John Johnson

RT @BobWoodson: I hope that in the efforts of #OneDetroit, they empower individuals to transform their lives and communities inside out. Vi<U+2026>

RT @utahsenate: Since the city was first settled, Sen. Wilson<U+2019>s family has called Logan, Utah, home. He is also a third generation family b<U+2026>

@theleftshow @NormieUtah I am not a fan of the smart cities initiative. Look in the mirror for foolishness. When people drink the wokekool aid they tend to develop cognitive dissonance.

Claim 1: “This goes against America’s outdoor & conservation legacy.” Response: No, it doesn’t. The bill explicitly excludes national parks, monuments, wilderness areas, wild rivers, and lands with active grazing, mining, or recreation leases. We’re talking about small, isolated BLM and Forest Service parcels near population centers, not pristine backcountry. This is about solving a housing crisis—not selling off Yellowstone. And spare me the moral grandstanding. The federal government holds over 640 million acres. This amendment proposes selling up to 3 million acres over 5 years—less than 0.5% of federal holdings. If you can’t spare half a percent to help young families find homes, maybe it’s not conservation you care about—it’s control. Claim 2: “This undermines Trump’s conservation legacy.” Response: Actually, it extends Trump’s legacy. President Trump championed local control, permitting reform, and pro-growth housing policy. This amendment empowers localities to nominate parcels they want to develop—not Washington bureaucrats. That’s consistent with Trump’s entire deregulatory agenda. Let’s also remember: President Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act, expanded access to public lands, and fought the bureaucratic bloat that environmental groups now want to defend. Lee’s proposal doesn’t undo Trump’s legacy—it fulfills it. Claim 3: “The process has been slimy and shady.” Response: There’s nothing “slimy” about legislative transparency. The bill text is public. The amendment has been debated. What’s really happening here is that these groups are upset the bill didn’t come with a giant protest target on it. That’s not shady—that’s legislative normalcy. They complain there’s no map showing which lands will be sold. That’s because no parcels are pre-selected—the amendment allows local governments to nominate land based on community needs. That’s not a secret plan. That’s federalism in action. Claim 4: “China and foreign corporations will buy up our land.” Response: This is the most cynical kind of fear-mongering. Foreign land purchases are already regulated under federal law. If the concern is real, it can be addressed with a targeted restriction on foreign buyers. But they don’t want that—they want to kill the bill entirely. What they won’t say is that state and local governments get priority to purchase these parcels. The idea that the Chinese Communist Party is plotting to buy up half-acre parcels outside Price, Utah, is laughable. If they’re serious, propose a fix. If they’re not, stop spreading panic. Claim 5: “This is a horrible deal that won’t solve the housing crisis.” Response: No one is claiming this amendment by itself will solve the housing crisis. But it removes one of the biggest roadblocks: artificial scarcity created by federal land hoarding. Local communities can’t build homes if all the buildable land around them is locked in a federal straitjacket. Yes, we need permitting reform. Yes, we need zoning reform. But we also need land. This amendment gives communities the ability to access it—for housing, infrastructure, and community development. The claim that the revenue doesn’t go into conservation is irrelevant. It goes to the Treasury. And meanwhile, we get housing, jobs, and local growth. That’s a win. Claim 6: “It will distract from Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill.” Response: The only distraction here is from the activists trying to sabotage the bill with dishonest spin. Senator Lee’s amendment is targeted, limited, and solutions-oriented. If anything, it makes the larger package stronger by helping Americans afford to live where they work. The Left wants to frame this as a giveaway to corporations. In truth, it’s a reinvestment in American families, done through local leadership—not federal command-and-control.