"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history." -Cardinal Francis George

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Example of a Homestead Site

I wanted to see what I could come up with after cross referencing some of my data for homestead considerations. After some very minimal searching, I came up with something, which is encouraging. This place in Oklahoma fits a number of categories for a good homestead. Here is the map:


The actual location is outlined in yellow here:
Here are it's assets:

1. Oklahoma is a great state for homeschooling.

2. The location is 1 hour west of Tulsa, and 1.5 hours east of OK City. So within distance to do a CSA or some selling to two large populations, yet not to close to either one.

3. The property is $2125/ac, which for arable land in the eastern half of OK is not a horrible price. And the terms seem good.

4. It has pasture, woods and a pond.

5. It is on a county highway.

6. 35-40 inches of rain a year.

7. 3 Catholic Churches within easy driving distance.


1. Only 20 acres.

2. For someone who needs to work in a city while getting things going, the drive is too far for a commute. So this is an "all or nothing" location.

3. Not sure I like Oklahoma that much. Flat, and not enough winter. But who knows.

Anyway, that was fun. In about a half hour I came up with a place that fits a really good amount of my criteria. That gives me hope that there are probably loads of places out there just waiting for me.


  1. Interesting...and fun! One thing to keep in mind: 20 acres is a tremendous amount for just starting out. You could easily begin with 5 acres and expand from there after doing your best to maximize the smaller acreage (big garden, some animals, etc.) Cool!

  2. Agreed Devin. I like Salatins idea of being willing to move around an area as you grow. Keeping things mobile, not too many permanent structures etc.
    The thing is though, if you start out on a patch of free land your friend loans you in San Diego county, moving up is not an option! So I think having the "long view" in mind even in early considerations is really key. I might not need 20 acres now, but knowing an area has 20 acre plots available for 2K/acre is a nice thing to know for the future!

  3. David, very true. Also check out these videos on building your own home using cob or straw bale inexpensively: http://lundkids.blogspot.com/2012/03/empowered-with-mud.html

  4. Very cool. Dems some cool hippies! The whole time I kept thinking of Yoda's hut on Degobah. And the 3 little pigs fairy tale.

    Seriously though, I bet straw is a great insulator, and the cost factor has to be a bonus. I want to find out what they use to "coat" it.

    I had better not show that video to my wife though... one crazy idealistic crusade at a time... one at a time. ;-)

  5. You otta consider Lincoln, NE. Just moved here a yr ago. Has the most conservative bishop in the country - Bruskewitz. Lots of homeschoolers, both Catholic and Protestant. Town does not feel at all like a liberal college town. FSSP has one of its seminaries here. Low unemployment. Plenty of rolling hill/pasture ground in this area, which you must have if you want to go Salatin style. Land that is flat enough for row crop is way too expensive for the Salatin model. I grew up on a farm with a couple hundred acres of row crop and a 150 head cow/calf operation, so I know what I'm talking about.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Check out this link for the seminary and see if it looks "Salatin" and Catholic enough for you : ) http://www.fsspolgs.org/index.html

  8. Thanks Mark!
    Very good tip about landscape. If they cant row crop it with oddles of corn easily, that would lower the cost. And I love Bruskewitz. His name pops up in all the right places.

    Did you move there to have more of a homestead lifestyle? Or are you a cubicle dweller like me?

  9. Moved here for a job transfer (office guy) and we're living in town, but our longer-term goal is be in the country and do some homesteading stuff. Both my wife and I grew up on farms in Iowa. Lincoln is about 200k pop and it's about an hr from Omaha (about 750k). You could easily live in the country around Lincoln and be no more than 30 minutes from work or 45 from Omaha burbs. So it's a great fit for trying the smaller scale homestead life while still working a "real" job to keep paying the bills.
    I see you have 4 girls and have added another little one. Another girl? We have 4 girls and a 5th on the way. BTW, I'm the MarkS mentioned by Fred Noltie here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/07/the-accidental-catholic/ I've really appreciated your real world or more common sense comments at CTC and Greenbaggins. I see the problems with Sola Scriptura. What were the most influential positive reasons FOR the Catholic Church that made you make the move? Having grown up in a very liberalized and feminized Catholic environment (in Iowa) it's hard to reconcile in my mind the philosophical & theological soundness of the RCC with the real world problems I've experienced first-hand.

  10. Mark,
    Lincoln sounds awsome. Good to hear your goal is to leave the cubicle. Mine is getting smaller each day.

    I have thought more about the "rolling hills" you mentioned. I was surprised to be honest. I have always though of Nebraska as super flat. I will look more into the hilly areas for that cheaper land.

    Your comment was great on CTC in Fred's article! My thoughts exactly!! I had a lengthy email exchange with Keith Mathison (you can read it if yuo wish on this blog) and have been around the sola/solo mulberry bush. It is tiring. In the end, there is just no way around the facts--- I was my own authority as a Protestant. Period. And in discussions with guys liek Keith, when it comes down to it, they will admit as much. They start doing the Tu Quoque and saying that as a Catholic nothing has changed for me. But as a Catholic, I know that that is not true! I have very strong leaders now. I have a defined doctrine. There is ONE catechism. There is ONE faith.

    All the time I meet or read Catholics who I have never met, and guess what? They talk about the faith just like I do! They believe the same things as I do! There are not a subset of Catholics who do not believe X and have a modifier before their name.
    Like "federal Vision" Reformed. Or Reformed baptist. On and on it goes.

    Yes we sometimes hear "conservative" Catholic, or "traditional" Catholic, but if you scratch the surface of those terms, it quickly becomes apparent that really they just mean "FAITHFUL" Catholic!

    And in conversation with "liberal" Catholics, I have always... I mean EVERY TIME... been able to easily get them to admit that fact. (that they are not "conservative" because they reject some certain defined doctrine of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The conversation then fades to quiet and talk of the weather for them. They know they are not a faithful Catholic, and they quickly back down.

    But not so... oh my, not so, with the Reformed man. On the one hand he sees the man who disagrees with him about baptism as being in the "church", but on the other he will argue with him that he believes false doctrine.


    So who is right? Like you said, Mathison and Pieper both can't be right.


  11. ...continued...

    Mark said:
    "I've really appreciated your real world or more common sense comments at CTC and Greenbaggins."

    Thanks. The truth, being a single, fixed point, can be reached by many roads. (just like all roads lead to Rome, get it!... HA!) And my road started with knowing deep in my heart of hearts that I had no leadership as a Christian... that I was on my own. Combined with my knowledge of how WRONG I can and have been about many things in my life, this left me in despair as to where to find the Truth among the many claimants in Reformed Christianity (not to mention the many more otside of Reformed Christianity!). I think this knowledge is the "common sense" you reffered to.

    "I see the problems with Sola Scriptura."

    Good! In a way finding the problems with sola is like looking your missing glasses, and then "finding" them on your head. They were there the whole time, You just got used to them and couldnt feel them anymore. As Protestants, we were so used to having no authority higher than ourselves, we just got very used to it.

    "What were the most influential positive reasons FOR the Catholic Church that made you make the move?"

    Here is the progression I made:

    First, once you see the naked Protestant emperor strutting down the street (which it seems you have) you need to just look away. After all, it is indecent to behave that way! This includes any ecclesial body without a magisterium claiming ultimate, (and apostolic) authority. Run away! Like the Church, it is not subjective choice. they either claim succession or not. They either claim to be THE Church or not. They either have a magisterium or not. Ask a Baptist where his magisterium is. ...Listen to crickets... now move on to someone who at least has the possibility of being part of the Church Christ founded. (this is a fairly easy process)

    Remember the 4 layers of apostolic succession St. Paul mentions in 2 Timothy 2:1-2. Protestants will ignore the many references to apostolic succession, but this "Apostolic" is what we confess in the creed. A ecclesial body is not nesesarily the Church if it has succession and/or a magisterium claiming ultimate authority, but it at least needs to claim it! THIS IS KEY! It at least should claim it!
    This drastically reduces the number of "churches" you need to sort through. My list got down to about 3 very quickly (actually about 10 seconds!). Catholic, Orthodox, and the cults like Mormonism who claim it.

    So, this is where the "positive" evidence you asked for comes in.

    I will continue....

  12. Mark said:
    "What were the most influential positive reasons FOR the Catholic Church that made you make the move?"

