This May Be A Necessary Move

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article titled, “Police Consider Charging Crowd Confronted By Armed St. Louis Couple With Trespassing, Intimidation.”

The article reports:

A group of protesters in Missouri who famously found themselves facing an armed husband and wife may soon be facing multiple charges.

As a group of demonstrators marched toward the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home on Sunday night to demand that she resign, they marched through an area that was closed off to the public, where a husband-wife team stood outside with a rifle and a gun to protect their property.

The demonstrators had to break through a closed gate to access the gated community. At that point, they could be charged with trespassing. Some of the demonstrators were armed and issued threats to the homeowners. The incident was caught on video via a cell phone, so there is recorded evidence of the event.

The article notes:

As noted by St. Louis Today, Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that Mark McCloskey and his wife Patricia did not break any laws because the street where they live, Portland Place, is a private street. He added that the couple is protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

FindLaw explains, “This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to protect yourself or others against an attack. Missouri’s law is more extensive than those of other states because it allows you to use deadly force to attack an intruder to protect any private property that you own, in addition to yourself or another individual. This means that if someone illegally enters your front porch or backyard, you can use deadly force against them without retreating first.”

“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” said Walker, adding, “There’s no right to protest on those streets. The protesters thought they had a right to protest, but as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there. … It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact, if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing.”

The article concludes:

An attorney for the McCloskeys, Albert S. Watkins, said of his clients, who are both attorneys, “Their entire practice tenure as counsel (has) been addressing the needs of the downtrodden, for whom the fight for civil rights is necessary. My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites … (but) two individuals exhibited such force and violence destroying a century-plus old wrought iron gate, ripping and twisting the wrought iron that was connected to a rock foundation, and then proceeded to charge at and toward and speak threateningly to Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey.”

Laws vary from state to state, so homeowners need to be careful about the actions they take. In many states, using a gun to protect your property is not protected–you are only allowed to use a gun if you are at risk. However, I would think that if a mob with a history of burning things down approached you, you might feel that you were at risk.

This case may be one way to push back against those who are abusing the right to protest. The right to protest is protected by the Constitution. The right to loot and riot is not protected.

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses…

On Wednesday, The New York Post posted an article about a recent statement by New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones.

The article reports:

New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones argued that rioters destroying property is “not violence” — and referring to the crimes as such goes against what’s moral.

“Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. To use the same language to describe those two things, I think is really not moral to do that,” Hannah-Jones, who is Pulitzer Prize winner, told CBSN.

Hannah-Jones, who writes for the Times Magazine, said the language should be reserved for crimes such as the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis after a white cop, Derek Chauvin, held his knee on Floyd’s neck for several minutes.

“Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body,” Hannah-Jones told the outlet.

Her comments come as cities across the nation have been locked in days of heated protests over the death of Floyd — some of which have resulted in vandalism, looting and arson.

“Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times,” she said.

I wonder if she would make that same statement if her family had a business that was destroyed or if the looters came to her residence. What happened to George Floyd was a crime. Committing another crime does not make it right.

Just In Case You Haven’t Heard The Full Story Yet…

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article that includes a statement by United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan. As you probably know, the mainstream media accused President Trump of having peaceful protesters dispersed with tear gas so that he could walk across Lafayette Park and the National Mall.

This is the statement from the Park Police:

The United States Park Police (USPP) is committed to the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. However, this past weekend’s demonstrations at Lafayette Park and across the National Mall included activities that were not part of a peaceful protest, which resulted in injuries to USPP officers in the line of duty, the destruction of public property and the defacing of memorials and monuments. During four days of demonstrations, 51 members of the USPP were injured; of those, 11 were transported to the hospital and released and three were admitted.

Multiple agencies assisted the USPP in responding to and quelling the acts of destruction and violence over the course of the weekend in order to protect citizens and property.

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

Unfortunately the mainstream media chose to lie to make President Trump look bad rather than to tell the truth. This sort of lying is a major cause of the divisions in our country. People who depend on the mainstream media are simply not being told the truth.

Who Is Buying The Bricks?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article showing the delivery of pallets of bricks to various cities in America. There were no construction sites in the areas where the bricks were delivered. Please follow the link to the article to see the various pictures of brick deliveries in key cities.

The article reports:

These protests are organized – bricks are being delivered uninhibited to riot sites.

In cities around the US bricks are being delivered to riot locations and used to destroy property.

The article includes the following:

The article concludes:

Find who are shipping the bricks and you find who is behind these criminal riots!

This Could Happen Here

The BFD is a New Zealand newspaper. On January 20, the paper posted an article written by someone who personally experienced the consequences of New Zealand’s gun control law (the Search and Surveillance Act 2012).

The article reports:

On Thursday evening, I was just finishing up dinner with my two oldest kids. My wife was feeling unwell and feeding our four-week-old baby in bed. I had just gotten the icecream out for the kids when the doorbell rang.

I opened the door to see a number of police officers outside. They served me with a search warrant under Section 6 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Half a dozen armed police officers swarmed in the front door (holstered sidearms only) as several more ran around the sides of the house. They later called for more backup as the house was larger than your average state-house drug lab. I got the impression that they’d never had to raid a middle-class suburban house like mine before. Everyone on the property was detained, read their rights, and questioned separately. I opted to call a lawyer who advised me to refuse to answer any questions.

The warrant claimed they had reason to believe I was in possession of a prohibited magazine fitted to a “.22RL lever-action rifle. Blued metal, brown wooden stock.” The officer told me I had posted about it online, which I had—in my public written submission against the Firearms Amendment Act passed last year. That submission was shared on several blogs and social media. I had used the firearm as an example to prove the legislation was not targeting “military-style assault weapons” as the media, prime minister, and her cabinet repeated ad nauseum. The vast majority of firearms affected by the legislation were just like mine.

I thought nothing more of my little example to the select committee. It was no longer in my possession when the police raided my house. They departed empty-handed after turning the place inside out for ninety minutes and left me with my firearms and a visibly shaken wife who broke down in tears. Thankfully, the kids didn’t quite get what was going on—but I realised after that they had gone to bed without icecream.

For anyone like me who does not know a whole lot about guns, the article describes the rifle:

I’ve been vocal about the amnesty being a disaster, and the police were rather open about the failure of the whole process. Maybe if they stopped raiding innocent people’s houses there might have been some more good will? They implied that they’d keep having to raid the houses of people I knew until the firearm turned up. This is for an A-Category firearm, which I have no reason to believe is fitted with a prohibited magazine! Are these the kind of intimidation tactics now the norm in New Zealand? Are we going to accept this in a first-world democracy?

This is for a lever-action .22LR that’s designed to hit paper or be used to hunt bunnies. What happened to going after the “weapons designed to kill people” as the police minister Stuart Nash has claimed?

The implications of this are rather stunning. I took the photo and publicised the details about this firearm as part of the select committee process. This good-faith evidence was used by the police as a justification for their raid. Do we now live in a country where public evidence given to a select committee will be used against you to suit the political purposes of the police?

Anyone who’s publicly talked about or posted a picture of their grandfather’s little .22LR pump/lever action can get raided, as these rifles all had 10+ capacity prior to the draconian new rules. Admitting you had one a year ago is reason enough to warrant a raid on your property today.

I guess the bunnies’ lobby decided to ask the government to confiscate the weapons used against them.

On a serious note, this could easily happen in America and may be happening soon in Virginia.

This Doesn’t Sound Like The Sort Of State We Should Promote

The Independent Journal Review is reporting today that the Palestinian Authority has handed over to U.S. authorities an American-Palestinian it had sentenced to life imprisonment for violating a ban on selling land to Israelis.

The article reports:

“Issam Akel holds an American passport and he was handed over to the U.S. authorities upon their request,” one senior security official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters.

A second official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed Akel’s release.

Both declined to give any more details. Akel’s family was not available for comment. U.S. officials did not comment when asked about Akel’s release.

Akel was convicted by a West Bank court in December of attempting to sell a property in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem without the permission of his business partners or the Palestinian authorities.

Akel’s family has denied the allegations against him.

The U.S. ambassador to Israel called in November for Akel to be released, after he was first detained.

The Islamist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is a rival to the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, said releasing Akel was a “grave crime”.

The so-called West Bank is a terrorist state. East Jerusalem is not ‘Israeli-occupied’–it is part of the country of Israel. Arabs who live in Israel have full rights. There are no Jews allowed to live in the territories controlled by either the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. That tells you all you need to know about the prospects for a two-state solution.

