All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 27, 2023 - Epoch Times
41:06
Exposing the Government's Secret Plan to Grab 30% of America's Land
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Throughout the past year, my team and I have traveled around the world, as well as throughout the U.S., in order to expose how the United Nations Agenda 2030 is getting implemented as concrete policies in countries across the whole world, in the form of an awesome documentary called No Farmers, No Food.
I'll throw a link down into the description box below this video.
I hope you check it out.
However, throughout the course of our investigations, what we uncovered was that here in the U.S., here in the States, one of the largest manifestations of this United Nations Agenda 2030 is the federal government's Corollary Agenda 30 by 30.
This is, you can say, an ambitious plan by the government to put 30% of America's land into conservation by the year 2030.
It's essentially one of the biggest land grabs in American history.
And during the course of our investigation, we were fortunate enough to connect with a woman named Margaret Byfield.
She is probably the foremost expert on Agenda 30x30 here in the U.S., and she's the executive director of an organization called American Stewards of Liberty.
And today, I'd like to present an interview that I conducted with Margaret, which will help to elucidate what Agenda 30x30 is, how far along it's actually gotten, and what common Americans like you and me can actually do about it.
And so, take a super quick moment to smash those like and subscribe buttons, And take a listen.
Margaret, thank you so much for joining us.
The first thing I wanted to ask you was, could you, maybe in simple terms, for somebody who's never heard of it before, can you explain what Agenda 30 by 30 actually is?
So, the 30 by 30 agenda is an international agenda to permanently protect 30% of the world's lands and oceans by 2030.
That means land in its natural state.
So this is land that we don't get to use.
In America, Biden implemented this six days after coming into office.
And when he did this, he said that 12% of America was already permanently protected in the manner that he's seeking for the 30%.
And what that 12% is are national parks, wildlife refuges, state parks, Private lands with conservation easements in perpetuity.
Now, the key thing to understand about all of these places, they take permission for the public to access.
They are very restricted.
So we might think, well, we get to go to our national parks, so what's bad about that?
But that's all permission-based.
So they are looking at making 30% of our nation off-limits to the people for any extractive uses, any natural resource uses, Mining, grazing, timber, anything that we need to have a prosperous nation.
They're locking up those resources so that we can't touch it, and they're trying to do that with 30% of our land.
Wow.
So to take it from 12% to 30%, what's the main mechanism that they're using?
Are they buying up this land?
Are they using eminent domain?
Or one of the things you mentioned was easements in perpetuity.
So it's privately owned land, but then the government has a huge say in what can and cannot happen on the land because I assume they pay the landowner.
Do you know what's the main way they're going about turning 12% into 30%?
So on the private lands, there's two ways primarily.
Well, three.
There's the conservation easements in perpetuity.
And the main thing to understand about those is the landowner sells the development right, and then either the land trust or the government owns that right.
But what happens is landowners think they still own that land, but they've actually sold the essential control over their property to a land trust or the federal government.
So it's no longer private property.
That's one way that they're doing it, and the government is spending a ton of money and grant money to land trusts to go out and help landowners put these easements all across their land.
That's primarily how they're doing it in the private land states.
The other thing that they're using are the conservation programs.
So they are throwing a lot of money at landowners right now.
For the Conservation Reserve Program, they increase the amount they'll pay per acreage for people to set aside their land, and then what acres can go into that program.
And the environmentalists look at those conservation programs as pretty much like the gateway drug.
If they can get landowners into those, then they know the next step into the more restrictive programs is easy once they get that money on their balance sheet.
The third way is through private land acquisitions.
So we've already seen in 2022, the Bureau of Land Management acquired 35,000 acres in the state of Wyoming, largest acquisition they've ever made in that state, without the governor or the county commissioners even knowing it was taking place.
So right now, Congress has authorized the federal government to spend $900 million every year They appropriate this every year, half of which has to be spent on private land acquisitions.
So that's kind of scary because in this country, we're already at a place where the government, local, state, and federal own 40% of our land.
So only 60% is private.
And if you're somebody who's really concerned about future, our ability to limit our government and have those individual liberties that we all enjoy in America, we need to be very concerned about that figure because Our ability to own the natural resources and the land is what allows us to have the means to control and limit our government and protect our individual liberties.
