When Biden bought 24 million acres of open land from private owners
few cared. Now when Trump wants to sell 3 million acres, the way
this article is written you would think they were auctioning to the
quickest bidder Niagara Falls, Old Faithful and Pikes Peak. The twist
of militant environmentalists is extremely sad and humorously comical.
The ever expanding national debt could be blasted down with funds
from federal, state, county wasted “public lands.”
Republicans who check it out know this is the right thing to do–sell
90% of “public lands.” Pay the national debt. And, to embellish the
twist, “mass sell-off” equals only 0.46% of federal land holdings. D
https://dailycaller.com/2025/06/18/benji-backer-mass-sell-off-public-lands-bad-america/
While the House bill makes significant cuts to the green new deal agenda, including eliminating pro carbon sequestration pipeline language, the final bill failed to cut one of the key 30×30 programs authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act. $10,050,000,000 remain authorized for conservation welfare programs that commit private lands to mitigating the climate crisis.
American Stewards exposed the slick way in which environmentalists managed to authorize trillions of dollars for existing conservation programs through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) by adding funds to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). These existing programs are funded through the Farm Bill. But the IRA added trillions of dollars to these, and also changed the purpose for these funds now obligating private landowners who enrolled to mitigate climate change and reduce livestock emissions.
Most landowners had no idea the legal purpose for the funds had been changed, and the Biden USDA failed to inform landowners of this switch. This was deliberate so they could create a federal nexus to private lands obligating the use of these lands to mitigating the made up climate crisis.
But free money is hard to pass up, so instead of protecting property rights, lobbyists for big Ag have been working hard to preserve these “climate smart” funds, which they say is necessary for farmers to put food on American’s tables.
They succeeded in preserving those remaining funds for EQIP, CSP and ACEP for a total of $10,050,000,000 through 2026.
The House did reduce the funds obligated to the RCPP program, which directly funds environmental organizations implementing the green new deal. These funds have been reduced from $3,050,000,000 for 2026 to $425,000,000 for 2026, but then also authorizes $450,000,000 annually through 2031.
These are conservation welfare subsidies. They are not necessary for agriculture production. They drive up land and food prices and drive out the small landowners who want to stay in business without relying on federal welfare. They also tie every landowner who enrolls in this pot of funds to mitigate the climate crisis. It creates a dangerous federal nexus to their land, likely to be called in during the next democratic administration.
By: Leo Wolfson – January 20, 2025
One of the most popular political topics in Wyoming is private property rights and how far, or not, they should extend.
On Monday, that topic took center stage in the Wyoming House over a discussion on a bill that would require the sale of all private property to the federal government in Wyoming be matched with a corresponding decrease in federal land.
House Bill 118 would mark a significant change for those wanting to sell their land for recreation or other purposes to the federal government, and likely limit most of these transactions moving forward.
The crux of Monday’s debate came down to whether it’s most important to prioritize blocking growth of federal government land or retaining private property owners’ rights to sell their land to the government as they desire. Blocking the growth of federal land won out, which is the main purpose of HB 118.
The bill sponsor, Rep. Dalton Banks, R-Cowley, said just because federal land transfers have been accepted throughout Wyoming’s statehood doesn’t make it right. He also said his bill protects property owners from federal overreach and sweeping government mandates.
“We’re not limiting who you can sell to, we are limiting the federal government under our Constitutional responsibility by our act of admission that we’re limiting their right to purchase,” Banks said.
The House rejected by a 34-25 vote Monday an amendment brought by Rep. Karlee Provenza, D-Laramie, that would have removed the private property owners’ aspect of the bill while retaining the ban on selling state land without a corresponding trade-off with federal land.
“This limits just compensation,” Provenza said. “This means that, potentially, the greatest buyer who wants to spend their money here can’t buy that property from that private property owner.”
The bill advanced on second reading and will be considered one more time before it’s sent to the Senate.
Stopping Federal Growth vs. Private Property
There have been a few private and state land sales in Wyoming over the last few years that have drawn criticism from some for adding to the acreage that the federal government owns.
The most recent example is the Kelly Parcel that was finalized at the end of last year, which conveyed 640 acres of pristine state land in Teton County to the National Park Service for $100 million for the land to be incorporated into Grand Teton National Park.
