The Danger Of Having More Government Than We Need

On Friday, George Will posted an article in the Washington Post about some recent events in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. It is a story of excessive big government–not Massachusetts government, but the federal government.

Russ Caswell owns a budget motel his father built in 1955. He is 68, and the motel provides his retirement income. The motel has seen better days, but still hosts tourists, some workers on extended stays and some elderly people who call it home. The 56 rooms rent for $56 a night or $285 a week.

The article reports:

Since 1994, about 30 motel customers have been arrested on drug-dealing charges. Even if those police figures are accurate — the police have a substantial monetary incentive to exaggerate — these 30 episodes involved less than 5/100ths of 1 percent of the 125,000 rooms Caswell has rented over those more than 6,700 days. Yet this is the government’s excuse for impoverishing the Caswells by seizing this property, which is their only significant source of income and all of their retirement security.

The federal government is now planning to seize the property, sell it (expecting to receive about $1.5 million) and give 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department.

The article reports:

The Caswells have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. They are being persecuted by two governments eager to profit from what is antiseptically called the “equitable sharing” of the fruits of civil forfeiture, a process of government enrichment that often is indistinguishable from robbery.

The lawsuit is titled United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts. The Caswells are represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), described in the article as a ‘libertarian public-interest law firm.’ The IJ describes the civil forfeiture proceeding as something that was used against pirates to seize their booty. In this case the federal government is the pirate!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Are Not Hearing The Whole Story

Today Reuters posted a story about the Christmas day shooting near Dallas, Texas. The story details how Aziz Yazdanpanah, who was estranged from his wife and teenage daughters, killed his family and other relatives that were visiting his family. Yazdanpanah showed up in a Santa suit and started shooting.

Why am I posting this article? Because Reuters and the mainstream press are not telling the entire story.

The Blaze posted a few more details of the story:

In addressing the “honor killing” potential, Jihad Watch quotes Nona Yazdanpanah’s (Yazdanpanah’s daughter) friend, Lacie Reed. The young girl was quoted as saying, “She (Nona) would come to school crying and telling us her dad was crazy. He wouldn’t let her wear certain things. He was always taking her phone away, checking her call history and checking her text messages.”

Reed went on to say that Nona couldn’t date until she was “a certain age” and that she wasn‘t allowed to date anyone outside of the family’s race or religion. In addition to these details, Jihad Watch also claims that Yazdanpanah had installed cameras around the family’s home in an effort to monitor the activities that were going on.

These quotes, in themselves, are not enough to definitively call the murder-suicide an “honor killing.” That being said, the information, should it be true, does cause some questions to emerge.

So far, the Grapevine Police Department has been tight-lipped about the details surrounding the case, so any and all theories regarding motive will have to wait for definitive answering.

We never really have encountered a situation with this many victims that were shot and killed,” Sgt. Roger Eberling said. “We’re still trying to uncover the background here. This is the worst homicide we’ve ever had.”

Under Sharia Law, it is appropriate to kill family members whose behavior has brought shame to the family. That applies to women who have divorced their husbands and wives and daughters who have been westernized. When you consider the fact that the Fort Hood Massacre was declared ‘workplace violence,’ you begin to wonder how honest authorities are being about the source of these murders.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Realize That I Am Probably In The Minority Here, But…

CNN reported today that University of California officials said Tuesday they will pay the medical expenses of students who were pepper sprayed during an Occupy Davis protest last week. Accuracy In Media posted a story on Monday about the media distortion of the event. I tend to fall more on the side of Accuracy in Media than CNN.

There is an extended video of the pepper spraying incident which shows the police asking the seated protesters numerous times to move. The protesters ignored the police. At that point, the protesters were breaking the law. As someone who has been at the scene of right-to-life protests, I can tell you that the police were very patient with the University protesters. Protest is a right under our constitution; blocking a road or pathway is not.

If the police have no way of moving protesters, where is the enforcement of law? The police are asked to keep order in our communities, do we really want to take the ability to do that away from them?

I am sorry that the students were pepper sprayed, but had they moved as they were asked to do when they were asked, they would not have been. Was this entire incident a set-up to try to gain support for the Occupiers? Are we being manipulated by the press? Those are the questions we need to ask.

Enhanced by Zemanta