The Constitution is just a piece of paper.
There has to be a way to defend that.
And that is through our ability, the American people, the middle class, the middle class having that right to own that land.
That is what allows us to keep our government in check.
And we're losing that control.
Did you know that 91% of all cyber attacks begin with the victim receiving a simple email?
And also, did you know that these big tech companies, as well as the governments of many different nations, are spying on your online activity?
And so, the time to protect yourself is right now.
And the best company to use is the sponsor of today's episode, Secure.
They have three different solutions for safeguarding your data and all of your online communications.
You have Secure Mail, which allows for truly secure communication with anyone you interact with via email.
You have Secure Messenger, which guarantees that your chat messages stay private.
And then you have Secure VPN, which encrypts all of your internet traffic and it helps to protect your online activity and your digital identity from IP hackers.
And the best part is that unlike many of the other companies, Secure has their own proprietary technology And they do all their hosting over in Switzerland, which has some of these strictest data privacy laws in the entire world.
Basically, if you want your data to be truly private and safe from both bad actors as well as from governments, although sometimes they're one and the same, you should check out Secure.
And best of all, right now, they're running a special promo.
To our viewers, if you use promo code Roman20, you can save 20% off all their services for the next five years.
So check them out.
The link will be down in the description box below.
Use promo code Roman20 to save some money, and let's head on back to the studio.
Earlier you said that the government owns about 12% of land that is in sort of the use that they want to make 30% of land, basically like a rewilding type of situation where they sort of leave it off, they don't do any development on there, but then you also said that 60% of the land is already in the government's hands.
Do you mean like the federal government, the state government?
How is that different from the 12%?
The 40% that's owned by federal, state, and local.
And that's a different varying degree of restrictions on those lands.
So on the federal side, they actually own 27% of the land.
Most of that's in the West.
50% of the West is owned by the federal government.
87% of Nevada is owned by government.
So you have some states, I mean, it's really lopsided.
The Western states are really federalized and the Eastern states are privatized.
So it really comes down to level of restriction.
So let me give you an example.
The Bureau of Land Management, they manage, I think it's about 540 million acres, somewhere around there.
I might have that figure wrong.
They're the largest landowner, federal landowner.
And they recently issued a set of regulations, proposed regulations, which would take our multiple-use lands, which is the majority of the land that they manage.
So multiple-use means When those lands were set aside, they were set aside so that the public would always have access to those lands.
They could be grazed, they could be mined, they could be logged and recreated on.
Hunting, fishing, you know, off-road vehicles, all of that could be done on those lands simultaneously.
That's what the multiple-purpose plans were for.
And the BLM has come out with a new rule where they're saying, no, we're going to prioritize Conservation of those lands over the multiple uses.
Now, what's really interesting about that is that Congress defined the purpose of those lands to be multiple use.
So they've already defined what those multiple uses are.
And by rulemaking, the Biden administration is trying to replace that with this idea that, no, it's going to be conserved for one use, which is simply off limits to the public, for any extractive uses, any use at all.
As they determine.
So the agency is taking it upon themselves to choose what's going to be done with these lands, and they're completely ignoring the statutory direction, which has already defined that purpose.
That's amazing, to say the least.
Let me ask you this.
When my team and I were in the Netherlands not so long ago, they had a plan that seemed very similar to What took place in California not too long ago?
You know, Governor Gavin Newsom put out a map saying, we're going to have, what did he call his plan?
I think it was a 30 by 30 plan, or was it a 25 by 25?
It was a 30 by 30 plan, right?
30 by 30, yeah.
Yeah, so 30% of the land in California to be owned by the government by the year 2030.
And he put out a map of all the areas that they already own and that they're interested in taking over.
And it was very similar to the map that was put out by the Dutch government over in Holland.
Let me ask you, what if Let's say you own a property or a farm that's adjacent to one of these areas that they want to buy and they want to cordon off and have no development on.
They want to just preserve it into perpetuity.
If you own the property next to what the government is aiming to get, is your property affected?
Are you suddenly not able to farm because of the Nitrogen from your cows will go up into the sky and be deposited into the natural preserve.
Are you seeing that happening in America as well?
Yeah.
