the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
WHITE PAPER: Reclaiming U.S. Farmland from Chinese Ownership
UPDATED - 4/14/25 1:24pm EST
post photo preview

Introduction: Reclaiming American Soil from Foreign Control

If the federal government can seize the private property of American citizens under eminent domain for a highway or a commercial development, then there is no constitutional or moral reason it cannot reclaim farmland from entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party. The Founders gave us tools to defend our nation, not just with armies, but with common sense. Foreign adversaries owning U.S. soil (especially near our military bases, critical infrastructure, and food production) is not merely a policy concern; it is a clear and present danger.

This white paper presents a constitutional and legal framework to expedite the reclamation of American farmland from Chinese control. It leverages the foreign commerce power, national security statutes, and the President’s emergency authorities to ensure that America’s enemies do not hold our land under our flag. This is not a question of partisanship; it is a question of sovereignty, security, and survival.

The Daily Mail has released a new map breaking down the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) most recent data on Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland, which has seen a dramatic increase since 2010.

 


A Constitutional Strategy for Immediate Federal Action

I. Executive Summary

Foreign ownership of U.S. farmland by adversarial powers, chiefly the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and state-backed corporations, poses a growing national security threat. This paper outlines a rapid federal strategy, rooted in the Constitution, to reclaim such land without delay, drawing from the Foreign Commerce Clause, national defense powers, and historical precedent.

II. Constitutional Foundations

1. Foreign Commerce ClauseArticle I, Section 8, Clause 3

  • Congress has exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

  • Includes transactions such as land purchases by foreign entities.

2. National Security and Executive PowerArticle II

  • The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is charged with protecting the homeland.

  • Land owned by adversaries near sensitive infrastructure justifies direct executive action.

3. Takings ClauseFifth Amendment

  • Applies only when property is taken for public use and from persons under U.S. protection.

  • Foreign adversaries are not entitled to constitutional protections where national defense is implicated.

III. Immediate Federal Tools & Pathways

A. Executive Orders Under IEEPA

Legal Basis: International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1707

  • Allows the President to block, freeze, or seize property of foreign entities during a national emergency.

  • Past uses: Freezing Iranian, North Korean, and Russian assets.

Recommended Action:

  • Declare a National Emergency under IEEPA.

  • Issue an Executive Order targeting all farmland held by:

    • Chinese government-affiliated entities.

    • Corporations with substantial CCP ownership or direction.

  • Immediate asset freeze, pending investigation and divestment orders.

B. Legislative Expansion of CFIUS

Legal Basis: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA, 2018)

  • CFIUS reviews foreign acquisitions affecting national security.

  • Can already block land purchases near military bases.

Legislative Proposal:

  • Amend FIRRMA to:

    • Mandate review of all past farmland acquisitions by Chinese entities.

    • Authorize retroactive divestment.

    • Criminal penalties for concealment or shell company evasion.

C. Emergency Use of the Defense Production Act (DPA)

Legal Basis: Defense Production Act of 1950

  • Authorizes the federal government to prioritize resources for national defense.

  • Includes infrastructure, agriculture, and logistics.

Proposal:

  • Amend to classify U.S. farmland as critical infrastructure.

  • Allow for emergency federal acquisition or forced divestment.

IV. Legal Precedents: Supreme Court Support for Federal Takings

1. Berman v. Parker (1954)

  • Government may seize private property for public use under broad definitions of "public interest."

2. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

  • Redistribution of land ownership deemed a valid public use.

3. Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

  • Controversially upheld taking private property for economic development.

  • Though not favored by conservatives, it affirms broad federal takings power.

Implication: If liberal justices upheld Kelo, a national security-driven seizure from a foreign adversary is even more defensible.

V. Strategy for Compensation

  • No automatic compensation for foreign adversaries under national security exceptions.

  • If Congress chooses to offer payment:

    • Must be discretionary.

    • Based on strategic calculus, not constitutional requirements.

VI. Summary of Recommendations

 

VII. Constitutional Rationale: Why the U.S. Can Reclaim Farmland from Foreign Adversaries

Eminent Domain and the Fifth Amendment

Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use, provided just compensation is paid. This doctrine has been upheld in cases like:

  • Berman v. Parker (1954)

  • Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

In these cases, the government was allowed to take land from American citizens for purposes like economic development or public improvement, even when those purposes were indirect.

So the Question Must Be Asked:

If the U.S. government can take farmland from its own citizens for something as vague as "public benefit"... then why should it hesitate to take land from entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party (our geopolitical rival) for the defense of the nation?

This is not just a legal justification—it's a national imperative.

