposited in the aftermath of the killings. His preliminary findings, published after his death in 1924, concluded that all seven members of the imperial family were killed at the Ipatiev House, leading the Soviet government to officially acknowledge that the whole family was killed.   Since no bodies were found, there were widespread rumors that one or more members of the imperial family survived, especially among Russian émigré communities who hoped that the monarchy might be restored.   Grand Duke Ernest Louis of Hesse by Jacob Hilsdorf, 1905. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The uncertainty surrounding the fate of the Romanovs proved a fertile environment for pretenders claiming to be one of the tsar’s children. The most notorious was Anna Anderson, who emerged into the scene in 1920 after attempting to take her life by jumping off a bridge in Berlin. She was admitted to hospital and subsequently claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia, Nicholas’s youngest daughter.   The woman assumed the name Anna Tschaikovsky and received financial support from European aristocrats who were willing to believe, although most people who had known the grand duchess believed that Anna was a fraud. Anna found her greatest supporters among the children of Eugene Botkin, the imperial physician who was shot along with the imperial family at the Ipatiev House.   In 1927, the late Tsarina Alexandra’s brother Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse, hired an investigator to determine the identity of the woman who claimed to be his niece. The investigation concluded that she was a Polish woman named Franziska Schanzkowska, who worked at a munitions factory during the First World War and developed a mental illness after receiving a head injury in an accident.   After first adopting the name Anna Anderson in 1928, she spent three years in relative luxury in the United States. Supported by the Botkins, she initiated legal proceedings to claim what she believed to be a large Romanov fortune outside Russia.   Romanov Memorial Chapel at the Peter and Paul Fortress. Photograph by Jimmy Chen, 2011. Source: Jimmy Chen   Anderson moved back to Germany in 1931, and her high-profile legal case was dismissed in the late 1930s with no ruling either way. She became increasingly reclusive and lived in a crumbling house. In 1968, she accepted Gleb Botkin’s offer to move to the United States, where she married a history professor named Jack Manahan to obtain residency. She died in 1984.   In 1991, the location of the central grave site of the Romanov family was revealed. Only nine sets of remains were uncovered, with two of the children unaccounted for. In 1998, the remains were reinterred in a special memorial chapel in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg.   While the absence of two sets of remains added further fuel to the rumors that Anastasia may have survived, DNA testing proved conclusively that Anderson was not related to the Romanovs while indicating that she was related to the Schanzkowski family.   The enduring legend of Grand Duchess Anastasia’s survival inspired the 1997 animated movie Anastasia, produced by 20th Century Fox. In 2007, two sets of remains were discovered near the main grave site. Although DNA testing indicates that they are Tsarevich Alexei and one of his sisters, the Russian Orthodox Church has since carried out further testing of all the remains attributed to the Romanovs.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
47 w ·Youtube Politics

YouTube
Tim Walz Calls Himself "Knucklehead" in Horrible Answer on Tiananmen Square Lie, w/ Johnson & Lowry
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 9814 out of 56669
  • 9810
  • 9811
  • 9812
  • 9813
  • 9814
  • 9815
  • 9816
  • 9817
  • 9818
  • 9819
  • 9820
  • 9821
  • 9822
  • 9823
  • 9824
  • 9825
  • 9826
  • 9827
  • 9828
  • 9829

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund