- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ – DEI and Reparations Agriculture Land Seizure Sc
Posted on 12/29/25 at 9:56 am
Posted on 12/29/25 at 9:56 am
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ – DEI and Reparations Agriculture Land Seizure Scheme
Gavin Newsom created a task force to address ‘the agricultural land equity crisis’
For a peek into how California Governor Gavin Newsom would rule the country if elected President, look no further than his California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force. This ambiguous agency was buried within the state budget in 2022 during Newsom’s statewide Covid lockdown, when media was not allowed near the governor or Legislature.
“Established in the California Budget Act of 2022 (AB 179, Ting), the California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force is an independent 13-member body directed to ‘submit a report (by Jan. 1, 2026) to the Legislature and Governor…that includes a set of policy recommendations on how to address the agricultural land equity crisis.’”
You read that right. Gavin Newsom created a task force to address “the agricultural land equity crisis.”
What agricultural land equity crisis?
The report the Equity Task Force recently released recommending a land grab from white farmers reads like a “How To” Marxism 101 manual at UC Berkeley.
One of their primary grievances is that “demographic trends in landownership differ greatly from those of agricultural labor in California;” i.e. not enough farm workers own the land on which they work.
By that logic, not enough teachers own the schools where they teach, or not enough dockworkers own the ships they load and unload.
This is their definition of agricultural land equity:
“Agricultural land equity is when all people have secure and affordable access to viable land for the care, relationship with, and cultivation of food, fiber, medicine, and cultural resources without systemic barriers, disparities, or exploitation.”
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins just sent Gov. Newsom a letter demanding that he “reject and abandon any attempt to pursue the illegal recommendations in the Equity Task Force’s report. It is unconscionable that hardworking farmers are being demeaned and shut out of opportunities simply because they don’t meet the state’s definition of ‘equity.’”
Rollins says Newsom is violating the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments – the equal protection and takings clause, as well as a violation of California’s Proposition 209, a ban on affirmative action, passed by California voters in 1996, which prohibits discrimination or preferential treatment by the state, public universities, public employment, or other public entities, and banned affirmative action policies, enshrined in the California Constitution. In 2020, voters even reaffirmed the ban on affirmative action policies and practices by voting down Proposition 16, 57% to 42%.
Gavin Newsom is concocting new ways to drive up food inflation by handing over land and natural resources to California Native American tribes, minority groups and who they deem as generally aggrieved.
The report even recommends the development of local ordinances to restrict citizens from purchasing land unless they are part of a certain minority group.
LINK
Gavin Newsom created a task force to address ‘the agricultural land equity crisis’
For a peek into how California Governor Gavin Newsom would rule the country if elected President, look no further than his California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force. This ambiguous agency was buried within the state budget in 2022 during Newsom’s statewide Covid lockdown, when media was not allowed near the governor or Legislature.
“Established in the California Budget Act of 2022 (AB 179, Ting), the California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force is an independent 13-member body directed to ‘submit a report (by Jan. 1, 2026) to the Legislature and Governor…that includes a set of policy recommendations on how to address the agricultural land equity crisis.’”
You read that right. Gavin Newsom created a task force to address “the agricultural land equity crisis.”
What agricultural land equity crisis?
The report the Equity Task Force recently released recommending a land grab from white farmers reads like a “How To” Marxism 101 manual at UC Berkeley.
One of their primary grievances is that “demographic trends in landownership differ greatly from those of agricultural labor in California;” i.e. not enough farm workers own the land on which they work.
By that logic, not enough teachers own the schools where they teach, or not enough dockworkers own the ships they load and unload.
This is their definition of agricultural land equity:
“Agricultural land equity is when all people have secure and affordable access to viable land for the care, relationship with, and cultivation of food, fiber, medicine, and cultural resources without systemic barriers, disparities, or exploitation.”