South Africa Moves Toward Taking Land Without Compensation

On Tuesday U.S. News posted an article about the move to take land from South Africans without paying them any compensation. The parliament recently approved a report endorsing a constitutional amendment that would allow expropriations without compensation.

The article reports:

Land is a hot-button issue in South Africa where racial inequality remains entrenched more than two decades after the end of apartheid when millions among the black majority were dispossessed of their land by a white minority.

A parliamentary team last month recommended a constitutional amendment to make it possible for the state to expropriate land without compensation in the public interest.

The article continues:

President Cyril Ramaphosa, who replaced Jacob Zuma in February, has prioritized land redistribution as he seeks to unite the fractured ruling African National Congress (ANC) and win public support ahead of an election next year.

But the main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) and some rights groups are critical of the government’s plans, saying it will jeopardize property rights and scare off investors.

“We support expropriation of land without compensation or zero Rand compensation in the public interest,” the ANC’s Vincent Smith said during the parliamentary debate.

Ahead of Tuesday’s debate, John Steenhuisen, the main opposition’s chief whip, said “the DA will not hesitate to approach the courts” should the report backing the expropriation of land be adopted.

Following Tuesday’s vote, a new bill proposing the change to Section 25 of the constitution to allow for expropriation of land without compensation would need to be drafted.

It would also require the public’s contribution before a debate and vote in the assembly. To become law, it would need passed by both houses of parliament and then signed by Ramaphosa. It is unclear how long this process would take.

Last week the High Court rejected a legal challenge brought by AfriForum, a group representing mainly white Afrikaners who wanted to overturn a parliamentary committee report supporting changes to the constitution.

There are some things the South African government might want to consider if they decide to move forward with the idea of seizing land without compensation. Although that might seem like a solution to the misdeeds of the past, it is simply a misdeed in the present. Taking anything from someone without compensation is not a path toward harmony. Because the land distribution seems to be so uneven, wouldn’t it be better to require people who hold large portions of land to sell portions of it under government supervision at a reasonable price. Otherwise, you are infringing on private property rights. In December 2010, I posted an article about the relationship between private property rights, the rule of law, and prosperity. You cannot have prosperity without private property rights or without the rule of law. To seize property without compensation violates this principle. It is the way to poverty for South Africa.

 

Exactly The Wrong Solution

It has been proven that when you tax an activity you get less of it. When you provide a tax break for an activity, you get more of it. We have seen over the past thirty years that when taxes on businesses are lowered the economy grows. When taxes and regulations are increased, the economy shrinks. Well, not everyone got the message.

Reuters reported on Wednesday that the United Nations has suggested a global tax on developed countries to help underdeveloped countries. The taxes would include a carbon tax, currency taxes, and taxes on billionaires. What the article fails to mention is that in many countries (if not all) poverty is political–not economic. In countries that are free with freely elected governments and private property rights, there is generally prosperity. In countries with dictators (who generally live rather well) and no private property rights, there is generally massive poverty. If the UN truly wanted to fight poverty, they would encourage democracy and private property rights in countries that have neither. All they really want to do is take money from countries that have earned it and give it to dictators in countries where it will never reach those who desperately need it!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Protecting The Property Rights Of Americans

The Blaze is reporting today that Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced legislation to limit the government’s power of eminent domain, the seizure of private property without the owner’s consent. This is the link to the actual legislation introduced.

The law, The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2012, coincides with the seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. the City of New London, which allowed the City of New London to arbitrarily take private property from one person and give it to another with the intent of increasing the city’s tax base.

On December 1, 2009, I reported on the outcome of that property seizure (rightwinggranny.com):

So let’s look at where we are now.  The taking of the property was used to lure Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company to New London to build a research center.  Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company arrived, built its New London research center on the seized property, and this week announced that it was closing the plant.  Most of the plants 1,400 employees will be relocated to nearby Groton. 

Now the City of New London won’t even have the tax revenue from the people who once lived in that area of New London.  They will simply have a vacant research center.  Poetic justice at its best.

The Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Kelo–they seriously undermined the property rights of Americans. Please follow the link above to the article at The Blaze to read about recent misuses of eminent domain. Thank goodness for Senators like John Cornyn and Rand Paul who are willing to stand up for individual property rights.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Alabama Gets It Right

Regular readers of this blog are familiar with Agenda 21. I have written about it a number of times (one example–rightwinggranny.com). Essentially, Agenda 21 is a UN-backed program to end private property rights in America.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about a move made by the Alabama legislature to pre-empt Agenda 21:

Agenda 21 has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, but it may not have to be if in a second Obama term the Environmental Protection Agency pursues it by stealth, as it has other environmental agendas that make war on the free enterprise system and rights we hold dear.

One of those is property rights. “Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market,” Agenda 21 says.

“Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”

The article reports on what the legislature in Alabama has done:

…Alabama recently passed Senate Bill 477 unanimously in both of its houses. The legislation bars the taking of private property in Alabama without due process and says that “Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21.”

We live in a representative republic that theoretically honors states’ rights. It is encouraging to know that one state recognizes the potential problems that could be caused if the federal government continues to usurp those rights. Hopefully other states will follow the example of Alabama.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Defending The Constitution

December 12, 2011

7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street

Northborough, MA

 If you have not heard of the United Nation’s “Agenda 21”, you are not alone … 99% of the citizenry are equally in the dark.

Why should we be concerned? There has been a continual, two-decade effort by thousands of “One World Order” advocates to destroy our capitalist system by promoting environmental programs that not only sound plausible, but appear to be absolutely necessary. Under the guise of protecting our planet, these programs have multiple objectives – all intended to redistribute wealth, hand-cuff industry, undermine national sovereignty, restructure the family unit, and take away our property rights.

The public is invited to attend this eye-opening meeting on Monday, December 12th, 7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street.

Guest speakers Hal Shurtleff, of the John Birch Society and Dave Kopacz, a Municipal Conservation Agent will describe the evolution of U.N. Agenda 21 and its impact on Massachusetts – 37 towns are currently involved, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Cameron Carey of the Northborough Tea Party, “This U.N. directed program, also known as “sustainable development” is truly insidious – it is motivated by the notion that human beings are less important than saving the planet. But as we will discover, that is only the tip of their philosophical iceberg.”

The free admission, public service program is open to residents of Northborough and surrounding towns, the Press, and especially to high school students. It is sponsored by the Northborough Tea Party. Contact: John O’Mara 508.393.2044,

Enhanced by Zemanta

Defending The Constitution

Monday, December 12th, 7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street.

Northborough, MA – If you have not heard of the United Nation’s “Agenda 21”, you are not alone … 99% of the citizenry are equally in the dark.

Why should we be concerned? There has been a continual, two-decade effort by thousands of “One World Order” advocates to destroy our capitalist system by promoting environmental programs that not only sound plausible, but appear to be absolutely necessary. Under the guise of protecting our planet, these programs have multiple objectives – all intended to redistribute wealth, hand-cuff industry, undermine national sovereignty, restructure the family unit, and take away our property rights.

The public is invited to attend this eye-opening meeting on Monday, December 12th, 7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street.

Guest speakers Hal Shurtleff, of the John Birch Society and Dave Kopacz, a Municipal Conservation Agent will describe the evolution of U.N. Agenda 21 and its impact on Massachusetts – 37 towns are currently involved, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Cameron Carey of the Northborough Tea Party, “This U.N. directed program, also known as “sustainable development” is truly insidious – it is motivated by the notion that human beings are less important than saving the planet. But as we will discover, that is only the tip of their philosophical iceberg.”

The free admission, public service program is open to residents of Northborough and surrounding towns, the Press, and especially to high school students. It is sponsored by the Northborough Tea Party. Contact: John O’Mara 508.393.2044,

Enhanced by Zemanta

Northborough On December 12

 Free Seminar

U.N. Agenda 21 …

A Threat to Our Constitutional Rights

 Monday, December 12, 2011, 7 pm

Northborough Free Library

____________________________________________________

 Subversion of property rights

Restructuring the family unit

Redistribution of wealth

Hand-cuffing industry

____________________________________________________

   ~ Sponsored by the Northborough Tea Party ~

  Public Welcome ~ Free Admission

 Information: John O’Mara, 508.393.2044

www.northboroughteaparty.com

           

                “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil  

             is for good men to do nothing” Edmund Burke

Enhanced by Zemanta