    When dealing with the Truth, remember that it can handle a beating. It is immovable. So prod away! Kick at it. Punch it. Lay a good soccer kick in it's family jewels, and see if it crumbles. If it is the Truth, it will stand tall. BUT... and this is a big one... make sure you are hitting the actual family jewels! It is no good to throw blood on the Truth, paint a black eye on it, and claim you won the fight. As you know, this is what we call a straw man.

    I chose to look into Catholicism (in detail) before Orthodoxy because it is a bigger target. It's claims are way more audacious and specific. Which then means that they are easy to prove or disprove.

    This is a key consideration at this stage of inquiry. Because in its 2000 year history, the Catholic Church has... *GASP*...

    (cue Imperial March from Star Wars...)

    The Church has...

    Naughty Popes!

    Yes that's right! There have been some shitty Popes! (scuse my french)

    If an example of a bad pope is convincing enough to you to prove Catholicism untrue, then stop now!

    If on the other hand you know that popes are only:

    1.Protected from error,

    2.When teaching faith or morals,

    3.To all the faithful,

    4.In the discharge of their office as shepherd of the whole Church,

    If you know this is the criteria, then you will find a precious few instances of controversy in the 2000 year history of the Church. (this is the miracle!) Examine them. You will learn about pope Honorius and a few others. See if they meet the 4 criteria above. Go ahead and kick. The Church can take it.

    In that process, you will examine countless "incidents" for a mere matter of a minute or two in your study time and easily reject them when they do not meet the criteria. (Galileo, crusades, inquisitions, naughty popes, etc)

    What I came to realize was this: I couldnt find anything bad. I could find naughtyness, but nothing that contradicted what Catholics themselves claimed about their Church. I found plenty that Protestants claimed disproved papal infalibility, but when they set out their criteria, it wasnt what the Catholic Church claimed the criteria was. That is shooting the arrow into the barn and then painting the target around it. No fair guys!

    I used mainly Protestant sources at this time also, so as to get the best "dirt" on the papacy. I thought it would be a depressing thing to sort through. But the Truth doesnt work that way! Even in her shame, the Church shines through. 200 years and no contradictory doctrine? Are you kidding me? That is a miracle! And for the largest organization of any kind on earth!? Just the fact there has been a pope continuously since Peter is a miracle, but to not have these men contradict each other? Ever?


  13. continued...

    Other things I found convincing, positive, secondary proofs:

    Guadalupe. A whole continent converted to Catholicism from demon worship overnight because of Our Lady and her miraculous image.

    Fatima. Amazing miracles and prophecies that came to pass.

    Contraception. Catholicism is the ONLY...



    sector of Christendom to not have caved to this evil. Starting in 1930, Potestants and then Orthodox all have caved. This is without a doubt positive proof of the Catholic Church's protection from teaching error ex cathedra. Humanae Vitae was prophetic in 1968. Man I love the Church!

    Here is a weird one: Women's ordination. This is something the Catholic Church seems like it would have caved on in after Vatican 2, but it didnt. It is inexplicable.

    For me the biggest was the lack of contradiction in teaching over the ridiculously long time of 2000 years. What people in 107AD hated the Church for, they still hate her for (Eucharist, Apostolic succession). Reading Ignatius of antioch's (107AD) leters was very eye opening for me.


    How could this guy sound so Catholic in 107AD?! Newman was right: "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

    The Fathers of the Church were even more positive reasons for Catholicism. Protestantism is not even a remote posibility if you read them... Wow... not even a remote posibility! Orthodoxy is less obvious, but that is why I focused on the papacy. Read the fathers on the papacy.
    I read much of the book list on CTC for the early papacy.

    Fortescue was great. Dom Chapman was better. Steve Ray's "Upon this Rock" is a tour-de-force for biblical and early Church quotes on the papacy. The quote on the sidebar of my blog by Augustine was amazing to see! Never saw that one when I was Reformed!

    "Having grown up in a very liberalized and feminized Catholic environment (in Iowa) it's hard to reconcile in my mind the philosophical & theological soundness of the RCC with the real world problems I've experienced first-hand."

    Remember the 4 criteria above. The Church isnt promised that it will not have sinners in it. Most Catholics in this country are not faithful Catholics. You can quote me on that. Most of them are a joke, and wear their faith on their sleeve like being "american" or "German". In my opinion, this is because many of the truly devout Catholics are actually Protestants! We need them back!

