Arkansas will not allow Communist China to control our land

 

What Governor Sanders Did on October 17, 2023

By SDC News One, IFS News Writers

APACHE JUNCTION, AZ [IFS] -- On October 17, 2023, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders held a high-profile press conference announcing that Arkansas would enforce a newly passed ban on certain foreign ownership of agricultural land—making the state the first to actively move against a major corporation under such a law.

The law in question was Act 636 of 2023, passed earlier that year, which prohibits companies tied to “foreign adversaries” from owning agricultural land in Arkansas. China is explicitly included under that definition.

At the press conference, Sanders announced the state was ordering Syngenta Seeds to divest approximately 160 acres of farmland in Craighead County, land used for seed research and development. The state also imposed a $280,000 civil penalty—the maximum allowed under the statute.

This was framed as a national-security issue, not an economic one.

“Arkansas will not allow Communist China to control our land,” Sanders said, casting the action as a defense against foreign influence rather than a routine regulatory enforcement.

Why Syngenta Was Targeted Specifically

Syngenta is not just any ag company.

• It is headquartered in Switzerland

• But it is fully owned by ChemChina, which later merged into Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise

• That ownership structure is not disputed

Under Act 636, that alone made Syngenta vulnerable.

Importantly:

Syngenta did not “shut down” in Arkansas.

What the state ordered was divestment of land ownership, not closure of operations nationwide.

However, losing research land in a key agricultural state has long-term operational consequences, particularly for seed development tied to local soil and climate conditions.

Did the Syngenta CEO “Expose” the Real Reason?

Here’s where viral headlines outrun reality.

Syngenta executives did push back publicly, but not in the way social media clips suggest.

Their core arguments were:

1. The land was purchased legally under prior law

2. The property posed no national security risk

3. The enforcement was political and retroactive in effect, even if technically prospective

Syngenta warned that the move could:

• Chill foreign investment in U.S. agriculture

• Disrupt agricultural research pipelines

• Invite retaliation against U.S. companies operating abroad

What they did not do:

• Admit to espionage

• Acknowledge wrongdoing

• “Confess” to a hidden motive

So when headlines claim the CEO “finally exposed the real reason,” that’s commentary, not disclosure.

The real reason was never secret:

ownership by a Chinese state-linked parent company collided with a new state law designed to make an example.

Why Arkansas, and Why Then?

Timing matters.

• Foreign land ownership—especially Chinese ownership—had become a national political flashpoint

• Sanders was early in her term and positioning herself as a hardline culture-and-security governor

• Arkansas wanted to be the test case, not a follower

Syngenta was an ideal target:

• High-profile

• Clearly covered by the statute

• Politically defensible to attack

No small family farms were involved.

No land seizures occurred.

This was about symbolic enforcement.

The Bigger Picture: What This Means for U.S. Agriculture

This wasn’t really about 160 acres.

It was about:

• States asserting power over global agribusiness

• The weaponization of land ownership laws in geopolitical rivalry

• Turning agriculture into a front line of U.S.–China tensions

Since Arkansas:

• Other states have accelerated similar bans

• Legal challenges are mounting

• Farm groups are split—supporting national security arguments while worrying about investment pullback

Bottom Line

• Syngenta wasn’t “shut down”—it was ordered to sell land

• No bombshell confession occurred

• The action was political, legal, and strategic, not exposé-driven

• Arkansas used Syngenta to draw a bright red line in the soil

This was less a corporate scandal than a signal flare—warning foreign-linked companies that the rules of American agriculture are being rewritten in real time.

And the farmers caught in the middle?

They’re about to find out what happens when geopolitics reaches the fence line.

- 30 -

How Arkansas Farmers Voted Their Way Out of Business

 

The Tyson Trap: How Contract Farming Became a One-Way Street

By SDC News One IFS News Writers Staff

By the early 2020s, the warning signs were everywhere. By 2025, the collapse was undeniable.

WEST MEMPHIS, AR [IFS] -- In towns across eastern and northwest Arkansas, farmers are selling land their families worked for generations. Equipment dealers sit quiet. Grain elevators operate on reduced hours. Poultry houses—once pitched as “guaranteed income”—stand empty, stripped of birds and value.