If you have property that is already next to a protected area, expect to have a lot of pressure put on you to put those lands in some kind of restrictive program.
So this is what the federal government likes to do.
They like to expand the areas that they already have.
So they're trying to create large, connected areas.
So they will.
If you have private property next to them, you may be approached by the federal government to purchase that land.
And if you don't want to sell to the government, the next thing that's going to happen is a land trust is going to knock on your door and say, hey, we know you don't want to have to deal with the federal government.
We are here to help you.
We will put your land in a land trust.
It'll never be developed.
You can farm and ranch it for the rest of your lives.
Your children can do the same thing.
We will keep it safe.
And a lot of landowners buy into that, not understanding that, number one, the land trusts, typically they sell those easements back to the federal government.
The Nature Conservancy is famous for doing this.
They actually purchase the easement and then sell it back to the government, sometimes at a profit.
So it's a money-making deal for them.
So there's no protection that it's not going to be put in a conservation easement.
The other thing is that the land is restricted.
So those regulations start spilling over on the private land.
Like a rancher in the West who has private property and a grazing allotment on the federal land.
There's been a lot of pressure put on them for a lot of years.
To put the same management plan they're required to do on the federal lands, also on their private property.
And they use the authorization of that grazing permit as kind of the weapon to force them to do that.
The Forest Service has done that many times also with trying to acquire the water right.
So they would say, we will authorize this grazing permit if you sign over your water rights that you own on that federal land.
To the Forest Service.
So they use that permit system as a weapon in order to acquire more of the private property.
Another good example of what happens in the West is, you know, we're seeing all these forest fires.
This is absolutely to be expected.
It's been managed by the federal government for over 50, you know, almost 75 years now in their form of management, which is not good land use.
So what you have in the wilderness areas, because that's another area that they consider part of their 12%, when a fire starts in a wilderness area, they don't fight it.
It's supposed to be kept in its natural state.
So a fire starts and they let it burn because that's natural.
That's how nature takes care of itself is their philosophy.
So then it grows out of control and they don't start fighting it and the public can't start fighting it.
The local fire stations, the private property owners, they can't fight that fire until it crosses out of The wilderness areas.
Which means now it's out of control and now it's going to burn out everybody's property around it.
Is that a federal rule or does it go state by state?
No, it's federal.
Because it's a wilderness area which is a congressional designation.
And when it's made into wilderness, the objective is to keep it Looking as if it's been untouched by the hand of man.
That's the purpose for wilderness designations.
So there's things like in wilderness areas, you can't take motorized equipment or vehicles in there.
Can you do that burning?
No.
And there may be some cases where they can do that, but it's going to be very, very rare.
Overall, the philosophy is, let it burn.
So it's real restrictive.
So that's another way that if you live next to a protected area like that, those federal rules, they may only apply to the federal land, but they're going to spill over and impact and hurt your land eventually.
And, you know, that's how landowners have to give up their land because they've been burnt out.
The whole operation has been burnt out.
They've lost their cattle.
They've lost their crops.
They've lost their barns.
They've lost all of those things when these things get out of control.
And I think what's really interesting is how the environmental movement and the Biden administration is blaming all of this on climate change.
It's not climate change.
It's bad federal management of the land.
Which seems ironic because on the surface of it, I can imagine somebody watching this interview and thinking to themselves, oh, well, you know, it's not a bad thing for the government to take 30% of the land and to keep it in conservation.
I'd love for my great grandkids, my great grandkids to have access to the wilderness.
And if, you know, if modernization continues, maybe all the trees will get cut down or something along that line.
Like I can see that train of thought.
But on the flip side, it seems like If you want something protected well, the federal government might be the worst steward of the land because of what you just described as a great example, like backburning.
If I own a large acreage of land somewhere out in the West, I would make a point, just put it on my calendar and have people go out and backburn because I know that's the proper way to do it, but I know that's not happening At least I know it's not happening in Canada, because I recently did a deep dive into what they're doing there, and when the fires get out of control, they just turn around and say, hey, well, climate change is getting pretty bad, right?
We should take more of your tax dollars to fight some of this climate change.
So would that be your argument, or would you say something else to somebody watching this and saying, well, this might be a good idea for the government to take this land out of production and keep it pristine for the next generation?
