When it comes to farming, ranching, and other related activities that are vital to human civilization, different societies have different ways of approaching this. There is no greater distinction, perhaps, than the Netherlands (and their E.U. puppet masters) and Texas.
In the Netherlands, the government, in order to meet European Union dictates, is waging a jihad against farmers:
“The Netherlands has been given the go-ahead to start buying out thousands of farmers’ businesses in a bid to meet the European Union mandate on climate goals.
“Under the €1.47 billion (£1.3 billion) plan, entire farms located near nature reserves could be purchased by the government, with hundreds more farmers compensated for voluntarily closing their operations.
“It forms part of the Hague’s wider strategy for slashing nitrogen emissions in half by 2030 to comply with EU targets.
“…
“Farmers operating near nature conservation areas will be offered 120 per cent of the value of their company if they agree to close their operations and promise not to restart elsewhere in the country or within the EU.
“About 3,000 farmers who are considered among the country’s highest polluting have been identified under the scheme.
“Dairy, pig and poultry farmers will be offered 100 per cent of their company’s value if they agree to close under a similar programme.”
A smart country would offer these farmers good land at a fair price as inducement for them to emigrate from the 4th Reich.
In contrast, Texans are poised to affirm a fundamental right to not only farm, but to ranch, engage in timber production, horticulture, or wildlife management! A proposed amendment to the Texas constitution reads, in full:
Sec. 36. (a) The people have the right to engage in generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, or wildlife management practices on real property they own or lease.
(b) This section does not affect the authority of the legislature to authorize by general law the regulation of generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, or wildlife management practices by:
(1) a state agency or political subdivision when there is clear and convincing evidence that the law or regulation is necessary to protect the public health and safety from imminent danger;
(2) a state agency to prevent a danger to animal health or crop production; or
(3) a state agency or political subdivision to preserve or conserve the natural resources of this state under Section 59, Article XVI, of this constitution.
(c) This section does not affect the authority of the legislature to authorize by general law the use or acquisition of property for a public use, including the development of the natural resources of this state under Section 59, Article XVI, of this constitution
Continue reading →
