Dem Lawmaker: We Don’t Want To Confiscate Guns, We Want To ‘Seize’ Them

A Georgia state lawmaker said she didn’t want to take guns away from Americans, but she also supports legislation that would seize guns from Americans.  Likely missing a dictionary and basic common sense, Erica Thomas still expects us to believe that the government isn’t coming for our guns.

During an interview with Tucker Carlson, Thomas claims to not be talking about “taking the guns from law-abiding citizens, I’m talking about a ban on assault rifles. We are not trying to promote a militia. What war are we going at that we need assault rifles?” But Carlson quotes the bill Thomas herself said she supported, which states, “The Georgia Bureau of Investigation shall seize and take possession of any assault weapon, large capacity magazine, armor piercing bullet or incendiary fifty caliber bullet.” Carlson then asks how that confiscation will be received by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners in her state and in typical democrat fashion, can’t answer what a “seizure” of guns from law-abiding citizens who don’t want to give up their morally acquired property would look like.

Then the conversation between Carlson and Thomas eventually drifted into gun statistics, and The Daily Caller co-founder wondered why Thomas wasn’t calling for a ban on handguns since they are responsible for the majority of gun deaths in America.

“Don’t demagogue it with me. I am not downplaying the significance of anyone’s death,” Carlson asserted. “Since assault rifles, relatively speaking, cause few deaths,  handguns cause the overwhelming majority of deaths, why are you not calling for banning handguns and seizing and taking possession of handguns…if you care so much about gun violence?”

Instead of answering the question, Thomas decided to turn it around on Carlson, insisting, “I would ask you the same question. Would you call for a ban on handguns? No, you wouldn’t!” she exclaimed. “So why can we not put a ban on assault rifles? That is the question. Why not?” This is what gun owners have to deal with almost daily:  Overly emotional outburst from those who know next to nothing about guns and the way the work, and even less about the statistics they claim to care about changing.

After several more seconds of the pair talking over one another, Carlson finally cut Thomas’ mic and video feed, stating, “I give up, I’m trying to ask you adult questions and you don’t want to answer them.”

Democrats often wonder why we can’t have a civilized discussion about guns, and this video boldly declares the reason why.  There’s little, if any, respect for facts or basic human rights when it comes to a person who wants more gun legislation.  One simply cannot have a civilized discussion with anyone who seeks to erode the rights of others based on misinformation and fabricated statistics.

But Carlson presented an interesting question while Thomas was talking.  “What if Americans don’t want to give up their guns?”  There’s still not been a rational and logical response on how that would be handled from any Democrat; politician or otherwise.

Donald Trump’s Gun Comments All But Ensure His Defeat In 2020

Hopefully, the comments by president Donald Trump are a wakeup call for all Americans, as his statements should have all but sealed his fate in 2020.  Look forward to an overly leftist dictator for president in the next election cycle, although it won’t be much different than how Trump is acting now.

Just spewing the nonsense about confiscating law-abiding citizens guns before due process should be enough to send Trump packing in 2020.  The way Trump is acting, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, or just given Barack Obama a third term.  Unfortunately, people don’t seem to understand that we aren’t free and the government will do what it wants regardless of the rules it laid out for itself in the Constitution.

Laura Ingraham even tweeted that should he start coming for fundamental rights, he won’t have to worry about being reelected in 2020.

If the President @realDonaldTrump dives on the 2nd Am he won’t have to worry abt who runs his 2020 campaign.

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 1, 2018

In the White House meeting with lawmakers of both parties, Trump endorsed multiple new gun control measures, including confiscating guns before due process, breaking with Republican lawmakers and throwing his support behind some proposals the National Rifle Association (NRA) opposes.

“I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence. “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said. That statement is nothing less than Trump declaring he’s a tyrant and the comment itself proudly declares Trump as an egregious violator of basic fundamental human rights.

But after the Las Vegas shooting, SHTFPlan warned not to get too comfortable with your rights based on Trump’s history of gun comments.

Back in 2000, Trump laid out his views on gun control. In a page-long explanation of his stance on guns in his book The America We Deserve.  Trump assessed the differences between the two main political parties’ gun policies. He called what he said was the Democratic party‘s desire to “confiscate” guns “a dumb idea” and said Republicans “refuse even limited restrictions,” noting that they “walk the NRA line.” Instead, he cast his stance as something of a middle ground. “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he wrote.  And if that isn’t evidenced enough, Trump also agreed with Barack Obama, one of the most anti-gun presidents in modern history, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. –SHTFPlan

Maybe this is the wakeup call we all need to prove the government doesn’t care about our rights. It doesn’t matter who is elected, or what we expect them to do. Trump’s comments should be raising all kinds of red flags right now, and we don’t want to say we told you so, but, we told you so:

Dismissing Trump’s statements outright is simply for those who don’t know what his stance on guns was BEFORE he campaigned for the presidency and how wishy-washy he can be on the issue. Those who do know, are not being so calm about his comments.  Of course, there’s no real reason to be up in arms (no pun intended) just yet, because nothing has been proposed, but it isn’t hard to see it popping up, and soon. –SHTFPlan, October 2017

This hasn’t been a government for or by the people for over 100 years (if not more) and it’s only getting worse.  Those in power see themselves as rulers and don’t care about anything except the expansion of their own authority over others. We should stop putting our trust in the government and begin relying on ourselves because it will only worsen from here. It feels like Barack Obama’s third term just started.

Major Newspapers Confirm No ‘Gun Laws’ will Ever be Enough for Them

Citizen disarmament proposals offered for serious consideration by major newspapers can only end in one of two ways if the issue is forced. (Surrender of Cornwallis by John Trumbell, U.S. Capitol Rotunda)

“Would strict enforcement of existing gun laws have stopped the Texas church massacre?” The Los Angeles Times editorial board asks rhetorically. “Probably not.”

“Of course not” would be more like it, no matter how many ostensibly on the side of the Second Amendment claim otherwise.  As long as those who do evil walk among us, they will find a way. Remember that mass killings that racked up the highest death tolls, 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Happyland Dance Club fire, were all committed without guns.

The Times goes through the “existing laws” the Texas church massacre maniac slipped through to come to its central thesis, one the paper has been rabidly demanding for decades:

“But even then, assault weapons like the one Kelley used will remain for sale in this country, and that’s the fundamental problem. Civilians have no legitimate reason to own military-style firearms. Enthusiasts might get a kick out of shooting them, but that’s hardly reason to endanger the rest of us. These rapid-fire weapons, with their high-capacity magazines and quick reloads, are designed for one purpose: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They do not belong in private hands.”

That, of course, is a lie, demonstrable if by no other means than looking at the sheer number of such firearms peaceably owned and used for all kinds of other purposes, and then comparing that to the small percentage used in crimes of violence – often by people who obtained them by criminal means.

The Times is not done intentionally confusing a readership conditioned to believe the editors know what they’re talking about:

“Gun advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own such weapons, but it does not. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision (which we think was wrongly decided) recognized a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, but echoed previous court decisions that the ownership right is not absolute, is subject to regulation, and can be limited to firearms currently “in common use.” By some estimates, assaults weapons account for only about 3% of the estimated 300 million guns in our collective arsenal. That’s not ‘in common use.’”

No “gun advocate” worth his salt thinks the Second Amendment “gives” them anything. Since The Times cited Heller. It’s fair to assume leaving out a key citation was a deliberately fraudulent lie of omission:

“As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … “

Equally deceptive is their characterization of what “in common use at the time” means (and by their definition, all new developments in firearms technology would be forever withheld from We the People). That qualifier relied on U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 that found a weapon must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

But it’s interesting The Times admits they even disagree with the Heller opinion that you can have a gun in your home. And it doesn’t matter what kind, because they’ve long supported handgun bans as well. And forget them recognizing any right to carry either openly or concealed.

They want it all.

As does The Boston Globe, which wants Americans to “Hand over your weapons.”

 “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach … Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.”