So there's a lot of arguments against that, but I think one of the ones that people can generally relate to is, let's say you have 100,000 acres and you have 10 owners in there, so all 10 have 10,000 acres, and you have one owner of that land who really doesn't know what they're doing, and so they manage it poorly, and they're the ones that end up with having all the underbrush, they haven't taken care of their land, and so they're basically a fire hazard.
That's going to impact 10% of that land.
What happens when you have one owner that owns 100,000 acres or 30% of the nation that makes that same bad decision?
It doesn't just impact the 10,000 acres.
Now it impacts 30% of our nation.
That's what we're getting when we put all this land into the collectivist control.
Of the administrative agencies and the environmental groups.
And my challenge to the question I would ask people is, do you really think the federal government has ever managed anything well?
I mean, we have so many examples of bad management on a lot of different issues, not just land issues.
Has been horribly done by the federal government.
It is always better done when it's privately done.
Because, particularly from the land ownership perspective, you cannot make a living on that land if you harm that land.
The way you make a living on the land is you keep that land good so it's good and productive.
So if it's not producing well, whether that be producing healthy cattle, Or producing good crops or, you know, producing timber in the next 30 years because you've replanted it and you're taking care of it.
So you're keeping the beetle infestation out, which the federal government doesn't do.
And you're keeping the underbrush out, which the federal government doesn't do.
You know, if you're doing all those things, then you can go in and selectively log 30 years from now And you still have, after you've logged that area, it still looks like a beautiful pristine forest.
You know, that's good management.
And the private landowner whose livelihood is dependent on that land producing well year over year over year is going to take much better care of that land than an environmentalist who,
no offense to New York, But just, you know, graduated from a New York university, has decided to join the Forest Service, comes out to Otero County, Lincoln County, you know, New Mexico, as a new forest ranger, and thinks, wow, I read about this in a textbook, so let's try it here.
And that management regime goes in place, and pretty soon things are burning up.
So, you just cannot replace that landowner who is a three-, four-, fifth-generation landowner who was born and raised on that property and knows all the different changes of nature and what happens and how the land responds and knows what's been tried and what's failed and what's worked and continues to build on that just like you would in any good business.
That's what you want out on the land, taking care of that land.
Let me ask you this.
Agenda 30 by 30, for the federal government to own 30% of the land by the year 2030, how does that correlate with some of the state-specific goals, which seem to mirror what the federal government is doing?
I mentioned California, for instance.
Gavin Newsom came out.
And he said that the state will actually own 30% of the land by the year 2030.
So is it driven by the same ideology and the 30 by 30 agenda?
Is that the government, whatever government entity it is, will own 30% of the land?
Or is it 30% by the federal government and then more by the state government?
And so in its totality, it'll be more than 30% of the land.
But definitely it's going to be more than 30%.
So the 30 by 30 agenda is just kind of the start of the agenda.
It's like, in fact, the Biden administration has said this, that if they can accomplish 30 by 30, then they're well on their way to accomplishing the half-earth agenda.
So that's 50 by 50.
So the ultimate, actually not the ultimate, but the next step after 30 by 30 is to acquire 50% of the land.
And they can do this.
We have it kind of happening at different levels.
There's local governments who believe in this agenda and are trying to implement it in their local jurisdiction.
There's states like California.
And then there's the federal.
So it's all going to come together.
I don't think that they're really as concerned about the percentage of how much they take as really they are interested in total control of the land.
Because if they control the land, they can control the people, which is ultimately, you know, the objective of the 2030 agenda.
But look at what Vermont did.
Vermont, just this summer, passed a law to implement 50 by 50.
They passed a law for 50 by 50.
So, you know, we've already seen these states, some of the more liberal states take on this agenda and try to implement it.
But you have to understand, ownership of land is power.
It's power, it's resources, it's prosperity.
And that's what this is about.
This isn't about conservation.
This is the oldest fight, you know, in history.
You always have people who think they should have power over the others.
And that's what made America so different.
Is when we were settled, the founders knew that not only do we have to have a good constitution that protects our rights, we have to have a way to protect it.
Which is why when the federal government acquired lands like the Louisiana Purchase, when they acquired that, Jefferson immediately began disposing of that to the public.