Foreign Adversaries Have No Greater Rights Than American Citizens

Foreign state-affiliated corporations do not enjoy greater constitutional protection than American citizens. In fact, they enjoy fewer protections when:

  • They are operating under foreign influence,

  • Their actions pose a national security risk,

  • Or their property is subject to emergency wartime or national defense powers.

Precedents for Seizing Enemy Property

  • World War II: The U.S. seized German and Japanese-owned property under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

  • Iran (1979) and Russia (2022): The U.S. froze and seized assets of foreign governments and oligarchs involved in hostile actions.

Bottom Line:

The Constitution allows us to take land from Americans under strict conditions. But when it comes to land controlled by hostile foreign powers, the bar for action is lower, not higher. This is especially true under emergency powers and national defense doctrine.

VII. In the end: the Founder's Take...

The Founding Fathers feared foreign influence as a threat to liberty and sovereignty. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 68, we must guard against "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." Reclaiming American farmland from CCP hands is not only prudent; it is constitutionally imperative.


This is not a partisan issue. It is a question of sovereignty, security, and survival. The Constitution was not written to tie our hands in the face of foreign aggression; it was written to empower us to defend this nation. We cannot allow our farmland, our food supply, our infrastructure, our very soil to be owned or controlled by those who seek our decline. Now is the time for bold, lawful, and decisive action. Reclaim the land. Protect the Republic. And remember: no enemy has the right to what generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve.

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36
No, China Is Not Surging Ahead of the U.S. Economy

The recent claim that China’s economy grew by 5.4% in the first quarter of 2025 while the U.S. economy contracted by 0.3% may be factually based on official releases, but it is misleading when used to suggest China’s economy is outperforming the U.S. in a meaningful or sustainable way. China's reported growth figure originates from its National Bureau of Statistics, an entity under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Given the lack of transparency and historical concerns over data reliability, these figures should be approached with caution. Independent analyses have highlighted inconsistencies in China's economic reporting, raising questions about the veracity of such growth claims.

In contrast, the U.S. economy's 0.3% contraction in Q1 2025 was primarily influenced by a temporary surge in imports ahead of newly implemented tariffs, which widened the trade deficit. Despite this, core economic indicators remain robust. The labor market added 177,000 jobs in April, surpassing expectations, with ...

post photo preview
Trump’s Tariffs and the April Jobs Report: Who’s Really Winning?

It looks like President Trump knows exactly what he’s doing,...again. The April jobs report just dropped, and despite all the noise from the media and Wall Street “experts,” the numbers tell a different story.

After Trump’s bold “Liberation Day” move (slapping back with reciprocal tariffs) the markets had a brief scare. But guess what? The U.S. labor market held strong. The economy added 177,000 new jobs, blowing past the 138,000 forecast. Unemployment? Steady at 4.2%. Wages? Still growing.

This isn’t luck. It’s the result of strategic leadership rooted in real-world economics. Tariffs that level the playing field. Policies that put American workers first. The media will try to spin this, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Trump’s done it before, and he’s doing it again. He's bringing jobs back, standing up for American industry, and proving the critics wrong.

-the Conservative TAKE contributor

America Strikes Back at China with a Shovel, Not a Sword

The United States just signed a minerals deal with Ukraine that could change the balance of power, not on the battlefield, but in the boardroom. While this agreement won’t send U.S. troops to defend Ukraine, it could help liberate America from a different kind of threat: dependence on China for critical minerals.

The Deal at a Glance

Ukraine, sitting on a treasure trove of resources: lithium, titanium, graphite, and rare earths, has agreed to share half the revenues from these state-owned minerals into a joint investment fund with the United States. In return, the U.S. gets priority access to these vital materials and a stake in rebuilding Ukraine’s economy.

No soldiers, no weapons, no NATO entanglements just a strategic economic alliance.

Why It Matters

Right now, the U.S. relies heavily on China for materials essential to our national defense and tech industries. That’s a vulnerability no serious country can afford. This deal helps us:

  • Break Beijing’s chokehold on rare earth supplies.
  • ...
post photo preview
post photo preview
Golden Dome: Trump Looks to Fulfill Reagan’s Star Wars Legacy

May 20, 2025 – Washington, D.C.
In a dramatic announcement delivered alongside top military brass and political allies, former President Donald Trump unveiled the Golden Dome Missile Defense System, a sweeping new initiative to construct a multi-layered, next-generation shield capable of protecting the U.S. mainland from hypersonic missiles, orbital weapons, cruise missiles, and ballistic threats.

“This is the system that finishes what Reagan started,” Trump declared, invoking the legacy of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), often dubbed Star Wars. The Golden Dome promises a “near-100% interception rate” and aims to be fully operational within three years, just before the end of Trump’s potential second term.