The explanation most often offered is global markets, inflation, or bad luck.

But the deeper truth is more uncomfortable: Arkansas agriculture is collapsing under a political and economic model rural voters helped build—one that concentrated power in corporate hands, stripped farmers of leverage, and hollowed out the protections that once kept small producers alive.

The Tyson Trap: How Contract Farming Became a One-Way Street

Nowhere is this clearer than in poultry.

Tyson Foods, headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas, pioneered the modern contract-farming system decades ago. On paper, it looked like a lifeline: farmers borrowed heavily to build chicken houses, while Tyson supplied the birds, feed, and processing.

In reality, it was a debt trap.

Farmers typically took on $1–2 million in loans to build poultry houses—often at Tyson’s encouragement—based on contracts that could be canceled at will. The farmers did not own the chickens, did not set prices, and did not control their income. They owned only the debt.

For years, farmers warned lawmakers that the system was abusive:

• Contracts were opaque

• Pay was determined by “tournament systems” that pitted farmers against one another

• Retaliation was common if farmers complained or spoke publicly

But when the Obama administration attempted to strengthen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, rural conservative politicians and agribusiness lobbyists fought back hard. Arkansas voters consistently elected lawmakers who promised to “get government out of farming.”

That promise delivered exactly what it said.

By the late 2010s, enforcement of farmer-protection rules had been gutted. Under the Trump administration, USDA rolled back key provisions that would have allowed farmers to sue for unfair treatment without proving industry-wide harm.

Then came the cancellations.

In the early 2020s, Tyson quietly terminated contracts with independent growers across Arkansas, citing “efficiency” and “market conditions.” Farmers who had borrowed millions were left holding facilities no bank would refinance and no competitor would buy.

Many lost everything.

John Deere and the Vanishing Cotton Economy

Further south and east, another collapse played out in cotton.

John Deere’s inability to sell even a single new cotton-picking machine in parts of Arkansas is not about technology. It’s about scale.

Modern cotton pickers cost $700,000 to over $1 million. They are built for massive operations farming tens of thousands of acres—not for the small and mid-size farms that once defined Arkansas’s Delta.

Why did that change?

Because federal farm policy, shaped by decades of conservative voting patterns, rewarded consolidation:

• Subsidies flowed disproportionately to the largest producers

• Antitrust enforcement was abandoned

• Right-to-repair laws were blocked, raising equipment costs

• Rural credit tightened while corporate finance expanded

As farms consolidated, smaller operators were pushed out. When they disappeared, so did the customer base for equipment dealers. Today, Deere machines sit unsold not because cotton is gone—but because only a handful of mega-operations remain, and they already own what they need.

The rest of the farmers are gone.

The Oklahoma Lawsuit: Pollution, Politics, and a Reckoning

The slow-burning fuse finally reached the courts in 2005, when the State of Oklahoma sued Tyson Foods, Cargill, and other poultry giants, accusing them of contaminating the Illinois River watershed with phosphorus runoff from poultry litter.

For twenty years, Arkansas politicians framed the lawsuit as an attack on farmers. Yard signs went up. Talk radio raged. Voters were told environmental regulation would “destroy rural livelihoods.”

But the lawsuit wasn’t against farmers. It was against corporations that had externalized waste costs onto land and water systems.

In 2023, after nearly two decades of litigation, courts largely sided with Oklahoma. The ruling forced cleanup, monitoring, and accountability—costs that companies quickly shifted downward.

Who paid?

Not Tyson executives.
Not shareholders.
Not the politicians who defended them.

The farmers did.

Many were required to change litter practices, invest in new systems, or stop production entirely—often without meaningful financial assistance. Some lost contracts altogether as integrators downsized to reduce liability.

The same voters who had rejected environmental safeguards now faced the harshest possible version of regulation: court-ordered compliance with no safety net.

The Political Feedback Loop That Crushed Rural Arkansas

This collapse didn’t happen overnight. It followed a predictable pattern:

1. Vote for deregulation and corporate-friendly policy

2. Corporations consolidate power

3. Farmers lose bargaining rights

4. Debt increases

5. Markets tighten

6. Corporations exit

7. Farmers collapse

At every stage, rural voters were told that government was the enemy—and that corporations were their partners.

The opposite proved true.

When farmers needed protection, government was absent.
When corporations needed defense, government was present.

What Happens to These Farmers Now

The outlook is bleak.

• Land consolidation accelerates as private equity and large operators buy distressed properties

• Former farmers become wage laborers or leave the region entirely

• Rural tax bases collapse, hollowing out schools, hospitals, and infrastructure

• Equipment, seed, and feed dealers close, eliminating remaining support networks

There is no cavalry coming.

The same politicians who presided over this collapse now offer culture-war explanations—blaming immigrants, environmentalists, or urban voters—while quietly approving the next wave of consolidation.

The Hard Truth

Arkansas farmers did not fail because they were lazy or inefficient.
They failed because they were systematically stripped of power—and voted for the people who did the stripping.

They were told:

• Deregulation meant freedom

• Corporate scale meant stability

• Environmental rules were tyranny

What they got was debt, dependency, and disposability.

The tragedy isn’t just economic. It’s political.

A farming culture that once prized independence traded it for ideology—and learned, too late, that markets without rules do not reward loyalty, history, or hard work.

They reward scale.
And scale does not need farmers—only land.

- 30 -

How an ICE Bathroom Raid Exposed the Limits of Law—and the Cost of Letting Them Blur

 

When the Stall Door Opened

By SDCNewsOne

Sunday Morning Long Read

On a weekday morning in September 2025, at approximately 9:30 a.m., production at the Cato Nutrition protein bar factory in New York State was interrupted—not by a fire alarm or machinery failure, but by the sound of boots.

Security footage later entered into court records shows multiple masked men wearing tactical gear and identifying themselves as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers entering the facility. Within minutes, several of those officers forced their way into the women’s restroom.

One officer kicked open a bathroom stall. Inside was a woman actively using the toilet.

“Pull your pants up,” an agent can be heard saying on the video.

The footage—sealed for months and only made public in late December 2025 through federal court filings—has since ignited national outrage. Not only because of the humiliation inflicted on the woman inside that stall, but because of what the raid reveals about the widening gap between law enforcement authority and constitutional law in the United States.

What ICE Claimed—And What the Warrant Actually Said

According to sworn statements filed by Cato Nutrition’s owners, ICE agents asserted at the scene that they possessed a warrant for a violent felon believed to be on the premises. That claim mattered. Under the Fourth Amendment, the scope of a warrant strictly limits what officers are legally allowed to do.

But when attorneys later examined the document ICE actually carried, a crucial detail emerged:

The warrant did not authorize the detention or arrest of any individual.

Instead, it was an administrative inspection warrant—a narrow legal tool allowing agents to enter the building and seize employment-related documents, such as I-9 forms. It did not permit searches of private spaces. It did not allow the detention of workers. And it most certainly did not authorize armed male agents to break into a women’s bathroom and open a closed stall.

In legal terms, this matters enormously.

Administrative warrants do not carry the same authority as criminal warrants signed by a judge upon probable cause. Courts have repeatedly held that they do not permit searches of private areas or seizures of persons. ICE officers are trained on this distinction.

Which raises the question:

If they knew the limits of the warrant, why did they cross them?

The Exposure

The incident might never have reached public view were it not for ongoing litigation involving labor practices and workplace enforcement. As part of discovery, defense attorneys subpoenaed security footage and internal communications.

That material was reviewed on The Damage Report in late December by hosts John Iadarola and Brett Erlich, who walked viewers through the footage frame by frame, explaining what ICE is legally allowed to do—and what it clearly did not have the right to do that morning.

“This isn’t a gray area,” Erlich noted during the segment. “This is a straight-up violation.”

Iadarola went further: “If any other group of masked men did this, we’d call it a crime. The only difference here is the badge.”

Oversight in Name Only

At the time of the raid, ICE was operating under the Department of Homeland Security led by Secretary Kristi Noem, appointed during President Donald Trump’s second administration. While ICE has long faced criticism across multiple administrations, civil liberties organizations note a marked increase in aggressive interior enforcement actions since early 2025, alongside reduced transparency and fewer disciplinary announcements.

As of January 2026, DHS has not publicly confirmed any suspensions or internal investigations related to the Cato Nutrition raid.

That silence has become part of the story.

Women’s Spaces—and Who Gets Protected

The raid also collides with another national debate: who is allowed in women’s spaces, and under what authority.

Here, the answer is grimly ironic. While political rhetoric increasingly frames women’s bathrooms as sites needing protection, the reality captured on that September morning shows armed adult men forcing their way into a women’s restroom, opening a stall occupied by a woman who was not accused of any crime.

No emergency.

No imminent threat.

No lawful warrant authorizing that intrusion.

For critics, the contradiction is impossible to ignore.

The Law Is Clear—Even If Enforcement Isn’t

Legal scholars point out that if a civilian—or even a local police officer without proper authority—had done the same thing, the result would likely include criminal charges, civil liability, and termination.

In states like New Hampshire, where RSA 627:4 (“Stand Your Ground”) removes the duty to retreat when facing imminent serious harm, the legal risks of such a raid could be catastrophic. An armed entry into a women’s restroom by unidentified masked men could reasonably be perceived as a violent felony in progress.

The law allows self-defense.

The Constitution limits government power.

The problem arises when federal agencies act as if neither applies.

A Pattern, Not an Anomaly

Civil rights attorneys stress that this incident is not isolated. It fits into a broader pattern in which ICE agents:

• Misrepresent the scope of warrants

• Enter private spaces without judicial authorization

• Detain individuals during administrative inspections

• Rely on intimidation rather than lawful process

Each incident, taken alone, can be dismissed as a mistake. Taken together, they suggest something else entirely: normalized overreach.

The Cost of Looking Away

The Cato Nutrition bathroom raid forces an uncomfortable reckoning. Not just about immigration enforcement, but about security itself.

Security is not only borders.

It is not only planes or prisons or patrols.

It is the assurance that a woman can use a restroom at work without armed men kicking open the door. It is the promise that warrants mean what they say. It is the idea that power still answers to law.

When that breaks down, the damage does not stop at one factory or one stall door. It spreads—quietly, then suddenly—into every space where rights are supposed to hold.

And once lost, those protections are not easily reclaimed.

- 30 -

The Larger Story Here Isn’t Just Nicki Minaj

The larger story here isn’t just Nicki Minaj

WEST SACRAMENTO CA [IFS] -- Nicki Minaj’s latest political turn has landed like a thunderclap—and not in a vacuum. Her praise for President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest didn’t just surprise fans; it collided head-on with years of her own public messaging and the expectations many in the Black community place on cultural power brokers of her size.

Calling Trump and Vance “handsome” and “dashing,” and describing the administration as having “heart and soul,” Minaj sounded less like a celebrity dabbling in politics and more like a full-throated surrogate. The moment became even more combustible when she appeared to refer to Vance as an “assassin,” a slip that immediately ignited scrutiny in a hyper-charged political climate where language is parsed frame by frame. Even if unintended, the gaffe underscored how unforgiving the terrain is when entertainers step directly into partisan spaces.

What’s driving the backlash isn’t simply that Minaj expressed a conservative view. It’s the apparent reversal. In 2016, she openly criticized Trump—most notably in “Black Barbies,” which mocked his image and politics. For years afterward, her posture read as skeptical at best, detached at worst. That history makes the current embrace feel abrupt, even transactional, to critics who see a sharp break rather than an ideological evolution.

That’s where the speculation comes in. Some observers have pointed to the legal troubles of her husband, Kenneth Petty, suggesting Minaj’s politics may be influenced by proximity to the criminal legal system and the power structures that govern it. There’s no evidence she’s said as much herself, but the theory persists because it fits a broader pattern: celebrities recalibrating politics when policy becomes personal. Whether fair or not, the speculation speaks to a deeper distrust—one rooted in how often Black communities have watched famous figures shift allegiances without accountability.

Minaj’s response has been defiant. She’s insisted on her right to independent thought and rejected the idea that Black public figures owe political conformity to their audience. Deactivating her Instagram account amid the backlash only amplified the sense of rupture—less a cooling-off period than a line drawn in the sand.

The larger story here isn’t just Nicki Minaj. It’s about celebrity influence in a polarized era. When artists with massive platforms move politically, they don’t just express opinions—they reallocate attention, legitimacy, and emotional capital. Fans aren’t wrong to interrogate that shift, especially when it runs counter to past statements and lived community realities.

Minaj is correct about one thing: she has the right to her views. But audiences also have the right to question them. In 2025, political neutrality from cultural giants is rare—and political whiplash even rarer. When it happens, it doesn’t just spark controversy. It exposes the fault lines between fame, accountability, and the communities that helped build the platform in the first place.

- 30 -

How Redaction Can Be Reversed

 "Un-redact" software generally refers to tools designed to recover text from documents where the redaction was applied improperly as a visual overlay (e.g., using a black drawing tool) rather than a permanent removal of the underlying data. 

How Redaction Can Be Reversed

• Visual Overlays: If sensitive information was "redacted" by simply using a drawing tool to place a black bar over the text or changing the font color to white, the original text is still in the document's data layer. Standard PDF editors or simple copy-paste functions can often reveal this content.
• Pixelation: Using pixelation to obscure text offers false protection, as the original text can sometimes be recovered using specialized tools that reverse the pixelation effect.
• Metadata and Hidden Information: Improperly redacted documents may still contain sensitive data in hidden layers or metadata, which can be uncovered using specific document inspection features in PDF software. 

Tools for Potential Data Recovery (from Improper Redactions)

Tools for recovering poorly redacted information are often found in the cybersecurity or investigative journalism domains, and generally come with a strong warning to only use them on data you have the legal right to access. 

• Bishop Fox's Unredacter: A tool specifically designed to demonstrate the weaknesses of pixelation as a redaction method.
• GitHub Scripts: Various scripts, like unredact.py, are available on GitHub that operate directly on the PDF file to extract text that was not permanently removed, but merely hidden by a weak redaction mark.
• Standard PDF Editors: For simple visual overlays, software like Adobe Acrobat Pro can sometimes be used to select and delete the redaction mark itself, revealing the text underneath, provided the original content was not permanently removed from the file structure. 

Proper Redaction is Permanent 

It is important to note that properly redacted documents cannot be unredacted. Secure redaction software permanently removes the content from the document's structure, metadata, and all hidden layers. Once applied and saved, this process is irreversible to ensure data privacy and security. 

To ensure permanent redaction, always use professional-grade tools like those offered by Adobe Acrobat, Redactable, or Tungsten Automation, which are designed for secure and permanent information removal.

LEE EDWARD ELVERSON - THE OHIO COLLECTION

 

###########

The Mulford Act - Black Gun Ownership and the Long Afterlife of Racialized Policing

When it's Black Gun Owners, the police openly cite the Black Panthers as justification.  Armed Black citizens, even when lawful and disciplined, are suddenly framed as an unacceptable threat used by Law Enforcement.  

"The police will give a Black driver a gun, even if he does not have one at all.  Black People die at the hands of the police on fake charges with or without firearms. A traffic stop is a fatal stop by racist white police in the system."

The Paper Trap is born!

The Modern Pattern for Police Officers today is that a traffic stop becomes a criminal stop. The First thing that the officer asks is if you have a Gun (not a firearm) in your possession, before they ask you for your driver's license, insurance or vehicle registration.  The police will give a Black driver a gun, even if he does not have one at all.  Black People die at the hands of the police on fake charges.  They do damage to you if you survive the stop and have lawful firearms when you are arrested.  THAT ARREST RECORD IS FOREVER, EVEN IF YOU ARE LEGAL.-khs

By SDC News One IFS NewsWriters

WEST SACRAMENTO CA [IFS] -- On April 20, 1967, a group of Black men and women stood calmly on the steps of the California State Capitol, rifles held safely at their sides, law books in their hands. They were members of the Black Panther Party, and they were doing something both legal and deliberate: openly carrying firearms while observing police conduct, exactly as California law then allowed.

Within months, that right would be erased.

The Mulford Act—rushed through the legislature and signed by Governor Ronald Reagan—banned the public carrying of loaded firearms. Its purpose was rarely obscured. Lawmakers openly cited the Panthers as justification. Armed Black citizens, even when lawful and disciplined, were suddenly framed as an unacceptable threat.

Historians now point to the Mulford Act as one of the clearest examples of gun regulation driven by racialized fear. Less often examined is its afterlife: how that fear continues to shape police encounters with armed Black civilians across the country today.

The Modern Pattern

In theory, gun laws are race-neutral. In practice, enforcement tells a more complicated story.

Across multiple states between 2022 and 2025, court records and civil rights filings show a recurring pattern: Black gun owners arrested or charged despite compliance with carry laws, licensing requirements, and disclosure rules. In many cases, charges were later dismissed. The legal system quietly corrected itself—after lives were disrupted.

In Ohio (2023), a licensed Black concealed-carry holder was arrested during a traffic stop after voluntarily disclosing his firearm, as required by state law at the time. Dashcam footage later showed no threatening behavior. Charges were dropped. The arrest record remained.

In Georgia (2024), a Black homeowner legally carrying on his own property was detained at gunpoint after a neighbor reported a “suspicious armed man.” Police later acknowledged no law had been broken. No charges were filed. No apology was issued.

In Illinois (2025), a Black delivery driver with a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card was charged with unlawful possession after an officer claimed “confusion” about transport rules. Prosecutors dismissed the case weeks later, citing compliance with the statute.

None of these cases made national headlines. None ended in convictions. All carried consequences.

---

https://thegrio.com/2020/07/28/black-gun-ownership-rises-after-pandemic-protests/

Discretion, Not Statute

Legal scholars emphasize that modern gun enforcement often turns not on what the law says, but on how officers interpret “risk.”

Terms such as reasonable suspicion, officer safety, and furtive movement appear repeatedly in arrest reports. These standards give police wide latitude—and courts routinely defer to officers’ stated perceptions of danger.

That discretion, critics argue, is not applied evenly.

“An armed white civilian is often presumed lawful until proven otherwise,” said one civil rights attorney who has represented gun owners in multiple states. “An armed Black civilian is often treated as a problem to be controlled first and sorted out later.”

This dynamic is not accidental. American policing developed alongside laws designed to restrict Black movement, Black assembly, and Black self-defense. The Mulford Act did not invent that history—it codified it for a modern era.

What ‘Following the Law’ Looks Like in Reality

For Black gun owners, legal compliance does not always function as protection. Instead, it becomes a minimum threshold—one that still may not prevent detention or arrest.

Firearms instructors and attorneys who work with Black gun owners increasingly frame their guidance around realism rather than reassurance.

Know the law, they advise—but also know how the law has been enforced.

That distinction matters.

SIDEBAR: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

(Print Reference Guide)

If You Are a Lawful Gun Owner:

• Know your state’s carry and transport rules
  Open carry, concealed carry, vehicle transport, and disclosure requirements vary widely and change frequently.

• Disclosure rules matter
  Some states require immediate disclosure to police; others prohibit it unless asked. Saying too much—or too little—can escalate encounters.

• You are not required to consent to searches
  You may clearly state: “I do not consent to any searches.”

• You have the right to remain silent
  You may provide identification and required disclosures, then state: “I choose to remain silent and would like an attorney.”

• Documentation helps later, not always immediately
  Dashcams, body cams, and permits may not prevent arrest—but they often determine outcomes in court.

• Have legal support identified in advance
  Know which attorneys handle firearms and civil rights cases in your area.

Rights, Unevenly Applied

The Second Amendment promises a right. The Fourteenth promises equal protection. Yet history shows that American gun law has often expanded and contracted along racial lines.

The Mulford Act was not an anomaly. It was a warning—one that echoes whenever lawful behavior becomes suspicious because of who is exercising it.

For Black gun owners today, the question is rarely “Is this legal?”

It is “How will this be interpreted?”

That gap—between written law and lived reality—is where fear persists, arrests occur, and trust erodes.

Understanding that gap is not cynicism. It is survival knowledge.

THERE IS NO ONE COMING 

TO HELP US... NO ONE.

https://10f1529d27154a9ca812f4ce87b55550.elf.site

- 30 -