Another prime example was the 2023 sale of the 35,670-acre Marton Ranch in Natrona County, private property that was sold for $21 million to the BLM.
“Those people that sold that — it’s their land, it’s their right,” Rep. Steve Harshman, R-Casper, said of the Marton sale. “To infringe on private property rights, it gives me pause.”
Jess Johnson, government affairs director for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, told Cowboy State Daily the Marton sale was critical in providing continuous public hunting and fishing access. She said other land transfers can be beneficial for agricultural interests by preventing land from being sold to make residential subdivisions.
She also pointed out that her organization supported the Marton Ranch sale being opened up to a public comment period even though they already supported the sale. This happened after the state of Wyoming filed an appeal of the sale, which required the agency to seek public comment and complete an additional environmental review.
“Because the process matters,” Johnson explained. “That is there as a stopgap. It’s not willy-nilly sales. There are approval steps the government has to go through.”
Babysitting Or State Sovereignty?
Rep. Tony Locke, R-Casper, said he sees the issue as a matter of protecting Wyoming’s sovereignty as a state. Rep. Tom Kelly, R-Sheridan, agreed, saying that nothing precludes the federal government from pressuring private landowners to sell their land.
Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, disagreed and compared the bill to “babysitting” on part of the state government, while Rep. Cody Wylie, R-Rock Springs, described it as “a cloth we don’t need to be cutting.”
Others who spoke in support of Provenza’s amendment expressed a desire for private property owners to have the final say in what happens to their land rather than the federal government.
“I believe every individual has the right to develop his potential, to use and enjoy his own property, tangible or intellectual, and pursue his own interests, free from restrictions or arbitrary force,” said Rep. J.T. Larson, R-Rock Springs.
Rhetoric against the federal government was sharp Monday from those who support Banks’ bill, with some going as far as comparing the government to an adversarial foreign nation.
“We could have a real debate about adversarial, and I think the federal government could definitely be linked in there,” said Rep. Reuben Tarver, R-Gillette.
Rep. Rob Geringer, R-Cheyenne, brought up the example of a piece of contaminated land owned by the city of Cheyenne west of the city that neighboring private landowners have been unable to get help in cleaning up from various public entities.
“I could see selling it to the federal government to help with,” Geringer said.
Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, pointed out that for any purchase made by the federal government, the money comes from taxpayers.
“Actually taking opportunity away from private citizens who paid into the government’s coffers,” he said. “If you want to protect private citizen’s ability to make these types of transactions, we should limit the ability of the federal government to come in and to make these purchases.”
Constitutional Arguments
Both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions state that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court has also said that property rights are necessary to preserve freedom by allowing property owners to plan their destiny on an individual basis.
“You have said here this morning, members, some of you have argued that the government knows better on who you should sell your land to,” Provenza said. “That’s a dangerous slippery slope isn’t it? The government knows better. I argue the government doesn’t know better here.”
But under the Wyoming Acts of Admission when it gained statehood, Wyoming was “admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever; and that the Constitution which the people of Wyoming have formed for themselves be, and the same is hereby, accepted, ratified and confirmed.”
“This is the ability of the state of Wyoming to have jurisdiction over all the lands within our borders,” Banks said.
The U.S. Constitution also limits what types of property the federal government can purchase, which Rep. Ken Pedergraft, R-Sheridan, believes it has far exceeded.
“At some point we the people need to stand up,” he said. “Yes, you are a private citizen, you can sell to whomever you want, but the federal government doesn’t have the right to buy any more land.”
Leo Wolfson can be reached at leo@cowboystatedaily.com.
Selling off some of the government’s holdings would ease fiscal stress and help the economy.
By: Thomas Sowell, Wall Street Journal
The incoming Trump administration will confront some huge financial challenges. It will have to cope with the vast increase in the national debt created by the Biden administration’s reckless spending. It will also need to maintain the solvency of the Social Security system after decades of financial irresponsibility by politicians of both parties.
On top of all this, there is an urgent need to build up American military defenses, which have been neglected while taxpayers’ money has been lavishly spent on such things as subsidizing electric cars and paying hotel expenses for illegal immigrants.
There is no question that doing all the things that urgently need doing will require huge amounts of additional government spending. The key question is: Where will the government get this money?
There is much to be said for the new administration’s plan to have a nongovernmental organization investigate how well, or how badly, government agencies are currently handling the taxpayers’ money. But there is a limit to how much money can be recovered by simply cutting back on “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal spending.
