Posted by Tina
Breitbart reports:
In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.
The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”
Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.
The Texas Farm Bureau asserts the State of Oklahoma believes that whenever the river shifts south, the state line moves south. But when the river moves north, the line remains in place. Now, the BLM seems to want to settle the matter by simply confiscating the land.
According to a BLM document provided to Breitbart Texas courtesy Rep. Thornberry’s staff, the BLM is going through a scoping period where they are gathering facts on land whose ownership they believe to be in question in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The BLM is in the process of developing a Resource Management Plan. The plan will cover a total of 411,585 square miles, or 263 million acres of land. The BLM describes its “decision area as about 104,000 acres of BLM administered surface lands, 593,000 acres of split-estate land (private land with federal mineral interests) and 5,270,000 acres of federal mineral interests on land managed by other federal agencies.”
The fundamental transformation march continues…permanent federal power and control in Democrat hands is the ultimate aim of this bunch.
This article is from 2010 and details Obama and Reid’s involvement in “land grab” plan.
White House Land Grab:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/2/white-house-land-grab/?page=1
Feds Threaten to Steal Texas Land… Texas Responds:
The federal government consists of a bunch of thugs and bullies, and if you don’t believe it, here’s yet another example of how the feds are doing their best to undermine state sovereignty as much as possible.
Just weeks after the Bureau of Land Management initiated a standoff with a peaceful rancher in Nevada by bringing a militarized police force onto his ranch to confiscate his cattle and force him off the land his family has used for 140 years, the BLM is at it again, this time threatening to confiscate over 90,000 acres of land in the great state of Texas.
The BLM apparently hasn’t learned its lesson about Americans refusing to stand down from defending their rights. Just as the militia swarmed into Nevada to defend Clive Bundy, the Texas lieutenant governor is sending a strong message to the feds that you don’t mess with Texas.
From Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s official website:
“The federal government’s history of arrogant overreach is approaching a new low with the Bureau of Land Management’s threat to confiscate up to 90,000 acres of Texas land,” said Dewhurst. “This outrageous, illegal act makes my blood boil as it should for every Texan who believes in the sanctity of private land ownership.”
The BLM is claiming that the property rights that Texas has in the lands in question never existed. Typical.
At issue still is the definition of the boundary as the southern vegetation line, which shifts as the river’s course changes over time. According to Dewhurst, it is illogical to argue the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma, the southern vegetation line, can move south as the river’s course changes, but can never move northward. Unfortunately, the BLM, with a heavy hand characteristic of the federal government, has argued that deeds and patents to some 90,000 acres were awarded at a time the State of Texas had no legal right to do so.
Dewhurst immediately called out this abuse of power by the feds and called for a lawsuit against them for this egregious violation of state sovereignty and property rights, noting that the BLM has done it before:
“This is a federal land-grab, pure and simple and the BLM has done it before, some 30 years ago when they took 140 acres from Tommy Henderson, a proud Texas landowner,” said Dewhurst. “Taking private property away from Texas families, who in some cases have paid taxes on the property for over 100 years since they assumed ownership from the State of Texas, is entirely unacceptable.”
Dewhurst called on Texas Attorney General to file suit against the Federal Bureau of Land Management to stop the illegal taking of Texas lands.
I’m afraid to even discuss what might happen if you push Texas too far… They say “don’t mess with Texas” for a reason. They’re going to defend their rights with any means necessary if push comes to shove. The BLM better wise up, lest we have another Bundy ranch situation on our hands.
“Now, the BLM seems to want to settle the matter by simply confiscating the land.”
This is all just such BS, Breitbart style … the BLM already owns the land. It’s simply a matter of who gets preferential leasing terms … and what the “f” do you care? The BLM should just “balls up” and say “nobody does”. That will settle the question.
And all this brouhah over beef raising, which is an environmentally criminal enterprise anyway.
Teach your grandchildren to grow beans and ferment cabbage. That’s the future.
Interestingly, there’s a provision in the TX Constitution that was accepted by the US when TX became a state that allows TX to secede, if necessary.
Could be a new border fence in TX’s future . . . .
Libby: “the BLM already owns the land.”
No they don’t. It belongs to “We the People.” Remember we have a gov’t of the people that exist only because of our support.
From the link I posted above: “A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.
The 21-page document, marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.
It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states’ rights.
Rep. Robert Bishop, Utah Republican, made the memo public because he didn’t want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.
President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country. The law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone.
In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a “center of climate change scientific research.”
In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is “currently under the threat of oil and gas development.”
Americans should be wary of any plans a president has to seize land from the states without their consent. Any new plans to take away states’ freedom to use land as they see fit must be stopped.
It was particularly disappointing that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, voted against the amendment. The government owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada and the unemployment rate there is 12.8 percent. Surely it would help job prospects if more land were open for business.”
Now, why in the world would Dirty Harry vote to not support a bill that would protect the land in his own state and to continue high unemployment rates with the lose of potential job creation?
It doesn’t make sense for a state representative to do unless he’s benefiting financially and/or some other way. He’s supposed to be working for the people of Nevada.
Remember, the article I posted was written in 2010.