BLM ON TEXAS LAND: NOT A LAND GRAB, IT’S ALREADY OURS

Breitbart ^ | April 25, 2014 | By Bob Price

[Jim Robinson]

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oklahoma Field Office responded to Breitbart Texas about the so-called Red River “land grab” by emphasizing that parcels in question are already held in the public domain and BLM-managed. The Bureau claims it is not they who are declaring the ownership but that settled case law long declared it to be government land.

BLM Public Relations Specialist Paul McGuire agreed to a one-on-one telephone interview with Breitbart Texas after reading the original report published earlier this week. In contrast with the interview with Texas General Land Office Commissioner Jerry Patterson, McGuire expressed much more confidence about the ownership of the land and indicated little, if any, ambiguity about how or why the land should be under federal control.

“It’s not the BLM making any such claim as to the status of the land,” McGuire said. “That land was a matter that the courts adjudicated decades ago, going back to the 1920s in fact. The Supreme Court settled the matter as to where the public land in the Red River was. So, BLM is really just proceeding on those earlier court decisions.”

[GladesGuru]

IIRC, the Feds can only own such lands as are defined in the Constitution. The Feds are merely the stewards of other such lands as the public entrusts to them.

PS IIRC, that stewardship is revocable subject to management success/failure.

[dforest]

I read an article last week that said land was being put up for collateral. Can’t remember what article it was. There are so many right now.

[Milton Miteybad]

Too late, Mr. BLM guy. This acreage was patented a long time ago. Severed from the sovereign. It's in private hands, now and forever. If you wished to purchase this acreage, however, I'm sure it could become available at the right price.

Then again...you're $17.2 trillion in debt. You are representing the world's largest aggregation of spendthrift deadbeats. In view thereof, it appears that you probably can't afford this acquisition.

Which brings us to another thought...perhaps you should delay any future acquisitions until you are able to sort out your issues on lands out west, which, in contrast to this Red River acreage, is actually land still in the public domain. As you have amply demonstrated, your agency is having great difficulty managing the lands you actually do own. It would be best, one would think, if you were to learn how to manage the stuff already in your portfolio before acquiring somebody else's acreage.

[PapaNew]

Whatever land the BLM does in fact own needs to be sold back to the states or the people unless BLM can prove it has a Constitutional and compelling the need for the land. The compelling need must be within Constitutionally delegated powers to the feds and must override a strong presumption in favor of state and private ownership of land.

Obama continues to test the will and resolve of the states and the American people. In Marxist fashion, he's much more aggressive against the citizens of his own country than he is any foreign aggressor. Among other things, he wants to implement the U.N Agenda 21 here. As far as I'm concerned, that's treasonous as it surrenders U.S. sovereignty to a foreign power. I hope he meets his match in Texas as well as Nevada.

[Red Badger]

That was written by a communist..................

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Red Badger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie

[alloysteel]

“Adverse occupancy” also applies to government land.

And of course, there was always the concept of “homesteading” and “proving up the land”. Much of the West was settled in just this way.

But territory once occupied by the nation that used to be known as “the United States of America” might no longer be subject to this old established tenet of English common law.

[Kit cat]

The citizens OWN THIS LAND!!! The government survives on us!!! HOW
can they put OUR land up for collateral WE PAY FOR IT???

[taxcontrol]

There are only two ways by which the US Government is able to obtain land. Article II section 2 treaty with another country and Article I section 8 with the approval of the state legislature.

This does not appear to qualify for either.

[WildHighlander57]

Ping!

Alloysteel, many thanks for the info!

[Logical me]

and this time, we're bringing tanks

Make sure you bring the tow truck with you to haul away the burned out hulks.

[nomad]

Take it right back and dare them to come after it.

[Bobalu]

If this thing boils over and Rick Perry kicks BLM’s ass then I see the distinct possibility of Perry becoming the next president.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Maybe the BLM better go visit the Alamo before they pick a fight with Texans. They will need to Nationalize the Texas Guard—will they Obey Obama or Rick Perry? When the BLM rolls in who will greet them? Will US hired guns fire on Texans? Will they be ready for a firestorm that will follow? If the war starts. How many states would follow Texas? The South? The west? CW II. Nothing will happen—too much resistence to any land grab. Many in the US military are from the South— how will they Obey—they took as Oath but—does it count when leaders lie and cheat and break the Constution? The new CSA will be the Constutional States of America.

[null and void]

My new tagline.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

We should just start calling them BM for short.

[null and void]

Ancient Man ~ too many of us around who remember Waco. Never again.

servantboy777 ~ Waco? What was that? Oh, I remember. You mean the murder of innocent children by the federal gubbamint?

...Under the auspices of Janet Reno and ERIC HOLDER? Yeah. We remember.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Throughout the “Commonwealth Realm”, land that is not privately owned is called “Crown land”. No ambiguity there.

However, I’ve been told that the American colonies once had a revolution, and separated from the Empire. I’ve also been told that they went on to establish a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Based on that, it would seem to me (an observant foreigner) that your case law should have branched out from the British (and Canadian, etc.) case law, since that alleged revolution.

Rather than your government “owning” land — wouldn’t it be more accurate to say: “the people own this land in common, and we use our government to manage it on our behalf”.

[Kit cat]

I have absolutely NO DOUBT Texas will STAND STRONG!!! I am VERY
CURIOUS as to WHY the land grabs are being done NOW!!! I have a
very sick feeling in my stomach this has something to do with our debt!!!