    Dont let naughty popes and bad Catholics keep you from the Church.

    Peace to you.


  14. Thanks David. I appreciate you taking the time to walk through the progression you made. I agree that the Prot paradigm, in principle, makes people their own authority, meaning that individual authority is the will of God for Christians. But many of them will say, "We believe in Church authority!" I have asked, Great! How do I identify that authority? They say, "Look for who is teaching and practicing according to Scripture." I say, but I need the church to teach me what those things are and many say they are doing that while expounding mutually exclusive views on the Scripture. Most of them are smarter than me, and holier than me, so how do I choose? I have honestly had Reformed people respond by saying I should just attend church and trust that true sheep will hear the voice of Christ! So on the one hand they ridicule the Cath Church for believing in infallibility of the magisterium, but then so confidently assert that they are the true sheep of Christ. And then when that is pressed, they admit they aren't infallible. It's ridiculous, but yet I know so many good and holy families that live such fruit filled lives while in this paradigm. And I don't want to leave them, but I can't turn my brain off.

    So to remain Prot means giving up any principle of church authority, and it means giving up much in terms of knowledge of objective truth about the rule of faith from the Scripture. After all, why should I assume I have it right? What is baptism and what does it do in the recipient? What is taking place in communion? Can we fall out of a state of grace? What do I teach my girls about this? What do I do with them regarding these things? I just can't believe that Christ has left us without a reliable guide in these matters. So, you're right, the question becomes who claims to be a reliable guide.

    I've read some solid church historians lilke JND Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan. I agree that history doesn't look Protestant. It doesn't always look Catholic to me either, but that leads to questions of development. I've read some Fathers directly, mostly Augustine. But, obviously Pelikan and Kelly did not become Catholics either. Yet, the EO don't appear to have a reliable and agreed upon method for settling doctrinal controversies. The Anglicans have mostly gone off the rails completely.

    I guess it just seems like the RCC has pushed some dogmas too far for me. And I know this is contrary to everything I just said about authority. I have no problem with Mary, ever virgin, assumed into heaven, interceding for us, and us praying the rosary. But, Immaculate Conception? I admit it's possible. And I have no problem with someone believing it. But what is gained by laying this down as dogma that must be believed? I have no problem with infallible church authority and the critical tie-in with the Apostolic See of Peter. But, Peter's successor, individually, on his own, regardless of agreement or disagreement from his brother bishops, as infallible under the conditions you mentioned? Man, then why bother with convening all the councils over the years? Just send out a Bull, proclaim the dogmas, and save everyone the time and gas money.

    And I know a Catholic can point out that there is no non-arbitrary stopping point for my concerns, especially when it was a church council that ratified the infallibility of the Pope. Why close the canon? Why define the boundaries of the real presence? Why get so precise about the relationship of Christ to the Father, or his human and divine natures, and on it goes.

    That's where I'm at. And I'm also trying to be conscientious about how I lead my family through these things. I'm willing to accept the hurt feelings and consequences that could come from our broader family. But, I also don't take leaving family tradition lightly.

    Peace to you too,

  15. I dont think I answered this question of your last time:

    "I see you have 4 girls and have added another little one. Another girl? We have 4 girls and a 5th on the way."

    Magdalena is our newest little girl. She was a preemie which was scary but fun. Usually our kids are so huge, it was cute to see a tiny one!

    Looks like our life situations are incredibly similar! Our oldest turns 9 in June. Magdalena was our first "Catholic" baby though. It is fun to name a child after a saint and know that that saint will have a particular care for them. Lord knows we cant do this (parenting) alone! Also Mary Magdalene is one of my favorite saints.

    "I have honestly had Reformed people respond by saying I should just attend church and trust that true sheep will hear the voice of Christ!"

    Ha! Me too! Sounds crazy doesnt it. I know their hearts are in the right place, and they are trying to help, but please, that is a frightening thing to hear. I have lived long enough to have witnessed to Mormons and JW's, and believe me, they go by that theory too. It also shows a bit of the underbelly of Calvinism. That we should just let go of the wheel and God will work it all out. That doesnt work. We are obviously meant to use our mind to seek God in this life. Sovereignty is not something we need to dwell on in that context. I mean, of course God will work it out in the end. But it aint the end yet! So any current talk about sheep and goats in the context of ultimate salvation is out of place.

