Rotating Header Image



River rock on a ranch in Texas where it lay. With hat.

If you have ever owned or even priced ranch land in Texas — a ranch in Texas is acres in the double digits, if not way more — you know that ownership didn’t arrive by means of cheap talk or cheaply by other means, at least not without a miracle. Or card games. And that’s not even bringing the issue of munitions into the story, since more than a few deeds have been won and lost because someone was slower on the draw than someone else when they wanted their bullets back and they were returned by way of acres by the lucky few with acres to spend. At least buy them enough time to gain enough distance.

So it is that those who own those ranches don’t take it lightly when there’s an inkling around that someone may be trying to take the acres away or else just mess up what it took so much hard work to corral. You just don’t walk away from owned acreage in Texas and you particularly don’t like other people trying to walk away with it.

Thus, the Minuteman Project and what they’re doing in Texas and Arizona (so far) along the states’ southern borders have my support. Think of it this way: the United States is like your ranchland in Texas. Not as though it’s easy to get another one anytime soon, or ever, not like the upkeep is easy, not like it isn’t worth protecting and that it’s yours, maybe was your father’s, grandfather’s, maybe they’re buried on your ranchland, maybe you plan to be. People who want on your land can knock at the door and ask for your permission to visit, much less live there, much more so use your acres. The thing to do is enter at your own risk but do so with permission as soon as you find someone to ask. But just because you get onto the land doesn’t mean you can stay. That’s where the permissions part comes into things: arrangements are made for who does what and where and why and without those permissions, you need to get off that land.

Despite all that, those who climb over the fences, maybe even under cover of night — and that speaks volumes about their intentions right there — raid your crops and fields, rutt down paths in your pastures and yell at you while they’re doing it, those are the people who shouldn’t be there, they’re the “we don’t need no stinkin’ permissions” people.

No permission: no entry. When the ‘no permission, no entry’ standard is beaten down like mere rubbish, it’s a problem. A problem because it’s a standard that defines civilization. Ranchland, country, still the same principle: access the property of someone else with permission or no access.

And, the wire services just cannot get a story straight if it stood up and bit them in the ear. Read about what really happened that caused Patrick Haab to respond the way he did to those people “coming out of the bushes.”


River rock on ranch land in Texas, with hat,
after person wearing hat took a stand and made a stand.

2 C O M M E N T S

  1. Rod Stanton says:

    Most california conservatives ( there are many) are very unhappy that Bush has turned liberal and joined with the ACLU to attack the Minutemen – real American patriots. W only got 46% of the vote in 04 but if the elecetion were held today itw would be closer to the 30% his dad got in 92. Vigilantes indeed!

  2. -S- says:

    Yes, most conservatives (nationwide) are unhappy about the comments Bush made (responding to a question about the Minutemen Project as in, he didn’t support vigilantes, which does sound as if Bush regards the MP as vigilantes, if not outright saying so).

    However, I wouldn’t say that Bush has joined with the ACLU, but he has aligned with their wrong perspective about the MP and those of us who support what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. As for me, *I* was disappointed in Bush’s comments as I am with his stance on illegal immigration. But it doesn’t mean I’m going to start bashing Bush because I’m not and I still support his Administration. I know a lot of Democrats who have been quick to strike upon this Bush “vigilantes” remark and are using the issue to further bash Bush.

    I was wondering about that remark later: perhaps Bush HAD to say what he said, given the environment where it was said (that Summit meet with Mexico and Canada) but he never directly CALLED the MP “vigilantes,” just that he (Bush) didn’t support/endorse vigilanteism. So I’ve wondered since if but what Bush was being theatrical, particularly since he hasn’t issued any official statements denouncing the MP…if he does THAT, then I’ll revise my opinion a tad more.

    Thanks for your comments!