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins just sent Gov. Newsom a letter demanding that he “reject and abandon any attempt to pursue the illegal recommendations in the Equity Task Force’s report. It is unconscionable that hardworking farmers are being demeaned and shut out of opportunities simply because they don’t meet the state’s definition of ‘equity.’”
Rollins says Newsom is violating the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments – the equal protection and takings clause, as well as a violation of California’s Proposition 209, a ban on affirmative action, passed by California voters in 1996, which prohibits discrimination or preferential treatment by the state, public universities, public employment, or other public entities, and banned affirmative action policies, enshrined in the California Constitution. In 2020, voters even reaffirmed the ban on affirmative action policies and practices by voting down Proposition 16, 57% to 42%.
Gavin Newsom is concocting new ways to drive up food inflation by handing over land and natural resources to California Native American tribes, minority groups and who they deem as generally aggrieved.
The report even recommends the development of local ordinances to restrict citizens from purchasing land unless they are part of a certain minority group.
LINK
Posted on 12/29/25 at 9:58 am to djmed
Many posters on this site will be very stoked for Gav
Never forget that
Never forget that
Posted on 12/29/25 at 10:00 am to SDVTiger
quote:Same fools that voted for Tampon Timmy and Kamala.
Many posters on this site will be very stoked for Gav
Never forget that
Posted on 12/29/25 at 10:07 am to djmed
They can just read the history of Zimbabwe's agricultural reparations.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 10:09 am to djmed
Ooops, Auburn beat me to it. BTW, Zimbabwe asked the white farmers to come back. They could grow stuff and sell for profit but they could not OWN their land again. White farmers said 'NO.'
This post was edited on 12/29/25 at 10:11 am
Posted on 12/29/25 at 10:50 am to djmed
Any other time and place this would be called exactly what it is, communism and those in support of it would be ostracized into irrelevance.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 11:00 am to djmed
When is this corrupt seditious globalist whore who is vandalizing the great state of California going to be federally investigated, indicted and off-shored to nearby Alcatraz? Same of the LA mayor.
Democrat governors, mayors and leaders across the USA (most or all presumably "winning" office via fraudulent elections) are being allowed by all authorities in the land to demolish and go scorched earth on their cities and states. American leaders stand by and do nothing. WHY??
Meanwhile the Trump Admin is focused on what again? Wars on drugs? Regime changes? Ukraine? AI Data Centers?
It's ALL looking like this is a Controlled Demolition of the USA from top-to-bottom, East-to-West, North-to-South.
Democrat governors, mayors and leaders across the USA (most or all presumably "winning" office via fraudulent elections) are being allowed by all authorities in the land to demolish and go scorched earth on their cities and states. American leaders stand by and do nothing. WHY??
Meanwhile the Trump Admin is focused on what again? Wars on drugs? Regime changes? Ukraine? AI Data Centers?
It's ALL looking like this is a Controlled Demolition of the USA from top-to-bottom, East-to-West, North-to-South.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 12:51 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Many posters on this site will be very stoked for Gav
Yep, there are far more without which causes the liberals and marxists to promise them "it's yours" if you will just elect me to get it for you.
Rinse, repeat. How large is the homeless population in California?
Posted on 12/29/25 at 2:23 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
Meanwhile the Trump Admin is focused on what again? Wars on drugs? Regime changes? Ukraine? AI Data Centers?
Secure borders
Deportations
Peace deals
Trade deals
End of DEI
Tax breaks
Corporate investments
But sure, they've only focused on Venezuela, Ukraine, and data centers.
It's easy to bitch when you ignore everything that debunks your narrative.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 3:11 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
They can just read the history of Zimbabwe's agricultural reparations.
No, no Zimbabwe didn't do it the right way. Gavin will show 'em how it's supposed to be implemented. We just gotta trust him
Posted on 12/29/25 at 3:21 pm to djmed
I was led to believe the Great Leap Forward was a net positive for China
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:32 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
quote:
Meanwhile the Trump Admin is focused on what again? Wars on drugs? Regime changes? Ukraine? AI Data Centers?
quote:
Secure borders
Deportations
Peace deals
Trade deals
End of DEI
Tax breaks
Corporate investments
So...2.5 out of 6?
Securing borders and ending DEI were slam-dunks for ANY Republican President. Although, WHY us Trump allowing 500,000 Chynese "students" into America? IN-SECURE policy, no? Thousands of Cartel members are still embedded in America. What about it?
"Deportations"? Kinda. Sorta. However they're sandbagging the process.
"Peace Deals"? All bullshite and hype if you examine the evidence. temporary "cease fires" are NOT "ending wars.
Moreover, America's leaders have actually and ironically contributed to catapulting war machine activity all over the place -- NONE of it justifiable.
"Trade deals"? Huh?? You can't be serious. Tariffs were a bug BUST.
"Tax breaks"? For who? The very wealthy? In a crippled economy (Thanks in large part to Trump's 2020 Lockdown and paying people to NOT work) less people are actually paying taxes.
"Corporate investments"? You mean like Palintir? AI Data Centers? Blackrock? Blackstone? State Street? They will ALL help demolish America's small and medium businesses as the conglomerate "investors" and international vultures monopolize and buy up America.
Trump is one of them. And will always be. We are sold out.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:49 pm to djmed
Here is a crazy idea. How about we actually ask what this Board is proposing, before rejecting it?
From what I can tell, there is no intent to seize land from anyone. It is simply providing a means by which the state would bid against other potential buyers in the free market for agricultural land. Having an additional bidder would drive up the price to be paid to the seller … probably a White landowner, who is selling for reasons that seem good to him. If successful, the state would then lease that land to indigenous people.
Is that a good policy? I tend to think “no,“ because it artificially drives up land prices.
But this proposal is certainly not stealing anything from anyone, as the OP would have you believe.
From what I can tell, there is no intent to seize land from anyone. It is simply providing a means by which the state would bid against other potential buyers in the free market for agricultural land. Having an additional bidder would drive up the price to be paid to the seller … probably a White landowner, who is selling for reasons that seem good to him. If successful, the state would then lease that land to indigenous people.
Is that a good policy? I tend to think “no,“ because it artificially drives up land prices.
But this proposal is certainly not stealing anything from anyone, as the OP would have you believe.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:50 pm to Auburn1968
quote:Thank you for establishing that you did not bother to try to learn anything about this proposal before sharing your utterly-uninformed assessment of it.
They can just read the history of Zimbabwe's agricultural reparations.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:54 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
Meanwhile the Trump Admin is focused on what again
Um he closed down the southern border....you know....the place where all the illegals cross over to go to California to illegally vote for these crappy politicians?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 3:13 pm to PaperTiger
quote:
Um he closed down the southern border....you know....the place where all the illegals cross over to go to California to illegally vote for these crappy politicians?
Yeah. But with the corrupt, manipulated, rigged Dem-run voter-machines, they don't need much help, do they?
I'd give Trump credit for the 2025 border job. But alas, the damage is done IF we don't deport at least 50% of the illegals.
Honestly, Trump 2017-2020 couldn't have made the border lock-up a priority back then. Shoulda coulda woulda.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 4:33 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
It is simply providing a means by which the state would bid against other potential buyers
That’s all?
What a shite take that you put forth.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 4:40 pm to djmed
This idiot couldn’t run the neighborhood lemonade stand.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 4:49 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Yes. It is not the “land seizure scheme” described in the hysterical OP.
It is simply providing a means by which the state would bid against other potential buyersquote:
That’s all?
It is not even an exercise of eminent domain.
It is the state bidding for the purchase property in a free market transaction. Having an additional bidder involved in the process should actually work to increase the return for potential (voluntary) sellers, especially if that additional bidder is motivated by a statutory directive to purchase the property.
As I explained in detail above, I still think that this is a bad idea … but for reasons completely unrelated to the nonsense found in the OP.
Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or just your usual childish tantrum?
Popular
Back to top

10