There are, however, additional billions of dollars that could be tapped, from a source that not many people think about. That is the vast—almost unbelievable—amount of land owned by the federal government. Some of that land—such as military bases—is used to house the government’s own operations. But the great majority of that land is not.
The rest of this government-owned land is so vast that there is little to compare it with—except whole countries. And not small countries like Belgium or Portugal. The amount of land owned by the National Park Service alone is larger than Italy. The land owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service is larger than Germany. The land owned by the Forest Service is larger than Britain and Spain combined. The land owned by the Bureau of Land Management is larger than Japan, North Korea, South Korea and the Philippines combined.
The idea of selling huge amounts of government-owned land is not new. Before the federal income tax was created in the early 20th century, land sales were sometimes a significant source of federal government income in the preceding two centuries. The prospect of large-scale land sales was considered during the Reagan administration, but the political opposition was too strong.
As of 2015, government-owned lands were valued at $1.8 trillion by the Commerce Department. This is the kind of money that can make a real contribution to the government’s fiscal balance, at a time when so many government operations are urgently in need of support.
As for the current value of these lands to the government, that value is largely negative. The money that these lands bring in is often only a fraction of what it costs the government to take care of them. Wildfires on land managed by the federal government have been about five times the size of wildfires on “non-federal lands,” according to a 2022 study by the Congressional Budget Office.
Land transferred from federal ownership to the market economy can also contribute to more affordable housing. When the same kind of house costs several times more in one part of the country than elsewhere, it is often because the cost of the land is higher rather than because the house costs more to build. That in turn is often because the land is either more scarce or because of laws restricting the building of anything on that land. But, where more land is available to build on, the same kind of house can cost a fraction of what it costs elsewhere.
The federal government owns a little more than one-fourth of the total land area of the United States. The time is long overdue to consider whether that is the best economic arrangement. And reconsideration is especially needed at a time of urgent fiscal problems.
Mr. Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
On a previous episode, we went into some great depth exposing the 30 by 30 agenda. Also known as the “America the Beautiful” program, it was a plan to place 30 percent of America’s land under conservation by the year 2030—essentially locking up a lot of America’s real estate for ostensibly environmental reasons.
One avenue through which the federal government was attempting to do this was to have the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) create an entirely new class of assets called natural asset companies.
This move would have created a new class of company that would then allow investors to purchase the rights to millions of acres of public federal lands, as well as private lands under easement contracts.
Essentially, it would have turned much of the natural resources (such as air, sunlight, and photosynthesis) on America’s land into a tradable stock, open to all investors—including our geopolitical adversaries.
Furthermore, the creation of these “natural asset companies” would have effectively locked up these lands, making it illegal for any entity to conduct any type of financially motivated activity on those lands—such as mining, drilling, farming, ranching, grazing, hunting, fishing, harvesting timber, and so on.
It would essentially take American land out of useful economic production.
And the cherry on top of all of this was the fact that the SEC’s planned rule change seemed to go under the radar—with very little fanfare and with a very short public comment period.
However, it was Margaret Byfield and her organization, the American Stewards of Liberty, who spearheaded the effort to kill this rule before it went into effect.
But while the SEC rule was canned, the idea of locking up U.S. land has morphed into something called “natural capital accounts,” which are now being created to quantify nature’s value and list those values as new assets of the federal government.
We had a chance to sit down and speak with Byfield about what this all means for the average U.S. citizen, as well as her efforts to fight back against what she calls encroachments on our liberty.
Join host Roman Balmakov on this week’s episode of “Facts Matter.”
Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
In 2024, Utah filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s control over 18.5 million acres of “unappropriated” land—areas without specific congressional designations like national parks or forests. The state contends that the indefinite federal retention of these lands is unconstitutional, arguing that the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “dispose of” federal lands, not to hold them without designated use.
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes emphasizes that federal control over nearly 70% of Utah’s land limits the state’s sovereignty and self-governance. The lawsuit also challenges the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) recent Public Lands Rule, which elevates conservation to a status equal with grazing and mineral development. Utah argues this shift contradicts the BLM’s legal obligation to promote multiple-use and sustained yield under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
The case has garnered support from various states, counties, and organizations, all urging the Supreme Court to hear it. Critics of federal land retention assert that it infringes on state sovereignty and hampers economic activities such as grazing, energy production, and recreation. They also claim that policies mandating indefinite federal land retention treat states like Utah unequally compared to those with greater control over their lands.