So you could go out as a settler and you could go out and acquire 120 acres or up to 640, depending on which state you were in.
That became your homestead.
And you have that ability to make a living off of that land.
Grow your own food.
Build your shelter.
Protect it.
Sell your product to the community and to the state and to the nation.
And that's what created the economic unit.
That's what created the middle class.
The middle class is created because we had, as people for the first time, the ability to own land.
And that was always the intent in America, that the people would own the land, therefore we could control our government.
And that all changed when the West was settled, and that's when the West became federalized, and that really changed the power that the people had over their government at that point in time.
Let me ask you this.
Oftentimes when I read into this particular subject, there's a lot of, you know, what are they called, like little blurbs on the bottom of videos, or if you're searching for a certain topic, there's like fact checks that always pop up, you know, blah, blah, blah, fact check, fact check.
And one of the things that I've noticed is that if you're searching for things like smart cities or this idea that whether it's the federal government or even these international bodies, they have this long-term plan to kind of have these smart cities or 15-minute cities.
They have different names for them and different documents in different countries.
The idea being that you have these very, very densely populated urban pockets with pretty much everything you need within a 15-minute walk.
And then outside of that is a pristine wilderness conservation area that's owned by the government.
Now, some of those things are actually written policy documents.
Some cities, mostly in Europe, are actually trying to implement some of these policies.
But When you look into it, there's always these fact checks saying, well, no, there's no written plan that, you know, agenda 30 by 30 is in any way related to the smart city plan.
But then, like, if you're a logical and critically-minded person, you're looking at this and going, okay, maybe there's no document that connects the two, but if the federal government is gobbling up all this land, you know, you think that out 50, 100 years, they own all this land, and then they're going to be building these smart cities.
Do you feel like This is a possibility.
If we continue going down this road, could it be possible that we live in a scenario where the federal government and or the local governments, they own the majority of the land in America and people are just essentially funneled into cities?
Yeah, that's been their agenda probably since the early 1990s.
There was actually a map that came out.
That they were trying to hide, but it got exposed when they were trying to pass the Biodiversity Treaty in 1992.
So all the nations...
What was that?
Who was trying to hide it?
Just really the environmental community.
So it was international, but it was really being pushed by the UN and through the UN. But there was a group called, I'm trying to remember, What their name was.
I forget.
It's been 30 years.
They came out with what's called the Wildlands Map.
And you can Google that, the Wildlands Map.
And you'll see it's this huge map that has the urban populous areas are colored in and then just very small transportation corridors where the humans could move from little area to little area.
So it could go from Austin, Texas to maybe Dallas, Texas, and there'd be a little corridor, and everything else would be wild around it.
And so that was a map that came out with in 1992, which is the reason that the Senate did not ratify that treaty, was when that map got exposed and they found that it was a part of that treaty.
And so that's been their agenda for a long time.
You know, this is, they've been working on this for a very long time.
What they've been doing in the meantime is they've been getting all of these environmental ideas that We must conserve land.
They've been teaching all that in our schools and not teaching about property rights, not teaching what the people need to know to understand how we remain free.
And so we're now at a place where this agenda can easily be put in place because there's so many people that have not been educated on property rights.
But they have been bought into this whole conservation agenda.
And that's been deliberate.
So that's been, they really put an emphasis on the educational system years ago.
So that's been delivered.
So they're now at a place where I think all of these ideas, they can get in place a lot easier.
But still to do it, there has to be a lot of confusion.
And that's why you're seeing, you know, they're not really, they really do connect the dots, but you have to kind of think about it and read it, work through it, and see all the different agendas coming together.
And you find, I think what you found, which is what we found, they're all working towards the same goal.
It doesn't matter what label they put on it.
You know, the new one I'm sure you've heard is the C40 cities.
So Bloomberg has identified 40 cities in America to turn into these smart cities, these 15-minute cities.
And we live close to one, which is Austin, Texas, which is one of the ones that they are looking to make into a smart city, or one of these C40 cities.
So it's happening.
But with a lot of things, like this is what they did on the 30 by 30 agenda.
When they came out with the 30 by 30 agenda, that's what they called it.
This is 30 by 30.
And then we implemented a grassroots campaign against it immediately.
And by three months later, they changed the name of the program.
