Why is deep-red Oklahoma paving the way for Biden’s Green New Deal?



Oklahoma hasn’t had a single county vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in 24 years. Every statewide elected official is a Republican, and the GOP holds overwhelming 4-1 majorities in both legislative chambers. Former President Donald Trump carried the state by 35 points. Despite this staunchly conservative profile, Oklahoma’s Republican leadership is allowing vital farmland and ranchland to be used for foreign land acquisitions tied to solar and wind energy projects. This move comes even as Oklahomans rejected the administration behind the Green New Deal. So what gives?

Last week, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt announced an agreement with Denmark’s ambassador, granting a Danish company the ability to purchase large sections of land in Payne County. The company plans to build solar, wind, and biomass energy projects, along with transmission lines across farmland and ranchland in the heart of Oklahoma. Stitt’s enthusiasm for these projects highlights his broader push for Green New Deal-style energy initiatives under the guise of creating jobs in the state.

The green energy agenda is a force multiplier of stupidity, jeopardizing both energy reliability and food security.

“Just signed a historic memorandum of understanding between Denmark and Oklahoma,” a giddy Stitt announced. “The partnership will focus on developing affordable and reliable energy for our communities. Oklahoma fuels the world!”

He’s right. Oklahoma has enough oil and gas to fuel much of the world. The trouble is the memorandum he signed does not promote reliable energy. Instead, it prioritizes inefficient and heavily subsidized forms of energy, such as solar and wind, that depend on unsustainable land acquisitions, misdirect resources like cattle feed, and harm the local environment. Additionally, the memorandum emphasizes the “decarbonization” of the aviation industry — a goal that directly contradicts his stated support for oil and gas as part of an “all of the above” energy strategy.

The agreement with Denmark focuses on two key elements under the broader banner of promoting “economic growth and sustainability.” The first involves constructing solar and wind farms on pristine landscapes. The second includes building transmission lines, methanol plants, and data centers powered by these renewable energy sources, situated in areas designated as “national interest electric transmission corridors.”

After public pressure, Stitt on Wednesday joined other commissioners of the Land Office in voting to reject the solar project. A complementary green energy project on the agenda was approved to move forward, however. The vote saw support from the governor, lieutenant governor, and agriculture secretary, while conservative state Auditor Cindy Byrd cast the lone dissenting vote. This project is set to return for final approval by March 2025 in a public vote by the commissioners.

The transmission corridors associated with this plan should concern all Americans, not just Oklahomans. Expanded under the Biden infrastructure bill, National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors now give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to overrule local governments on power line placement to facilitate the delivery of solar and wind energy. The proposed corridor would stretch from northwest Oklahoma to Little Rock, Arkansas, ranging from four to 18 miles in width and 645 miles in length. This development would likely require eminent domain, seizing critical croplands and ranchlands for biofuels, solar, wind, and carbon capture projects.

The result? Higher food and fuel costs, all to support unreliable and expensive energy, instead of utilizing Oklahoma’s abundant oil and gas resources, which require less invasive infrastructure and preserve farmland. It is the most anti-environmental idea imaginable.

Beyond the land-grab, the push for “e-SAF” and biofuels diverts land away from fruit and vegetable farming and redirects cattle feed toward fuel production. These fuels rely on subsidies and mandates to remain viable, despite being neither wanted nor necessary. This misallocation of resources increases cattle feed costs for ranchers and endangers their land. In the process, the green energy agenda is a force multiplier of stupidity, jeopardizing both energy reliability and food security.

Green grifters often tout wind and solar power as some innocuous natural source that can power anything on-site. Reality is far different. These energy sources require vast amounts of land for transmission lines, as users are typically far from the “natural” energy source. This setup demands extensive high-voltage infrastructure sprawling over areas larger than many countries. The ongoing need for repairs, replacements, and upgrades makes the system costly and unsustainable. No rational policymaker with good intentions could have devised such an idea.

Democrats understand that embedding the Green New Deal in red states is key to transforming America. According to the New York Times, 80% of green energy projects have been allocated to Republican districts. This distribution has led many shortsighted Republicans to pretend to oppose the law while quietly working to cement it.

In an interview with theTimes, Barack Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, highlighted the importance of expediting transmission lines to implement the Green New Deal, which he described as “primarily built around decarbonization investments” and reinforced by Biden’s infrastructure bill. Emanuel sees this as a strategy for Democrats to make a political comeback. Ironically, deep-red state governors like Stitt appear to be working diligently to aid this effort.

Red states need an energy revolution that avoids overregulating viable energy sources while refusing subsidies for those that cannot sustain themselves. Solar and wind energy projects should no longer consume vast amounts of land.

For example, the picturesque area around Lake Eufaula in Eastern Oklahoma is set to host 900 turbines, which will include some of the tallest windmills in the world. This misuse of resources and land sacrifices our heartland for a harmful lie built on unsound energy practices.

If deep-red states cannot reject the Green New Deal — an agenda as destructive as it is unpopular — it might signal that Democrats, not Republicans, are successfully building a permanent political majority in this country.

Iowa GOP Reps Lobbied For Green Tax Credits That Benefit A ‘Megadonor’ Supporting Their Campaigns

'They've been bought off already'

JPMorgan CEO Suggests Gov’t Should Seize Private Property For Clean Energy Projects

'We may even need to evoke eminent domain'

Biden is still seizing private land for the border wall even though nothing is being built



President Joe Biden on day one of his presidency put an end to construction of former President Donald Trump's border wall. But three months later, Biden's government is still seizing private land for wall construction, even though no wall is being built.