Here’s what the project actually involves, minus the political flair and how feasible it really is based on current tech and strategic trends.

US President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement about the Golden Dome missile defense shield (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

 

A Multi-Domain Shield: Land, Sea, and Space

Space-Based Interceptors

One of the boldest claims is the use of space-based interceptors, marking a major shift from traditional ground- or sea-launched defenses. These systems would attempt to engage missiles in their boost or midcourse phase, offering faster reaction times and wider global coverage. While technically feasible, this reopens debate around the militarization of space and would likely violate the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Past concepts like “Rods from God” (i.e. tungsten projectiles dropped from orbit at kinetic speeds) are being reevaluated as part of this effort. Such weapons require no explosives and could strike with nuclear-level force. However, they’ve never been deployed and face enormous technical and cost hurdles.

Ground-Based Missile Silos

Trump’s speech referenced silo-based interceptors across the homeland (much like Cold War-era ICBM fields) designed to launch anti-missile vehicles at incoming threats. These will likely be based on upgraded versions of existing systems like the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors in Alaska and California.

These interceptors are intended to engage threats in midcourse (the longest phase of flight, where missiles travel through space) but effectiveness against decoys and advanced hypersonic vehicles remains uncertain.

Naval and Mobile Assets

The U.S. Navy’s Aegis-equipped destroyers will remain a central component, especially for mobile regional defense. These ships, equipped with SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors, are proven against short- and medium-range ballistic threats.

Expect additional investments in THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and Patriot systems for terminal-phase intercepts, especially near major cities and critical infrastructure.

Next-Gen Technologies in Play

Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs)

The Golden Dome will include laser and microwave systems designed to target drones, hypersonic vehicles, and missiles during their final approach. These systems:

  • Operate at speed of light

  • Offer unlimited ammunition (limited only by power supply)

  • Are ideal for swarm defense scenarios

The Navy’s HELIOS program already deploys 60–150kW lasers. Future iterations could exceed 500kW, capable of engaging high-speed, maneuvering targets from land, sea, or space.

AI-Driven Coordination

With saturation attacks increasingly likely, the Golden Dome will rely heavily on artificial intelligence for:

  • Sensor fusion from hundreds of satellites, ships, and radars

  • Real-time decision-making for threat prioritization

  • Coordinated intercepts across domains

This is the “kill web” concept: decentralized, automated defense networks built to withstand jamming, decoys, and saturation without collapsing under the complexity.

A Layered Defense – Iron Dome, but Supersized

While Trump’s comparison to Israel’s Iron Dome got attention, experts are quick to point out that the U.S. version would be massively more complex. Instead of a short-range rocket shield over a small country, the Golden Dome would have to defend:

  • 3.8 million square miles of homeland

  • Against threats from any global vector

  • In multiple flight phases: boost, midcourse, and terminal

The architecture will include:

  • Space-based sensors with IR and quantum capabilities

  • High-speed interceptors based on THAAD, Arrow, and GBI tech

  • Non-kinetic options like lasers and electronic warfare

  • A fully networked battlefield connecting ships, silos, satellites, and command centers

The Timeline and the Money

  • Initial funding: $25 billion, part of a new “big, beautiful” defense bill

  • Total estimated cost: $175 billion over a decade, possibly more

  • Operational goal: Fully active by 2028

The program will be overseen by General Mike Goodline, a Space Force veteran with a background in missile warning and procurement. Trump emphasized Goodline’s unanimous support from the defense community, saying, “There’s only one man for the job.”

The Strategic Stakes

If successful, the Golden Dome would:

  • Undermine traditional nuclear deterrence by making first strikes less viable

  • Trigger international blowback, particularly from China and Russia

  • Redefine American homeland defense in an age of hypersonic and orbital threats

Trump acknowledged the risks but framed them as necessary:

“This is something that goes a long way toward the survival of this great country. It's an evil world out there.”

In the end...

Golden Dome is not just another defense program;  it's a bet on transforming the fundamentals of global conflict. With orbital interceptors, directed energy, AI command networks, and massive funding, it aims to put the U.S. years ahead in homeland defense.

Whether it’s a technical moonshot or the next major leap in military deterrence, the clock is ticking, and the threats are already flying.




