Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    Texas AG Abbott to BLM: 'Come and Take It'

    Breitbart
    by Bob Price 22 Apr 2014

    Exclusive--Texas AG Abbott to BLM: 'Come and Take It'

    After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

    “I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

    Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

    “I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

    In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ...And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

    Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.”

    As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”

    In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:


    1. Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
    2. Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
    3. Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
    4. Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
    5. Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.


    “The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.”

    “What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.”

    As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.”

    Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.”

    Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.”

    At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.”

    The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.”

    Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.”

    Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”


    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...me-and-Take-It
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Background on the Federal Government ownership rights of State lands:

    Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding (Conclusion)

    Robert G. Natelson*

    Conclusion

    Considered from the vantage point of original meaning, both the conservative and liberal interpretations of the “other Property” portion of the Property Clause are partly correct. The liberals are correct in that the Constitution – not just arguably, but clearly – authorizes permanent property ownership outside the Enclave Clause. The clarity of this result flows both from the text of the document and from comments made during ratification. Moreover, the liberals are correct in suggesting that those lands are subject to a public trust and cannot be ceded to the respective states without compensation. Federal land disposal, like federal land management, must serve the interest of the entire country.

    On the other hand, the conservatives are correct about another aspect of original meaning. As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes. Massive, permanent federal land ownership would have been seen as subversive of the constitutional scheme. The federal government’s authority to dispose was unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not: all the latter functions could be exercised only to serve enumerated powers. To be sure, Congress would have considerable discretion as to how to effectuate enumerated powers, and reasonable exercises of discretion were not to be questioned. At the end of the day, however, all federal land not “necessary and proper” to execute an enumerated power was to be disposed of impartially and for the public good.

    I should not be understood as saying that the framers and ratifiers meant to require sale on the open market or to the highest bidder as the only way of disposing land for the public good. That was the method appropriate in 1788, perhaps; but they would have understood that in later times the “proper” methods of disposition would vary according to the needs of the country and the nature of the land.223 In future years, the public interest might justify disposing of (on suitable terms) agricultural lands to homesteaders, mining lands to miners, and environmentally sensitive lands to other public entities or to nonprofit environmental trusts. Generally, though, the Constitution’s original meaning was that lands not dedicated to enumerated functions were to be privatized or otherwise devolved on terns that best served the general interest.

    http://constitution.i2i.org/sources-...operty-clause/

    *Professor of Law, University of Montana; Senior Fellow, the Goldwater Institute; Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Independence Institute; President, Montana Citizens for the Rule of Law. I am grateful the assistance of the following individuals: for review of the manuscript and helpful suggestions, Professor Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Elizabeth J. Natelson; for secretarial assistance, Charlotte Wilmerton, University of Montana School of Law.

    http://constitution.i2i.org/sources-...operty-clause/
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Bundy Ranch: The Agenda 21 "Shot" Heard 'Round The World




    [Editor's Note: The following post is by TDV Editor-in-Chief, Jeff Berwick]
    The United States government is NOT concerned about the desert tortoise. There is something much larger at stake...a much bigger reason to lead an armed insurrection against a family's property as we've seen at the Bundy Ranch. What's for sure is the Bundy Ranch showdown is not over. Harry Reid assures us something big will happen:

    “It’s obvious that you can’t just walk away from this. And we can speculate all we want to speculate to what’s going to happen next,” Reid told KSNV-TV. “But I don’t think it’s going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen. We are a nation of laws, not of men and women.”
    "We are a nation of laws. not of men women." What in the world does that mean!? For the laws, by the laws...I guess.

    As Los Angeles Times writes, "The U.S. can't let Cliven Bundy win his range war." Why not?
    Because control over land use in the United States is at stake; that is, the control of US territory by government and transnational corporations. It's called Agenda 21, and its implementation is in full-swing. The federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in nine different states. It will tell you Agenda 21 is for sustainability and smart growth - so that evil corporate persons don't destroy the planet - but, let's face it, the government is after what it is always after: to make a buck and gain control.

    The recently deceased researcher, author and expert on UN's Agenda 21, Henry Lamb, wrote an article in 2003 called "Why the Government is Grabbing Our Land."
    He writes:
    "By 1976, the United Nations was ready to articulate a general policy on land use. This policy is stated in the final report of the first U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), held in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976."

    The preamble to the section on Land states:

    “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

    Here is what the US will look like under Agenda 21:



    Notice that there is basically no space reserved for humans! The light blue is "Normal Use" zones. That's where you go. I've probably driven more of the US than most US citizens. Let me tell you something - there is a lot of space in the US! Especially in the west...

    But so it goes. An end to private property in the US. The US federal government already owns half the land in the west. The federal government's control of so much land has led states to ask (ever so politely) for some of it back. In 2012 Utah passed a law asking the federal government to give up about 20 million acres of public lands, comprising most of the state, by the end of 2014. "Experts" say that would be "unconstitutional"... Forget that whole state's rights thing.

    The 13 western states are home to 93 percent of federal land. Here's a rundown of the top states for federal land ownership:

    Nevada: 84.5 percent
    Alaska: 69.1 percent
    Utah: 57.4 percent
    Oregon: 53.1 percent
    Idaho: 50.2 percent
    Arizona: 48.1 percent
    California: 45.3 percent
    Wyoming: 42.4 percent
    New Mexico: 41.8 percent

    Seven western states have demanded that the federal government return public lands, according to a March report from the liberal Center for American Progress:

    “In the past year, legislatures in seven western states—Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho—have passed, introduced, or explored legislation demanding that the federal government turn over millions of acres of federal public lands to the states,” according to a report from the Center For American Progress.


    TIGHTEN YOUR BELT, SUCK IT IN...


    Under the guise of protecting and restoring wilderness, Agenda 21 is really about socializing all land. This means kicking people off land they have owned for centuries. Where are they expected to go? Urban areas. They'll live like sardines while nations once considered poor live better off than most Americans.

    The hundreds of armed federal agents who showed up at the Bundy Ranch on behalf of the United States Bureau of Land Management and the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed great restraint by not massacring what the media would call a bunch of right-wing gun nuts. They confiscated nearly 1,000 cattle they claimed trespassed on federal property and threatened the desert tortoise. In true US law enforcement fashion, they were sure to shoot a few of the cattle, but not before they buried a mass grave. Once armed Bundy supporters poured onto the ranch, however, the federal government backed off...for now, as Harry Reid makes clear.

    Basically, the BLM is a criminal organization strongarming the Bundy's on behalf of mafioso racketeers. Cliven Bundy is only their latest target, and that's because he lives on the Gold Butte area of Nevada.

    "It's not about the turtles. It's about water. There are developers working for military contractors that want that land and water for mining military grade minerals for industry...They want to sell the land by the highway for real estate development because it's close to I-15 and the Bundy's have been refusing to sell what they actually own directly for twenty years. Many buyers sent me out there with crazy offers for that land for many years," said Rusty Hill, a former land broker in the Gold Butte area.

    It won't end with Cliven Bundy.

    Texas officials are concerned that the Bureau of Land Management has its eyes on a massive land grab in northern Texas along the Oklahoma border. The issue caught the attention of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who wrote to BLM Director Neil Kornze stating the agency “appears to be threatening” the private property rights of “hard-working Texans.”

    It's even gotten to the point where, in this particular case, police helicopters are pulling over people in the middle of nature to do stop and frisks and ask for their "papers please".



    http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014...the-world.html
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

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