Now they call it America the Beautiful.
So you will see the Biden administration's documents published about All the things they're doing under America the Beautiful isn't this great.
They kind of forget to tell the public, oh yeah, we're actually trying to control 30% of our land, but forget about that.
This is all about conservation.
They really depend on the public not being educated and not paying attention to these things to get these things implemented.
That's why programs like yours is so good because you get that educational material out there so people can choose for themselves.
And that's invaluable.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And, you know, one thing, well, the America the Beautiful rebranding is brilliant because who would be against something called America the Beautiful?
You mentioned Austin.
New York is one of the C40 cities.
One of the most brilliant aspects of it from the perspective of pushing forward this agenda is that the mayor of the city can put in place these rules as a part of this C40 overarching plan and make it such that if you want to do business with a New York City-based retailer or entity or Or a New York City-based corporation, you have to follow by certain guidelines.
It could be an ESG guideline.
It could be a carbon reporting guideline.
So it's actually a really smart way to do it.
These C40 cities, you identify the biggest drivers of the economy within a country.
And then if you want to do business with any of the companies in that city, then you have to basically get in line.
So it's sort of a great way to get all the countryside to fall in line with the agenda.
When I looked into it, it's really a brilliant plan.
Yeah, it is.
Margaret, let me ask you this.
You mentioned education.
We're, of course, trying to educate people about what's happening so they can know about it.
Is there anything you can do that's proactive?
Sometimes, like, there's very little hope.
It seems like an anaconda that's just, you know, slowly, you know, getting around the person, getting tighter, getting tighter.
You're sort of already trapped, and it's sort of like, all we're doing is sort of like saying, hey, this is how the anaconda works.
This is what the anaconda's trying to do.
But already it's just getting tighter and tighter and tighter.
Is there anything that an individual person, a family, can do in this country now that they're equipped with the knowledge of what's happening?
Well, I think if you own a piece of land or even your home, I mean, you know, you can just have a home with your yard.
The key thing I think right now for Americans to be very careful about is To not encumber their property with any kind of federal restrictions.
So in other words, everything that they are doing through 30 by 30, there's some that they are doing regulatorily where they're enforcing it on people.
But to get the private land, they have to have the voluntary agreement of the landowner.
That's like the conservation easement.
It's voluntary.
Taking the funding for a conservation program to set your acreage aside in a program for conservation.
That's voluntary.
And we have said from the very beginning that if landowners would just stand up and say no, Then this whole agenda would collapse.
They cannot do it without Americans voluntarily signing up for these programs.
The thing to understand with all of these federal programs, and I even go, not that I've looked at the contracts, but I get a little leery of putting the solar panels on your roof with the federal funding because there's enough laws on the books That if you have any kind of federal funding attached to your property, it creates a federal nexus.
And you have no idea how many laws that triggers that now can affect your property that never before could.
So I'll give you a good example of one is the Endangered Species Act.
So that's where, so the states own the species.
They have management control over all wildlife.
When the federal government decides that a species is endangered, Then they take federal control of that species and they now manage that and the state is out of that management.
Okay, the federal government can come in and they can put in their management plan for conserving the species, protecting the species.
Well, the act that authorizes that says that when they designate critical habitat, it cannot apply to private land.
So that's a good thing.
That means the private landowner isn't going to come under all of those restrictions.
Unless there's an exception, unless there's any federal funding tied to that land.
So that's how those federal nexuses get attached.
So now if they designate, like they're doing here in Texas, the Lesser Prairie Chicken, the Dune-Sage-Rish Lizard.
The Dune-Sage-Rish Lizard is being listed because it's in the Permian Basin where we produce 40% of America's oil and gas.
They're trying to shut that industry down.
So they use the species, they list the species so that then they can regulate And that critical habitat would not apply to those private landowners unless they're in some kind of a program where they're taking federal funding that creates that federal nexus.
So a key thing, to get back to your question, I usually advise landowners stay out of those federal programs.
Keep your property from being encumbered by any of those programs and the land trusts because they also are part of this whole agenda.
That's a key thing.
Second thing is to always remember, all of these policies are implemented locally.
And that's where, as local citizens, you develop a strong alliance in your community.
So you find the people who agree and think the way that you do.