This legal challenge underscores ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities over land management in the Western United States, with significant implications for public land policy and state sovereignty.
Full Article here: https://americanstewards.us/utah-fights-for-control-of-federal-lands/
The State of Utah has a website called Stand for our Land at https://standforourland.utah.gov/
The Epoch Times sits down to speak with Aurelia Skipwith, the former director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under President Trump.
And she explained to us her insights regarding the Biden Administration’s Agenda 30×30, (to place 30% of America’s land into conservation by the year 2030) and how ultimately, it’s all a giant government power grab under the guise of environmental policy.
The Renaissance Cowboy
Dec 21
Author: LEE PITTS
Darol Dickinson is the cattle industry’s Renaissance Man. As you’re probably aware, The Renaissance was a period in European civilization that was marked by a revival of Classical learning and wisdom. To refer to someone as a “Renaissance Man” or “Renaissance Woman” means that individual is extremely intelligent and a highly skilled person in many areas.
I don’t know of a better definition of Darol Dickinson than that.
Head To Tail
I first became aware of Darol when a friend gave me Darol’s classic book called ‘The Color of Horses’ in which he’d illustrated all 36 of the paintings in it. To this day I haven’t seen anyone who can paint a horse better than Darol did. When the Cowboy Artists of America (CAA) opened at the National Cowboy Hall of Fame in 1966, Darol had artwork in the show as a member of the prestigious CAA. My friend Heather Thomas Smith wrote the best biographical sketch I’ve read yet about the colorful Dickinson and quoted him as saying, “I did paintings and portraits and sold drawings when I was a teenager, selling them from $2 to $5. By the time I went to college I’d sold enough paintings that I was able to just go in and sign up. I asked how much it cost, and wrote them a check.” He was painting portraits of people’s horses and herd bulls all during his college years.
Every time Darol sold a painting he used the money to buy Texas Longhorns or land. By 1979 he quit the painting, constant traveling and taking livestock photographs, (in which he also excelled), to concentrate on his Longhorn business in Colorado. It didn’t take him long to become the leading Longhorn breeder in this, or any other country.
In 1993, Darol relocated his operation to the grasslands of eastern Ohio. He registers more than 500 Longhorns, African Watusi’s and Dutch BueLingo cattle every year and the ranch sells 500 cattle per year, two-thirds of which are registered breeding stock. The rest are sold as processed beef through the Dickinson Ranch store called Head to Tail.
To give you an idea of what an entrepreneur Darol is, consider that when some horns of his beloved Longhorns got broken Darol developed a squeeze chute with open horizontal bars and has never had any cattle get hurt in it. To this day Darol’s ‘Bry Squeeze’ is one of the leading cattle squeeze chutes of any kind.
Says Darol. “We had to create some different markets, and do things different. It worked with a breed of cattle that nobody else wanted, and it became great. It was the trail less traveled.
Land Grabs
Darol has also written several books including Horn Stew, Fillet of Horn and his latest, Larapin Horn, but it is his most recent essay, Land Wars of the World, that should be read by every one in America.
https://downsize-government.org/government-overreach/land-wars-of-the-world-then-and-now/
Land Wars Of The World deals with many of the biggest land grabs in history. Wrote Darol, “Since Adam and Eve, land wars seem to have been part of history. From the earliest battles in ancient Mesopotamia to today’s wars in the Middle East, conflicts over land have continually shaped our world.” According to Darol, “Most wars have been about taking tribute from conquered subjects and land grabs for the powerful. These land grabs are usually paid for by the losers.”
“Alexander the Great lived more than 2,000 years ago,” wrote Darol. “By age 30, he had amassed one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India. Widely considered one of world’s most successful military commanders, he was undefeated in his battles for land and tribute.”
“The Roman Empire was one of the largest land grabs in history,” wrote Darol, “with contiguous territories throughout Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. The Latin phrase “imperium sine fine” (empire without end) signaled! That neither time nor space limited the Roman Empire’s expansion. The basis of Rome’s strength, like Alexander’s, was land capture and tribute.”