Sources:

  • “Trump Unveils ‘Golden Dome’ Missile Defense Initiative” – Transcript and announcement from May 20, 2025
  • “The Department of the Air Force in 2050” – U.S. Air Force strategic planning document
  • “Missile Defense Review” (2023) – U.S. Department of Defense
  • “China’s PLARF and the Future of Missile Warfare” – Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
  • “Directed Energy Weapons: Pentagon’s Next Frontier” – Congressional Research Service
  • “The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons and U.S. Strategic Response” – RAND Corporation
  • “Space-Based Missile Defense: Risks and Opportunities” – Union of Concerned Scientists
  • “Aegis BMD & SM-3 Interceptor Fact Sheet” – Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
  • “The Iron Dome and Multi-Layered Defense: Lessons from Israel” – Israeli Ministry of Defense
  • “Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems: The Return of an Old Threat” – Federation of American Scientists
  • “Weaponization of Space and the Outer Space Treaty Loopholes” – International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
  • “Lasers, Rails, and Rods from God: Exotic U.S. Weapon Programs” – Defense One
  • “Kill Webs and Networked Warfare: The Future of U.S. Missile Defense” – MITRE Corporation
Lockheed Martin

 

Read full Article
Trump the Liberator: Meme, Myth, and the Triumph Over Globalism

In a world drowning in cynicism, sometimes it takes a meme to tell the truth.

That’s exactly what happened when Donald Trump posted an image of himself dressed as the Pope. To the untrained eye, it was trolling. To the regime media, it was scandal. But to millions who’ve awakened to the crumbling lies of globalism, it was a signal—the rising of a new age.

Dr. Steve Turley, in a sweeping cultural analysis, revealed what lies beneath the surface of the so-called "Pope Trump" meme: a civilizational declaration, a mythic realignment, and a spiritual revolt against globalist tyranny.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Game-Changer: D.C. Circuit’s 5-4-3 Ruling Reshapes Legal Battlefield for Trump—Slams Door on Judicial Overreach Nationwide
UPDATED - 5/4/25 7:54am

On May 3, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant ruling favoring the Trump administration by staying a lower court's injunction that had mandated the rehiring of Voice of America (VOA) employees and the resumption of certain broadcasting operations. This decision underscores critical jurisdictional boundaries and reinforces the separation of powers as delineated in the U.S. Constitution.

Background

In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order initiating substantial cuts to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the parent organization of VOA. This action led to the placement of over 1,000 employees on administrative leave and the suspension of VOA's broadcasting activities for the first time in its 80-year history. Subsequently, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Trump administration to reinstate the employees and restore broadcasting services, asserting that the executive order likely exceeded presidential authority and infringed upon congressional appropriations. 

Appellate Court's Rationale

The D.C. Circuit Court, in a 2-1 decision, stayed Judge Lamberth's injunction, emphasizing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the employment and grant-related decisions in question. The appellate court highlighted that:

  • Employment disputes involving federal employees are typically under the purview of the Merit Systems Protection Board, not federal district courts.

  • Disputes concerning federal grants fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

Furthermore, the court noted that the absence of a bond accompanying the injunction posed potential irreparable harm to the government, reinforcing the necessity for judicial restraint in such matters.

The Founders’ View: Constitutional Restraint and Separation of Powers

The D.C. Circuit’s ruling finds solid grounding not only in legal precedent but in the constitutional philosophy of the Founding Fathers. The Founders were deeply concerned with restraining centralized power and ensuring a clear separation between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

  1. Federalist No. 47 (James Madison): Madison wrote that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” By this, he emphasized the danger of any one branch — including the judiciary — encroaching upon the rightful domain of another. The ruling respects this principle by reinforcing the boundaries of judicial authority over executive personnel and spending decisions.

  2. Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton): Hamilton stressed that the judiciary must remain “the least dangerous” branch, possessing “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” The D.C. Circuit’s emphasis on jurisdiction aligns with Hamilton’s view — courts must not usurp powers assigned to Congress or the Executive, especially through injunctions that compel executive action.

  3. Article I, Section 9 and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: These clauses make clear that the power of the purse belongs solely to Congress, while the power to appoint and remove federal officers lies primarily with the Executive. Any judicial interference with these powers not expressly granted by statute undermines the constitutional structure the Founders so carefully crafted.

Implications

This ruling has broader implications beyond the immediate case:

  • Reaffirmation of Separation of Powers: The decision reinforces the principle that each branch of government must operate within its constitutionally assigned boundaries.

  • Limitation on Judicial Overreach: By delineating the appropriate jurisdictions for employment and grant disputes, the court curtailed potential judicial overreach into executive functions.

  • Precedent for Future Cases: This ruling may influence the adjudication of similar cases where the judiciary is asked to intervene in executive decisions concerning federal employment and funding.

Legal analyst Margot Cleveland remarked that the court's decision is a substantial victory for the Trump administration, emphasizing that attempts to circumvent congressional limitations on district court jurisdiction through creative legal theories are impermissible.

In summary, the D.C. Circuit's ruling underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional frameworks and the designated roles of each governmental branch, particularly in matters involving federal employment and appropriations.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals