The federal government owns and manages approximately 650 million acres of land in the United States—about 30% of the nation’s total surface area. Four major federal land management agencies—the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS)—are responsible for managing about 95% of these lands.
Other prominent federal agencies involved in natural resources management include the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps).
The federal government owns 47% of the land in the western United States. The percentage of federally owned land varies by state, with Nevada having the highest percentage at 80.1% and Connecticut and Iowa having the lowest at 0.3%.
As of 2018, half of the West belongs to the federal government, including 48% of California, 69.1% of Alaska, 53.1% of Oregon, 48.1% of Arizona, 42.3% of Wyoming, 41.8% New Mexico, 36.6% of Colorado, 62% of Idaho, 66.5% of Utah, 28.5% Washington state, and 81% of Nevada. Look up your state here.
By all accounts, they are not good stewards of the land.
Dr. St. Onge has an important article on his substack, explaining how the US is becoming a financial basketcase banana republic. The following is a summary. Read the entire article here.
After the 2008 Financial Crisis, Simon Johnson, the former chief economist of the IMF, warned that the same dysfunctional policies he saw in his basketcase banana republics had taken hold in the United States.
Johnson warned that if America didn’t act fast, we would plunge into a “Quiet Coup” as the American financial system effectively captures the government, bailing itself out until we run out of money.
At some point, it gets too big to bail out. Now, [Harris plans] to fleece the middle class and the working people until nothing is left.
Johnson Explained How It Happens in Banana Republics
First, a small group of powerful elites takes over policy. This is typically the financial elite or large companies when the country has them. Because these elites know they’ll be bailed out, they take excessive risks in good times. An iron law of finance is that risk pays reward. In other words, they get bailed out.
Johnson lays out his numbers: from 1973 to 1985, America’s financial sector never earned more than 16% of the domestic corporate product. But by the early 2000s, it was earning 41%.
In other words, freeing banks to gamble with taxpayer-guaranteed funds.
The end result was the 2008 crisis, during which banks made trillions in risky loans to people with no income, assets, or credit.
Ben Bernanke received $250,000 for a single speech, and Janet Yellen was paid $7 million in speaking fees by Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, among other companies.
The American financial system is kept alive by endless bailouts.
Given their lobbying power, the odds of breaking up America’s megabanks are slim to none.
Unless D.C. reins in the banks, we are in for it. There is little chance they will come through [especially as Harris talks about building three million homes for illegals who can’t afford them and giving them $25,000 for the down payment].
Last night’s debate moderators worked against JD Vance at every opportunity. They harangued him over abortion. Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell rudely interrupted him and cut him off when he was making key points. They fact-checked Vance several times, and the questions they asked were all left-oriented.
CBS co-host Margaret Brennan is married to a Muslim, a former Marine, who Paul Sperry claims once risibly claimed: “Islam also played a large role in empowering women.” Her husband, YAli Iyad Yakub, also believes that democracy has its roots in Islam.
In his graduation dissertation, Yakub discussed why the principles of Islam support democratic ideals in his 2005 paper titled “The Islamic Roots of Democracy.”
He is a globalist and an advisor for Y2 Global Advisory, which he reportedly founded.
The real name of the anti-Trump husband of CBS debate moderator Margaret Brennan is Ali Iyad Yakub, a Muslim born to Syrian parents who wrote a 2005 paper for Miami University titled “The Islamic Roots of Democracy,” arguing Sharia law embodies “justice and tolerance.”
Brennan’s husband worked as a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Joe Biden in 2000 and 2001. In 2020, Yakub worked as a “strategic advisor” for the vicious anti-Trump Lincoln Project and donated to its PAC.
Paul Sperry said Yakub is pro-Sharia. We can’t confirm that.
No Republican should ever again agree to any of these corrupt debates. Although, after this next election, if Democrats win, Republicans won’t ever win another election. The Republican vote will be replaced by poor, uneducated newcomers who will owe their well-being to the Democrats.
Amazingly, JD Vance rose above the two shrieking women to win the debate. Jack Smith countered today by releasing a vicious, gossipy filing against Donald Trump.
Stevedore foreman and or supervisor, loading master takes control in loading discharging operation by walkie-talkie and device on the line, port operation working under control at the quayside
The massive port workers’ strike that has shut down all the major dockyards on the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. and the Gulf Coast is highlighting a fear held by many workers: Eventually, we will be replaced by machines.
The union demands a total ban on automating gates, cranes, and container-moving trucks in its ports. They also want big pay raises. They only make about $28 an hour. Many are in states where it is very expensive to live. But it’s unclear whether they’ll be able to stave off a trend that has seeped into virtually every workspace.
The growth of automation and technological advances has created tension between workers and management since the Industrial Revolution when machines first began to manufacture goods that had previously been made by hand. With the growing use of artificial intelligence, the group of jobs workers perceive as threatened with disruption is ever-widening.
Other ports are far more efficient because they use advanced automation. However, if automation goes through as planned, these workers will mostly be out of work.
Can they stop it? Should they? A strike lasting more than two weeks will probably create an economic crisis.
THE CORE PROBLEM
Port automation is going quickly in Asia and Europe, and they aren’t using American workers or equipment. Significantly, they don’t allow foreigners to take over their ports. It’s a matter of national security.
In the US, politicians sold us out to foreign and international companies. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Europe, Venezuela, Singapore, and, of course, China own our ports. None of these people, including Europeans, should own them, but they do.
Critics of the Dubai Ports World deal have suggested that U.S. companies should run U.S. ports. Despite that, Adam Davidson wrote at NPR in 2006 that most port terminals are leased and run by foreign companies, and that’s unlikely to change.
The government of Singapore owns most of the companies that operate terminals in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Two Chinese companies, both with close ties to the Chinese government, manage terminals in New York, Long Beach, and elsewhere. The government of Venezuela owns all or part of marine terminal management at ports in Pennsylvania and Maine.
CMA CGM bought two container terminals at the Port of New York and New Jersey. CM CGM is owned by a French-Lebanese company.
Also, foreigners, Chinese in particular, can shut down our ports.
Foreigners will control automation. At the same time, we need to be competitive, but at what cost? We sold out American workers.
Only foreigners and foreign equipment will run our ports if the union loses. It won’t take long, either.
They also lost money during COVID and inflation is killing them, too.
Union president Harold Daggett’s job is to represent Longshoremen, and he does so to the best of his ability. Biden-Harris have done far more damage. It’s not clear if the union can hold this back at this point. America should buy back those ports instead of wasting money on pie-in-the-sky or computer-generated crises that probably don’t exist as crises.
Sen. Mike Lee and Tucker Carlson analyzed the debate last night, but they discussed much more than that. I pulled out two sections in particular that voters must consider before casting their ballots. Sen. Lee described treason and the destruction of the Constitution.
In this clip, Sen. Mike Lee, a constitutional scholar, describes the left’s conception of democracy. It is not about the people; it’s about expanding the size of government to enact their Marxist agenda. These are “really perilous times,” and we can’t “sugarcoat” what they are doing any longer.
The left sees the Constitution as an impediment, a filter against “pure democracy.” The Democrat Left wants something far more sinister than democracy. They don’t want their power to be diffused by a Constitution. Democrats are opposed to the Constitution’s protections. They see it as a threat to carrying out their far-left Marxist agenda.
Is it treason to take this position? Mike Lee said it is.
Lee said that the alarming trend among Democrats is contemptuousness toward the Constitution. They see the Electoral College as problematic. Today’s Democrats hate it and view equal representation as unfair. They can’t legally change it; undoing it would require two amendments.
However, Lee said, they could destroy it through the Supreme Court.
Packing the Court could be used to change the law. It could undo the entire constitutional structure. As Chuck Schumer said, they will do it if they get the Trifecta. Mike Lee said they would do it in the first 100 days if they won the clean sweep.
The First Amendment, in particular, and the Constitution are on the line in this election.
Lee explained, for example, that President Roosevelt figured out how to get the Supreme Court to gut the commerce clause, and it’s never been the same since.
Jack Smith has some October surprises for us. In a newly unsealed court filing from prosecutors, they claim Donald Trump tried to overturn the election and “resorted to crimes.”
They painted a portrait of an “increasingly desperate” president who, while losing his grip on the White House, “used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process.”
Allegedly, when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, he told Mike Pence, “So what?”
“The details don’t matter,” Trump said when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn’t be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.
That doesn’t sound like Trump. Besides, it’s all gossip. Pence is hardly a good witness. He is the one who sold General Flynn down the river with a lie.
Words like “resorted to,” “desperate,” and “details don’t matter” are inflammatory but are imposed by prosecutors intent on convicting Donald Trump in the court of public opinion.
The purpose of the brief is to convince U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the offenses charged in the indictment are private, rather than official, acts and can therefore remain part of the indictment as the case moves forward. Chutkan permitted a redacted version to be made public. Smith made the changes after the Supreme Court upheld immunity.
“Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one,” Smith’s team wrote, adding, “When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.”
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung called the brief “falsehood-ridden” and “unconstitutional” and repeated oft-stated allegations that Smith and Democrats were “hell-bent on weaponizing the Justice Department in an attempt to cling to power.”
“The release of the falsehood-ridden, unconstitutional J6 brief immediately following Tim Walz’s disastrous debate performance is another obvious attempt by the Harris-Biden regime to undermine American Democracy and interfere in this election.”
Last night, Tim Walz addressed gun violence, saying, “Look, I got a, I got a 17-year-old, and he witnessed a shooting at a community center playing volleyball.”
The January 2023 shooting took place outside St. Paul’s Oxford Community Center. The campaign spokesperson said Gus Walz witnessed the shooting but wasn’t involved in the altercation that preceded it.
Exavir Dwayne Binford Jr., a 26-year-old recreation center employee, got into an argument with a 16-year-old boy that “mushroomed into a fight outside the center that ended with the worker shooting the boy in the head and fleeing,” Minnesota’s public radio station MPR News reported.
“I also know him from when a kid got shot in the parking lot, and he helped keep everyone safe and calm, looking after the kids in the gym with us as I rushed out,” Volleyball Coach David Albornoz said in a Facebook post.
Following the debate, the campaign confirmed Gus Walz was there, though clarified that he was not involved in the shooting.
In other words, Gus was in the gym, and the shooting was outside. Gus didn’t witness it.
During a Sept. 12 campaign stop in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Walz mentioned this shooting: “My own son was in a location where someone was shot in the head,” he said. “Too many of us have this.”
His campaign clarified that he misspoke and was referring to friendships with the families of the school shooting victims, not the shooters themselves.
That’s not what he said. He said he had “become friends with school shooters.”
Knucklehead Moment
He also admitted to lying about claiming he was in Beijing during the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was in Nebraska at the time. He called himself a “knucklehead” for that lie.
That about. says it. Walz lies about stupid stuff for no reason. He’s just like Joe Biden.
He also lied about the Border Bill and a few other more important issues the fact-checkers didn’t care to mention.
A South Carolina pilot, trained in law enforcement and firefighting, flew stranded Hurricane Helene victims in flood-ravaged North Carolina to safety. He said he was threatened with arrest if he didn’t stop.
The rescuer was doing it on his dime in his own helicopter.
Not redefining masculinity and not a sex symbol, woman slapper Doug Emhoff.
MSNBC host Jen Psaki interviewed Doug Emhoff and said he has redefined masculinity. He went along with it and said he was always like this. Women shouldn’t be treated differently; “it’s not the American way,” he said. In August, WaPo said he is a “modern-day sex symbol.”
Yeah, no, no way. However, we have more evidence it’s not true. He smacked an ex-girlfriend in 2012.
Emhoff allegedly slapped his ex-girlfriend across the face after he thought she was flirting with another man during the former couple’s attendance at a Cannes Film Festival event in May 2012.
Emhoff had reportedly been standing in line waiting for the valet to return his vehicle when he hit his then-girlfriend of three months so hard it caused her to spin around, three friends of the female claimed to a news publication in a bombshell report published Wednesday.
One of his ex-girlfriend’s pals said the woman called her friend immediately after the altercation with Harris’ husband from inside of her cab, where she was described to be “sobbing” hysterically as she explained what went down.
“It was hard to hear her because she was sobbing. She told me she was with a guy and he hit her,” the friend, who is a top New York businessman, recalled. “It was very clear what she was telling me. She said she was with a guy, her date, she was at the Cannes Film Festival, and he hit her. She was in the car with the guy at the time.”
“In later conversations, but pretty contemporaneous with that, she told me more about the guy. It was something like 3 a.m. They were trying to get out of there and they both had been drinking. There was a gigantic line for taxis,” he shared. “[She] went up to one of the valet guys, offered him 100 Euros or whatever, to get to the head of the line. She told me she put her hand on his shoulder. Doug apparently thought that she was flirting, and came over and slapped her in the face.”
Canada is burdening suffering Canadians with $26 billion in added taxes on climate change. The trucking industry works on a low-profit margin and must pass all the latest Trudeau carbon tax costs onto the consumer. It will cost jobs, reduce the GDP, and do nothing for the climate.
However, Trudeau is a loyal soldier for the World Economic Forum, and this is part of the goal.
Phillip Lawrence, Conservative Shadow Minister of Transport, and Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative Shadow Minister of Finance, released the following statement on Trudeau’s inflationary carbon tax:
“After nine years of Justin Trudeau, life costs more, and work doesn’t pay. The Liberal Government’s carbon tax has driven up the cost of everything. Families are having to pay $700 more for food this year than they did in 2023, forcing Canadians to eat less, skip meals, and buy less healthy food just to make ends meet. Millions of people now line up outside of food banks, including one in ten people in Toronto.
“Trudeau just doesn’t understand that if you tax the farmer who makes the food and the trucker who ships the food, you end up taxing the Canadian who buys the food.
“According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, Trudeau’s carbon tax added $2 billion to trucking costs this year, a number that will rise to $4 billion in 2030. But these numbers just account for long-haul trucking. The total amount of money that Trudeau’s carbon tax is costing the trucking industry is likely significantly higher.
“As the Canadian Trucking Alliance wrote, ‘these added costs cannot be absorbed [by truckers] and must be passed on to customers.’ That means Canadian families are once again picking up the bill for Trudeau’s punishing taxes.
“Despite presiding over a cost of living crisis, Trudeau refuses to cancel his inflationary carbon tax. In fact, this spring, Trudeau increased the carbon tax by 23 percent as part of his plan to quadruple the tax to 61 cents per litre by 2030. He did this even though 70 percent of Canadians wanted Trudeau to cancel his carbon tax increase. As a direct result of this, the Fraser Institute has reported that the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian worker $6,700 by 2030. It will also reduce Canada’s GDP by 6.2 percent by 2030, resulting in 164,000 fewer jobs.
“Enough is enough. Jagmeet Singh must join with Common Sense Conservatives in calling for a carbon tax election. Only then can a Pierre Poilievre government axe the tax and bring home powerful paycheques for all Canadians.”