You get your people elected and into those positions.
And it matters at every level.
The conservation district, the school board, The fire district, the water board, the county commissioner, the mayor, the city councils, all of those things.
Get your people, the people who think like you, on those boards because every one of these policies has to be implemented locally.
That's why the C40 cities are working.
They know, and like you said, it's very smart.
They know that's where you go.
To get these things implemented.
So that is really important.
Get active locally.
You know, there's a lot of good organizations out there, and we do this.
We work on the federal level.
We work on the state level.
We work on the local level.
And it's important to keep your eye on what's going on federally.
And you always want to be involved in that.
But I think sometimes people think, well, you know, we've got to fight it there, not realizing they have more power at the local level.
That if they take care of their own community, start there.
They will see incredible results because that's where it can all be stopped.
Wow.
So I guess my big takeaway from you is that when the federal government comes in with a siren song of free money, well, free money, you just don't go for it.
Because once you start accepting money from them, then you're caught up in a machine that It's sort of like the education system, right?
A lot of the reasons that the state-level education systems have to comply with federal mandates is because they accept federal dollars and those dollars are tied to whatever they want to push, right?
So it's very similar in this respect.
I like your analogy of the anaconda.
That's brilliant.
That is exactly what is going on.
Yeah, that's what happens.
I really believe, just watching all this, that it's going to be the private landowner that That is free and clear from all of these programs that is going to have the most valuable asset in America in the coming years.
Because that's what's becoming very rare.
They're working so hard to encumber the private property so they can get control of it.
So those landowners who are staying out of that, their property is going to have a value that's much greater, I think, in the future than now.
Well, Margaret, thank you so much for...
For sharing with us your knowledge and many years of experience.
For anyone watching, if you're interested in Margaret's work, I'll throw the link to the American Stewards of Liberty website.
It'll be down in the description box below.
And then otherwise, Margaret, thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you, Roman.
And lastly, as I mentioned at the very top of the episode as well, after a full year of quite literally traveling the world and also the U.S., we finally released our awesome documentary, No Farmers, No Food, Will You Eat the Bugs?
Here's a trailer.
Food prices are skyrocketing around the world.
And if you listen to world leaders, they'll tell you it's due to climate change.
Climate change is the biggest threat for the human beings.
And their solution might surprise you.
There are 1,900 edible insect species on the planet.
The European Commission has officially declared mealworms to be food.
Yes, this is true to our food.
The people in charge have determined that by switching our diets to crickets, ants, and mealworms, we'll be able to stop temperatures from rising, lower the price of food, and possibly to even save the planet.
It's never about innovation, it's always about getting rid of farmers.
Agenda 21 was meant to be the agenda for the 21st century.
Some of the goals sound nice, ending hunger.
Who could possibly be against ending hunger?
It requires total power from the state.
I think it's a scam.
A lot of this came about in the early 70s, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, which were good things, but it's been abused from what the original intent is.
No, maybe not this one.
No, there's not a farm anymore.
No, there's also not a farm anymore.
So all these people shut down because of the government policies?
Yeah.
I'm the sixth generation of farmer.
Yeah, I'm the fourth generation.
How many years have they owned this paddle?
40 years.
I think we're the last generation.
They're shutting down the small and middle-sized family-run farms.
We either own property or we are property.
I don't think we can trust the government anymore because they want the land.
And our founding fathers understood that the land would be distributed among the people so they could always control their government.
Right now things have tripled as far as cost.
I think you're going to see across the board higher food prices.
Has anybody been held accountable for screwing up?
No.
As every communist tyrant in the last hundred years has understood, if you control the food, you control the people.
Everything is falling apart.
There's a shortage of food.
We're heading for a world food crisis as we hear all the time.
Do you see any hope for the situation?
We have to continue fighting for it.
No farmers, no food.
They will know it.
If you'd like to check out that phenomenal documentary in its glorious entirety, well, the link will be right there at the top of the description box below.
I hope you click it.
I hope you check it out.
And then after you watch it, I hope you love it.
You share it with everyone in your life so that more people can know what's happening behind the scenes of this world.
Again, that link is right there at the top of the description box below.
I hope you check it out.
And then until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times.
Stay informed.
▲
Export Selection