More recently we’ve seen the downfall of the Commonwealth of Great Britain which was arguably, the most powerful nation in the world at the time before losing its conquered lands one by one. More recently we’ve witnessed Putin’s attempted land grab in Ukraine.
He’s No Abe Lincoln
In reading Darol’s essay I realized there was another reason Abraham Lincoln is my favorite president. Darol writes, “The 16th President of the USA, believed that private ownership and management of land is more productive than government control. He understood that the Federal government couldn’t possibly manage the whole western USA. Private property was the answer, land surveyed, titled, used, improved, maintained, and loved by non-government owners. At the peak of the American Civil War, Lincoln developed a strategy to increase the US’s citizen-owned land. He signed the 1862 Homestead Act into law. It was intended to open western lands to settlers on what the government considered to be ‘idle’ tracts of land captured from Native Americans or purchased like Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase. Pioneer homesteaders were required to improve the land and produce goods, food, or a service. If they lived on their 160-acre homesteads for seven years, the land was theirs at no cost.”
Compare that attitude with President Joe Biden who on January 4, 2024, in Coconino County, Arizona, “Proudly announced,” wrote Darol, “his administration had so far wrested a whopping 24 million acres from private enterprise for the Federal government — a new record for land takeovers, paid for with public tax dollars, and now eliminated from private management and production. Why this enormous acquisition? Ostensible reasons include ‘preservation,’ ‘conservation,’ ‘protection,’ and so forth. To encourage citizens to believe that these and other millions of acres are still theirs, the government often renames formerly private property as ‘public’ land.
The question bounces back, however: “Who is all this land being protected from?”
An Out of Control Monster
Darol rounded up some numbers that should concern everyone. Darol found that the US government owns 664,000,000 acres — almost 30 percent of the nation’s total continental land mass of 2,271,343,000 acres. Darol also found that the national debt is $34,000,000,000,000. That’s 34 Trillion! Darol then calculated the US debt per acre of US owned collateral and found it to be $51,203 PER ACRE! Good luck trying to find a banker who’d give you a loan on that basis!
In other words, “The feds own more ground than the entire acreage of the Roman Empire, give or take a few coliseums.” Writes Darol, “Most Americans don’t realize that our government’s undeclared war for land is a covert, out-of-control monster.”
“How did the federales remove so much land from private tax rolls? Well, they funded it with public tax dollars. The takeover is orchestrated not by Congressional legislation but by executive orders from the Oval Office and rulings from the administrative bureaucracy — without a vote of the citizens or their representatives. The unstated process of this unacknowledged land grab typically bypasses public scrutiny.” Agencies in the Executive branch in Washington, D.C., issue rulings, levy fees and fines, collect “tribute,” then buy private property and remove it from production. That bureaucratic removal is a political conquest that marks the end of private management. The process has historically happened in war but continues today under political cover.
“As recently as January 2024, President Biden also announced that he was expanding the Green movement in Alaska by closing 10,600,000 acres to oil and gas leasing. The federales already own 95.8 percent of Alaska, leaving only 4.2 percent of a resource-rich state for private enterprise to manage and harvest. This administrative action now ‘protects’ the nation’s western Arctic area from the alleged detriment of oil and gas exploration.”
“That’s not the only conquest of private property orchestrated from D.C.,” wrote Darol. “On his inauguration day, Biden mentioned his 30×30 Plan — a strategy ( or plot or scheme) to transfer 30 percent of US land from private ownership to the government by the year 2030. He later released his 50×50 Plan for the government to transform 50 percent of the US to ‘public lands’ by 2050. And believe it or not, Biden has even proposed a 70×70 plan, that would put 70 percent of America under direct government ownership in less than 70 years.
In an Epoch Times interview, Aurelia Skipworth (President Trump’s Secretary of Fish and Wildlife) said, “No one knows how much land the Federal government thinks is enough.” Margaret Byfield, Executive Director of American Stewards of Liberty said, “This is their end game. The reason for the 30×30 land grab. The purpose for the climate crisis hysteria. We will own nothing. The US government will own everything.”
“The Federal government, (not including State lands) already owns 87.8 percent of Nevada, 75.2 percent of Utah, 70.4 percent of Idaho, 60.4 percent of Oregon, etc. As noted above, it already owns nearly 30 percent of continental US land, so it has almost achieved the full 30×30 goal of Federal ownership. As the 50×50 proposal clearly shows, more acquisitions of private land are being planned for the ‘public good,”’ wrote Darol.
