Posted on 06/25/2014 6:33:38 AM PDT by Rusty0604
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Neil Kornze responded to the April letters from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) about the Red River land dispute between the federal government and the State of Texas.
Senator Cruz, in his letter to Kornze, reiterated Abbott’s points from his letter and added his own inquiry:
“Please confirm that BLM does not take the position that it has rights to ownership or control of any of the 90,000 acres of land along the Red River that are at the center of this controversy or similarly situated land. If it claims any such rights, please identify with specificity the acreage, location and legal basis for claiming those rights.”
As to the assertion of ownership of the disputed land along the Red River, Director Kornze appears to be standing with the position that the BLM has always owned this land.
Kornze concluded, “The BLM will determine the uses and extent of these public lands through the current public planning process and any necessary surveys.”
Gen. Abbott told Breitbart Texas, "The BLM's recent letter fails to answer the questions that I and many Texans have about the BLM’s seeming land grab along the Red River. It is still unclear what area along the Red River the BLM is attempting to lay claim to, under what authority, and how the BLM intends to treat the Texans who have for generations considered the land private property.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The resources of this country belong to the people not to government bureaucrats and their global handlers.
We now live under a totalitarian dictatorship run by the "Liberal privilege" class of nomenklatura.
It’s very obvious that these bureaucrats have no fear of personal retribution for their actions in the name of ‘government’. Perhaps more personal responsibility needs to be made the ‘law of the land’.
And I am looking at the Judges and the Prosecutors too. They need to serve the law impartially and not use it for personal reasons or bring their own ideologies and attitudes into their deliberations.
Curious how Texas can afford to fight BLM, AND control the border situation at the same time.
Win win for the Dems as the plan, IF it is their plan would make Perry, and the Republican Administration of Texas appear as failures unless they miraculously can afford to fight them.
Wondering IF that IS the Democrat plan. The Democrats are calculating manipulators.
The Democrats said they plan to turn Texas blue.
IMHO the word has gone out through the ‘grapevine’ that Obama will pardon all for anything they might have done. They have to believe something like that. No one could be that bold without the assurance that there would be no consequences. Dedicated Marxists yes, but still wary unless he’s got their back.
It’s just all part of the left’s agenda to push freedom-loving, constitution-following Americans to resort to civil insurrection. They want a confrontation so that they can declare Martial Law and take total control, finally....while eliminating many of those on the right that they consider to be a problem (belligerants).
I say to the leftists pushing this envelope....”be careful what you wish for”.
Texas should take a page from the Chinese playbook and start drilling for oil on a section of the disputed land.
Democrats favorite strategy is to bankrupt or financially destroy any opponent. This increases progressive power relentlessly. Democrats used to be a political party that made decisions based on what was good for America. Today that has chganged to be more like the Russian old communits party: they do only what increases the party's power.
You hit the nail on the head; it is all about the party for the Democrats.
Damn, if texas wants the land, surround it by local militia
and let the alamo rise again...fight for it, we are under attack..
Maybe they want to give free homes to illegals
Kornze worked in the office of Nevada Senator Harry Reid from 2003 until 2011
Cloward-Piven.
That’s what it is.
I wish that I knew more about the land in question. If the land was not purchased from a private owner as required by the 5th Amendment, or purchased from the state with the consent of the state legislature as required by the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, then the feds do not own or have control over the land imo.
The controversy hinges on the area’s murky boundaries. The state line between Oklahoma and Texas is pegged to the middle of the Red River through the 1920s Supreme Court decision. Go north of an imaginary line dividing the river down the middle, called the medial line, and you’re in Oklahoma. Head to the small cliffs to the south that the river has carved out, called cut banks, and you’re in Texas. Anywhere in between is federal land.
The problem is, rivers change course. Under the court’s decision, changes that take place over time, called accretion, also shift the state line between Texas and Oklahoma. More sudden changes, called avulsion, don’t. That’s created uncertainty as to who owns what.
Court decisions have upheld the federal claim on the land. Texan Tommy Henderson, who was involved in a 1986 case over land rights between ranchers from both states, had paid $300,000 for 140 acres, but a court ruled it actually belonged to the government.
this will not end well for the trespassers.
It is one thing to have the resources of the BLM go up against a lone rancher.
Quite another to have to face the Texas Rangers.
Q “Why did you send a single Ranger?”
A “’Cause there was only one riot.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.