However, they did not count on Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. As we say down here in Dixie, he “ain’t havin’ none of it”, as Breitbart.com reports…
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:
- Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
- Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
Expropriation, or the seizing of privately-held land by nation’s governments, is nothing new. It’s quite prevalent in Marxist-led nations, because, after all, under Marxism, the proletariat works for the glory of the State, which owns everything. Communism relieves the citizenry of the burden of private ownership. Acts of expropriation also can occur if you are a foreign business, operating in their country.
The Legal Dictionary explains it this way…
U.S. businesses were expropriated by the governments of both Cuba and Chile during socialist movements in those foreign countries. In May 1959, after Fidel Castro took over the Cuban government, the seizure of many large U.S. properties began. Before the revolution, U.S. corporations had controlled most of Cuba’s resources and over half of its sugar production. In 1960, the first shipment of Soviet oil arrived in Cuba. Under the advice of the U.S. Treasury Department, U.S. oil companies on the island refused to refine it. These refineries were then taken over by the Cuban government. The expropriation of U.S. property in Cuba and Cuba’s alliance with the Soviet Union eventually led to the United States’ breaking off all diplomatic relations and instituting an embargo.
In 1971, the Chilean people elected a socialist president, Salvador Allende. Soon afterward, the Chilean government began to expropriate U.S. businesses located in Chile. The primary U.S. business in Chile at this time was copper mining. When U.S.-owned mines were seized, in most cases, their owners were provided with adequate and prompt compensation. The El Teniente mine of the Kennecott Company was seized by the government for a much higher price than the book value. In 1970, government control over the industrial sector in Chile had been at 10 percent. One year after the election of President Allende, it was at 40 percent. By 1973, private banks; U.S. copper mines; the steel, cement, and coal industries; and all other vital areas of industry were in the hands of the Chilean state.
In both Cuba and Chile, the seized properties remain under the control of the foreign government.
Some of you are thinking that I am just being silly, that I am comparing apples and oranges, and that America’s not going to become a Socialist Country, like Cuba or Chile, anytime soon.
I pray that we don’t.
However, step back and look at things such as Common Core, The “Anti-Bully” Campaign in America’s Schools, the push to legalize marijuana in an attempt to dumb down the citizenry, the intentional weakening of our military through social engineering, Obamacare, and the attacks against and suppression of Conservative Groups by Obama’s Internal Revenue Service…and then tell me that “somethin’ awfuwwy scwewy’s’ not going on around here.
In a Gallup Poll, published on September 23, 2013, 60% of Americans believed that the Federal Government had too much Power.
After Obama’s attempted expropriation of the Bundy Ranch, and now private land in Texas, I wonder how many Americans believe that the Federal Government has too much power, now?
Until He Comes,