Closer To Home
“You may not be concerned with yesterday’s land-grabs by Attila the Hun, or perhaps today’s by Vladimir Putin in Crimea and Ukraine, or maybe not even current marginal US lands a thousand miles away. But what about tomorrow, on your own doorstep?” asks Darol rhetorically. “What if a property is right across the road from your home? What if some State or Federal agency claims it is fallow ground better used for conservation or wetlands or biodiversity or ‘the greater good’? You could become the victim of peacetime ‘tribute.”’
“Such is the case of Kirkwood Township in Ohio s Belmont County,” says Darol. “Only 4.2 percent of Ohio is owned by the Federal government, yet the State itself owns 664,000 acres. Heres the hidden hitch: governments at all levels work together in a fungible relationship. Historically, they have traded land among themselves to fund bridges, city water development, etc. Never have these fungible transactions been determined by a vote of the citizens — never! So we must ask, ‘Are the Federal and Ohio governments working together on Biden s 50×50 scheme in Belmont County?’”
“In Kirkwood Township, a citizens committee has identified the effects of Big Brother as a neighbor and they aren’t good. Under the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), the State of Ohio has acquired up to 28,000 acres in Belmont County for the Egypt Valley Wildlife Refuge. It’s working to confiscate more. This land is a small fraction of the land that Ohio already owns, but the committee has discovered that the State’s piece-by-piece ‘conquest’ is devastating the local economy. An undeclared war on private land has made Kirkwood Township the poorest in Belmont County and one of the poorest municipalities in Ohio.”
On Our Watch
‘Why this dereliction?” asks Darol. “Broken promises are the reason that the Egypt Valley Wildlife Refuge has degenerated from its idealistic origins to its present wretched condition.
Over two dozen years ago, the ODNR rationalized its take-over of 28,000-acres. It promised to help the local economy by developing tourism through lakes, pavilions, trails, hunting, fishing, etc. To date, however, the 100-acre lake has not materialized — nor have any of the other improvements. As with so much government fallow land, the EVWR is now an impenetrable jungle spotted with litter and heaps of trash. Why the unfulfilled promises? This public land is suffering from a lack of routine, responsible management.”
In the meantime …
- The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) pays zero taxes. The tax loss from the EVWR is estimated at $8,932,000 during ODNR control. This lost revenue could have gone to roads, schools, law enforcement, and public services.
- No timber has been select cut. It could have been responsibly, sustainably cut every 18 years. 28,000 acres x $2,000/acre x 2 cuts = $96,000,000 of lost income.
- No agriculture or hunting leases have been issued. 28,000 acres x $30/acre x 28 years=$24,360,000 forfeited — not a cent received by local governments.
- No oil and gas signing leases. $5,000/acre =$140,000,000 unrealized.
- No oil and gas royalties. 18 – 20 percent annually for 35 years. Incalculable losses.
- No surface liquidation. $2,000/acre x 28,000 acres = $56,000,000 potential income.
- Undeterminable loss of private enterprise production of food, products, and services.
“To repeat, due to negligent and non-existent government management, none of the above has been accomplished in Belmont County, Ohio. This pathetic record, “ says Darol, “is typical of most Federal lands. The government simply does not exercise the care and concern of private enterprise.”
What can an individual do at this late date to save America from the Socialists? Darol has a short list of answers. “Elect representatives who pledge to never expand government land or who will vote to preserve land under only the most compelling conditions; Support representatives who pledge to sell government properties back to private owners in a systematic, orderly process for profitable use; Demand taxation of all government properties and vehicles; Be alert to well-meaning bureaucrats who are actually scrambling to earn Biden’s approval by confiscating millions of acres of private property.
“Quit this taxpayer-torture!” says Darol. “The bleeding must stop. Just say no to all new government land acquisitions and start an orderly liquidation of the government wasteland ownership.”
As a student of history Darol says, “All great nations eventually die out, some more slowly than others.”
It is not hyperbole to suggest that this upcoming election will decide if your grandchildren grow up in a capitalistic Democracy and enjoy the same freedoms and liberties we have. We should NEVER let it be said that America the Beautiful died on our watch.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Original Article can be found here:
https://issuu.com/nmstockman/docs/lmd_april_24