    What I told my Reformed friend who said the same thing to me was this: If I was a Jehovas Witness would you tell me to just keep attending my "Kingdom Hall" and trust God that the true sheep will hear his voice? Should I obey my JW leaders and listen to their voice? Give me a break! So it is really a disingenuous thing when they say this. It is fake obedience. Because they only will tell you this if they ALREADY know you are going to a ecclesial boy they approve of. They would not say it if you said you were a Mormon. And if their answer does not fit both situations (Reformed or Mormon) then their answer must be wrong.

    Very frustrating stuff.


  16. ...Cont...

    "I guess it just seems like the RCC has pushed some dogmas too far for me."

    I relate. Although the dogma of IC was not at all a problem for me. It is one of those things that nobody would care about if it hadnt been declared a dogma. It has basically always been believed. Ask an Orthodox believer if Mary was ever stained with any type of sin. They will not give you an answer!!!
    But they will turn around and criticize the dogma of the IC. Aquinas and Bernard of Clarvaux had their doubts about IC. But it was only because they had trouble reconciling it in a scolastic theological way. Aquinas for instance believed Mary was without sin from the moment just after her conception. So these men did believe that she never personally sinned. To me it is harder to believe someone would never personally sin than that they could be concieved without sin! Heck, most people probably believe babies are without any sin as it is. It is the personal sin that is harder for me to believe someone could never do. Yet there are many, many saints who are believed to have never sinned. Even some that it is acceptable to believe were imaculately concieved also. St. Joseph and John the Baptist for instance. And by some strange trist of fate, when I just went to Taylor Marshals blog to look up an article to link, his post for today talks about Jerimiah being sanctified in his mothers womb! He has another article about St. Joseph somewhere.

    Anyway, my point is that if it werent a dogma, I dont think anyone would have muh issue with it. Just like no one really cares about Thomism/Molinism debate in Catholicism right now, which (very losse analogy) is the Catholic version of Calvinism/Arminianism. Both views are acceptable, so no one cares. But imagine if Molinism were declared heresy! UH OH!!! You would see the sky fall! Much wailing and gnashing would ensue in the Church methinks. Keep that in mind when considering the I.C.

    Here are a couple questions for you on this topic:

    Do you think the dogma of the Trinity is obvious from scripture? (I certainly do not!)

    Do you think the dual nature of Christ is obvious? (it is fun to watch someone try to show it)

    Here is why the Immaculate Conception is not just a nice extra, but is crucial. And yes, Aquinas had reservations about it. But like you said, doctrine develops-- not just for Catholics but for Prots and Orthodox too. It is not IF it will develop, but HOW and WHAT will develop. Is it a natural, organic development like the immaculate conception being recognized as belonging to the deposit of faith, or is it a new dogma, an anachronism not belonging to the deposit of faith, like Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide, which are ruptures with tradition (like finding a plastic BB Gun in an Egyption tomb!)
    In this context it is crucial to look for the Immaculate Conception implicitly in history. I think it is implicitly there.


  17. ...Cont...

    The I.C. is crucial because of Mary's identification as the New Eve. Look at these incredible images by my favorite living artist. Look at the typology that the Church has always confessed about Mary. She has ALWAYS been considered the new Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, etc.


    For this next one it is the second picture down on the website:


    Many more can be found here:

    For me the IC is just so obvious. Biblically and in the Church Fathers. When you go to the fathers and read what they wrote about Mary, it is even more obvious. Mary is the new Eve.

    Eve was created immaculate from the moment of her existence. For Mary to truly be the New Eve at the side of Christ, our New Adam, it is quite fitting she should be created immaculate like Eve was.

    Mary has always been considered the Ark of the New Covenant. Look at what Mary carried within her body:

    The stone tablets of God's word (Jesus is the Word), manna (Eucharistic flesh of Christ), and Aaron's rod that budded (Christ is our high priest).

    Look at what is written about the ark in the O.T. and think of Mary while you read it. It will blow you away. Remember Uzzah? And remember that the Ark is the seat of the Almighty, not God himself. Nevertheless it was the most holy object in all Israel. Some of the laws surrounding that ark even seem a bit extreme (like the Uzzah incident). Just like the Immaculate Conception can seem extreme to us. The parallel is amazing.