This week, the federal government seized six acres of land from a family in Hidalgo County, Texas, after a federal judge confirmed the government's right to take the land in an eminent domain case that began when Trump was president. The land belonged to Baudilia Cavazos and her family, who have been fighting in court since 2018 to stop the government from taking it.

"We are utterly devastated," Baudilia Cavazos told Reason Magazine after the judge's decision. "We thought President Joe Biden would protect us. Now we've lost our land. We don't even know what comes next."

President Trump constructed more than 400 miles of border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, at times using eminent domain authority to seize private land for wall construction. Eminent domain is a power that allows the government to acquire private property for public use.

President Trump's administration wanted to use eminent domain to seize approximately seven acres of Cavazos land, constructing the wall in the middle of it and dividing it between the U.S. and Mexico sides. The family's home would have been on the U.S. side of the border, but several rental properties they own would have been inaccessible on the Mexican side, which the family says would result in a major loss of income.

Though Biden paused construction of the wall pending a federal review of the legality of its funding, his administration never withdrew the case against the Cavazos family. Their case was one of nearly 140 eminent domain cases that remain active along the southern border, Politico reported.

On the campaign trail, Biden promised to end these eminent domain cases, telling NPR in August 2020, "End. Stop. Done. Over. Not going to do it. Withdraw the lawsuits. We're out. We're not going to confiscate the land."

But so far, his administration hasn't kept its promise. The Department of Justice told Politico that it is seeking to delay the pending eminent domain cases until Biden's review of the wall project is completed.

The families that own the land, and progressive activists who believed Biden would enact a full reversal of Trump's immigration and border policies, feel betrayed.

"Yesterday, we witnessed a betrayal of the Biden Administration's commitment to end construction of the border wall," Ricky Garza, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project, said in a statement. "In federal court, the President's pause on border wall construction is meaningless without immediate action from the DOJ to dismiss these cases."

Calif. may return beachfront land taken from black family in eminent domain seizure 100 years ago



Los Angeles County is considering whether to compensate a black family who had beachfront property seized by the local government nearly a century ago.

What are the details?

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn said she is weighing options to compensate the family of Willa and Charles Bruce, who were among the city's first black landowners, the Hill reported.

In 1924, the city of Manhattan Beach forced the Bruce family from its beachfront land through eminent domain under the pretense of creating a city park.

The Bruces and their family lived at the Manhattan Beach location and operated a resort for black Americans during a time when beaches were segregated by race. At the time, the family purchased the land for less than $2,000 — land that could now be worth up to $75 million.

KABC-TV reported that the county is now looking at options to compensate the Bruce family's descendants.

Los Angeles County owns the the property, where its lifeguard headquarters and training center is currently located.

Hahn told the station, "I'm considering, first of all, giving the property back to the Bruce family. I think that would be the one act that would really be justice for that family. I wanted the County of Los Angeles to be a part of righting this terrible wrong."

She added, "We are now in this country finally meeting this moment. And there are a lot of talks about reparations, financial restitutions being made to African Americans in this country."

What else?

Anthony Bruce, one of the family's last living descendants, added, "It was a wrong against the Bruce family. I think we would be wealthy Americans still living there in California. ... Manhattan Beach, probably."

The Hill reported, "Hahn says the county is also considering paying reparations or leasing the property from the family so the lifeguard center can stay at the location."

"The Manhattan Beach city task force is also recommending the city council issue a formal apology and create a commemorative plaque to acknowledge the Bruce family," the report adds.

Kavon Ward, a local Manhattan Beach resident, has been active in trying to raise awareness of the Bruce family's issue.

"They need to pay for the stripping of generational wealth," Ward said. "This family could have been wealthy, they could have passed on wealth to other family members. Manhattan Beach could have been more culturally diverse. ... There would have been more black people here."

Ward added, "This task force and members of Manhattan Beach are living in this sort of bubble of white supremacy and white fragility and I feel like it's time to penetrate that bubble. It's time for this bubble to be popped."

Church fights Texas city's eminent domain push to take land for new fire station. Fun fact: There's already a fire station across the street.



While Canaan Baptist Church is located in south Dallas, the small congregation has had a ministry in nearby Duncanville for the last 15 years, KTVT-TV reported.

Image source: KTVT-TV video screenshot

"We do food drives, clothing drives, church activities," Angie Baker, wife of Canaan Baptist's pastor, told the station. "We feel like this community is underserved."

Image source: KTVT-TV video screenshot

Thing is, there's no church building for Canaan Baptist in Duncanville — but it does have land there, KTVT said.

"This is an empty lot that God gave us," Baker told the station.

Image source: KTVT-TV video screenshot

In fact, Canaan Baptist has been raising money to get a new facility built on the property, the station said.

The problem

The goal sounds simple enough — but the city of Duncanville is complicating it.

See, Duncanville has designs on the property and is trying to seize it using eminent domain to build a new fire station, KTVT reported.

As you might expect, Canaan Baptist doesn't like the idea one bit.

"We have put so much into it, and we just don't want to lose it to the city," Baker noted to the station.

So attorneys for the church filed a motion this week to halt the land seizure, arguing for protections under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, KTVT reported.

"In this particular case, it would require the city to prove that this property is the only property that they can use for their purposes, and it's going to be very difficult for them to prove that," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, told the station.

Image source: KTVT-TV video screenshot

And about that fire station...

What's more, there's already a fire station across the street from the church's plot of land the city wants to take, KTVT reported.

"We just want the city to find another piece of property and build somewhere else, because we love the property that we've invested in," Baker told the station.

The city of Duncanville told KTVT that the city attorney has received the church's motion to dismiss and will file a response with the court at the appropriate time.

(H/T: Hot Air)