MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Habanero Monterey Jack. It defintely adds. It might even meet JR's approval.
A counter to the Bundy sympathies
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Habanero Monterey Jack. It defintely adds. It might even meet JR's approval.
Zach
Well-known member
Hmmm, might have to add that to the cheese drawer in the fridge.
Oh, and I'm not endorsing or condoning the following link, just throwing it out there.
http://youtu.be/HFiosLqjoQQ
starting to see a pattern? have no details except for what this article says.
http://www.americasfreedomfighters....-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/
The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?
Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.
The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.
Avulsion versus Accretion
Since 1803 when the Louisiana Purchase was completed, there has been a controversy over the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. The boundary is supposed to be the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River. But the River has moved over time. The problem is the definition of that boundary line- Oklahoma and Texas each use different semantics to define it. And the BLM is finding ways to use the disputed words to give them the ability to seize the land.
According to the BLM, the Red River is always Accretion (gradual accumulation of sediment) to the south, and always Avulsion (rapid formation of a new river channel) to the north. So according to the BLM, the boundary only moves one direction, never in the direction that favors the ranchers. They are looking to re-draw the entire portion of the Red River boundary. That includes 90,000 acres of land along a 116 mile stretch of the river.
“BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.” January 2014
Public input ignored?
Land that has been in the families of ranchers is to be seized as “public lands” that would be subject to fees or blocked off entirely from rancher’s use. Or in some cases, moving the boundary line over to Oklahoma, where Texas ranchers can lose their rights to the lands that they have owned for more than a century. The BLM had open meetings back in January to “take input” from the public …but they are moving forward with their plan to seize the land anyway. There was likely never any intention of actually listening to the rancher’s stand.
The taking of property from land owners, the stealing of cattle, all of these things are apparently the modus operandi of the Bureau of Land Management. There are no tortoises involved in this incident, just land-grabbing feds who are intent to take away the property of ranchers that have owned it for hundreds of years. Will it come to armed confrontation as is occurring in Nevada? We don’t know.
Open grazing of cattle has always been a common law right in America. It is time for the American people to rise up against the theft of private lands and property by a government that is out of control. Ranchers have contact Texas Representative Mac Thornberry for assistance. We will monitor this situation as it progresses.
http://www.americasfreedomfighters....-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/
The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?
Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.
The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.
Avulsion versus Accretion
Since 1803 when the Louisiana Purchase was completed, there has been a controversy over the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. The boundary is supposed to be the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River. But the River has moved over time. The problem is the definition of that boundary line- Oklahoma and Texas each use different semantics to define it. And the BLM is finding ways to use the disputed words to give them the ability to seize the land.
According to the BLM, the Red River is always Accretion (gradual accumulation of sediment) to the south, and always Avulsion (rapid formation of a new river channel) to the north. So according to the BLM, the boundary only moves one direction, never in the direction that favors the ranchers. They are looking to re-draw the entire portion of the Red River boundary. That includes 90,000 acres of land along a 116 mile stretch of the river.
“BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.” January 2014
Public input ignored?
Land that has been in the families of ranchers is to be seized as “public lands” that would be subject to fees or blocked off entirely from rancher’s use. Or in some cases, moving the boundary line over to Oklahoma, where Texas ranchers can lose their rights to the lands that they have owned for more than a century. The BLM had open meetings back in January to “take input” from the public …but they are moving forward with their plan to seize the land anyway. There was likely never any intention of actually listening to the rancher’s stand.
The taking of property from land owners, the stealing of cattle, all of these things are apparently the modus operandi of the Bureau of Land Management. There are no tortoises involved in this incident, just land-grabbing feds who are intent to take away the property of ranchers that have owned it for hundreds of years. Will it come to armed confrontation as is occurring in Nevada? We don’t know.
Open grazing of cattle has always been a common law right in America. It is time for the American people to rise up against the theft of private lands and property by a government that is out of control. Ranchers have contact Texas Representative Mac Thornberry for assistance. We will monitor this situation as it progresses.
jryoung
Well-known member
Depends, what kind of mustard?
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Annie's Horseradish.
jryoung
Well-known member
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
My day has officially culminated...
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Well then how about a lawn chair?
BuzzH
Well-known member
The revolution is going to start without you...tuffie.
T
tjones
Guest
Tinfoil, don't forget the tinfoil.
Damn! That looks really good! Bet it taste better!
What are we talking about here? Meh, it does not matter. Think I'm off to try and match the flavor my mind is conjuring.
Thanks. This thread otherwise is for the forum wingdingers here out.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Dancerpro
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2021
- Messages
- 92
I have read many articles on both sides of the fence and had finally decided that it's a wash. Then today, I run into this and see many things not covered in any of the others and I finally think I have enough information to add my voice to the conversation.
Once a contract is violated on one side, does not give the other side rights to violate the contract, it gives rights to challenge the violator. In passing laws to protect public lands, as is the responsibility of State and Federal Congresses, and going to a permit system from a lease system, the obligations on both sides changed.
The one constant is PUBLIC LAND. Our governments, federal, state, county and city are to protect our rights and preserve the public lands for the common good of all the people. When buying or renting a house, the second you stop paying, is the exact second you lose rights to it. These circumstances are a bit more complicated, but exactly the same.
Congress passed ACTS and LAWS protecting a turtle, the forrest's and the people's interests in those lands. Bundy thought those lands were his to do with as he wished simply because he had a lease and he dismissed our rights completely as the land owners. In going from a lease system to a permit system the conditions of usage changed and looking at the various acts passed the various protections also changed. Bundy looked at these changes as violations of his rights to his land.
There is the problem, the lands in question belong to the people, ALL OF US. Allowing harvesting trees give funds to protect those lands as well as maintaining those lands. Allowing areas to remain protected for a turtle, may seem silly, but what effect does this animal have on the ecosystem of that area? I don't really know, but let's substitute another animal that we can easier answer that question. I believe all life is precious and to better understand the situation, put the humble deer in place of the turtle. No there are not league's of hunters going after the turtle, it does not tip any part of the economic scale, however, all life matters.
Anglers, hunters and trappers are by practice, conservationists and what would it mean to turn away from even one life in need? These animals are rare, existing no where else in the world. If we, as conservationists, don't stand up for those precious wild places and things, then what are we truly? Does there need to be a perceivable value, or is it our duty to stand up for those lands and wildlife in need?
Courts deal in legalities, very often that does not mean right, nor does it mean Constitutional, just legal. I know the case is perceived over, but Bundy is once again vowing violence, he and his cattle are violating our rights as the owners of these public lands. That is the bottom line, who rightfully owns the lands and who holds the right to say how they are used?
In my way of seeing it, we are being violated, so a businessman can use our lands to profit. The waters can be muddied in many ways, but the truth of the matter is easy enough to see, when you filter the water to a drinkable state. Had he done things correctly to begin with and kept paying for the privilege, while he sorted it out, this would have been decided and done with decades ago. However, the next chapter in this rediculas saga is being written and we continue to be violated.