    The new eve:

    Eve was the mother of all living.
    Christ gave "Ave" (Mary) to all humanity from the cross. I love the Eva/Ave thing. Shows how Mary "undoes" what Eve did.

    Eve was sinless and failed.
    Mary was sinless and said her "yes" (fiat) to God. "Be it done unto me according to your word."

    Eve failed and brought humanity death by the fruit of a tree.
    Mary obeyed and brought humanity life by the fruit of a tree. (Christ's Blood flowing from the cross)

    The typology goes on and on.

    For Mary to truly be the new Eve for a new humanity, she needed to be as Eve was... immaculate from the start. And remember, of course we believe this was by grace. The grace Christ merited on the cross won this grace for Our Lady at the moment of her conception. Of course everything is from grace, Mary's Immaculate Heart is no exception.


  18. "But what is gained by laying this down as dogma that must be believed?"

    This could be said of many dogmas. Did me really need to push so hard against Arius? The Monothelites? Monophysites?

    The Church says yes, we do need to push. Some truths of the faith protect other truths in such intimate ways, that they must also be believed.

    Honestly, I do not understand the Trinity. Not even a little bit. It makes no sense to my mind! If it makes sense to you, then I really admire you! IMO, from a human perspective, Arius was right. Honestly, Arius makes more sense to me in much of what he said than the council. Particularly in his use of scripture. But he was wrong because the Church said he was wrong.

    And of course the Trinity is a beautiful doctrine, and I love it, etc. But why Sola Scriptura people believe in the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ is beyond me. If they thought about it, or it impacted their daily life in a way that cramped their style, they would dump it in a hearbeat and create a sixth "Sola" of the Reformation. Right after Sola Fide would be "Sola Persona" or something, declaring that there is one God in One person. But as it is, it is a boring topic to Protestants, so they stick to the tradition on that topic.

    The Immaculate Conception is to the 19th century what the Trinity was to the 4th:
    1.It makes sense to some, not to others.
    2. It can plausibly be said to be part of the deposit of faith by proponents, yet detractors can make plausible cases against it.
    3. In the end, obedience to the AUTHORITY of Christ as excercised by His chosen delegates will determine what someone believes.


  19. ...cont...

    "But, Peter's successor, individually, on his own, regardless of agreement or disagreement from his brother bishops, as infallible under the conditions you mentioned? Man, then why bother with convening all the councils over the years? Just send out a Bull, proclaim the dogmas, and save everyone the time and gas money."

    You do a good job of answering this in your next paragraph.

    The buck must stop. Someone needs to have the final say.

    Why not just have the Pope do it all and forget the other bishops? Well why did Jesus choose 11 other guys beside Peter? Why not 24 or 72? Why not 3? Why did he die on the cross instead of doing it diferent?

    Who knows!

    Why do we pray? Does God change his mind when we pray? No way! Yet we are called to pray. Who knows why?

    God works THROUGH our actions. That includes the bishops. The Pope is just a bishop like all the others, he has just been promised that his faith will not ultimately fail. The other bishops have no such promise.

    Arius was a bishop!

    "I'm willing to accept the hurt feelings and consequences that could come from our broader family. But, I also don't take leaving family tradition lightly."

    Be ready to give up whatever it takes for the Truth. Just keep praying for wisdom and He will guide you. Ask the "Seat of Wisdom" (one of Mary's titles) for wisdom. She will not fail you. Another of her titles which is one of my favorites is "Exterminatrix of Heresies". She will not allow her children to eat poison. Be bold and ask her for her protection.



  20. I have a question. My husband was offered a job in Germantown, WI. We live in MD right now. It looks like WI homeschool laws are better than here. I was just wondering do you know anything about the state or the area? Thank you

  21. Yes, I homeschooled in high school in WI, and my sister and brother homeschool their kids in WI right now. It is one of the best states for homeschooling.

  22. Thank you for the replay. AS it is right now it looks like we must choose from WI or Dallas Texas...I am not sure which way to go!! ONe is TEXAS...the other is WI with four seasons and easier to garden!! I want to make a decision based on the laws and the look of the future..any input?

  23. Sorry to bother you...but I am trying to find which place is better for homesteading and for further future developments.