If “that idea” ever “seems” normal, the core and vital reasons behind Oath Keepers will come into play. It will become a very dangerous time for the citizen targets of those who follow such orders as well as for those refusing to obey them. That’s why it’s so crucial to disseminate the truth now, and by that I mean for you and me to do it, and regularly.

Then there’s “the newspaper of record,” The New York Times, a generational apologist for communist totalitarianism from the days of Walter Duranty that flat-out declares:

“Repeal the Second Amendment.”

The masks are off and they can’t put them back on. This is what’s at the bottom of Nancy Pelosi’s “slippery slope.” And this is the answer to throw back in the faces of collectivists who use Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule and sneering terms like “paranoids” as they flat-out lie that “No one wants to take your guns.”

Of course they do.  And if they can, the real business of control will become apparent.

In the mean time, they’ll continue lie under cover of the “common sense gun safety law” deception, and chip away at one piece and then the next until they can try to bring the whole thing down. And they’ll continue smearing anyone who opposes them as an extremist, as a hater, as a terrorist and as a treasonous domestic enemy to be destroyed.

They’re intent on forcing the issue. The surrender they demand of us is unconditional.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

 

The post Major Newspapers Confirm No ‘Gun Laws’ will Ever be Enough for Them appeared first on Oath Keepers.

"The Police Just F**ked My Life" - Alabamians Outraged As Civil Asset Forfeitures Soar

The morning of June 29, 2010, began much like any other day for Frank Ranelli, the owner of FAR Computers in Ensley, Alabama. Ranelli, who had owned his computer repair business just outside of Birmingham for more than two decades, was doing some paperwork in his windowless office when he heard loud banging on the front door.  Within a matter of moments Ranelli was placed under arrest and all of the computer equipment in his store, much of which belonged to customers, had been confiscated by Alabama police never to be returned.  Per AL.com:

Within moments, a Homewood police sergeant had declared a room full of customers" computers, merchandise and other items "stolen goods," Ranelli recalled. He ordered his officers to "arrest them all," according to Ranelli, who was cuffed and taken to the Homewood jail along with two of his shop employees.

 

The police proceeded to confiscate more than 130 computers - most of which were customers" units waiting to be repaired, though some were for sale - as well as the company"s business servers and workstations and even receipts and checkbooks.

 

"Here I was, a man, owned this business, been coming to work every day like a good old guy for 23 years, and I show up at work that morning - I was in here doing my books from the day before - and the police just f***ed my life," he said.

Nothing ever came of the case. The single charge levied against Renelli of receiving stolen goods was dismissed after he demonstrated that he had followed proper protocol in purchasing the sole laptop computer he was accused of receiving illegally. That said, despite no official charges and no jury trial, Ranelli has been trying, to no avail, for nearly 7 years now to recover the items the officers took from his business.

Rick Hightower had a similar experience with Alabama police when he was a student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.  After being arrested for "lewd behavior" at a college party in 2008, Hightower says police raided his apartment and confiscated as much as $200,000 worth of musical instruments and other property.  Despite never being charged with stealing the property, Hightower says police have refused to return any of the confiscated items. 

On April 13, 2008, he was arrested and initially charged with lewd behavior after police said he was caught exposing himself at Samford University in Birmingham, according to court filings. Hightower, who has a fairly extensive rap sheet, was ultimately convicted of indecent exposure and resisting arrest in connection with that incident.

 

Five days after his arrest, officers with the Homewood and UAB police departments raided Hightower"s apartment, executing a warrant to search for files, cameras and any other evidence related to the incident at Samford.

 

They also decided to seize "a large amount of property believed to be stolen," including "musical instruments, electronics and other items," according to a UAB Police Department report on the search.

 

As such, Hightower was charged with receiving stolen property. He was never charged with stealing any of the other items that were seized from his apartment, and was not convicted of stealing the English horn, as he provided a receipt that showed that he had purchased the item from a thrift store.

 

And yet the Homewood Police Department - which stored and ostensibly continues to store the items seized in the raid - did not return the horn or any other items to Hightower. More than nine years later, he has yet to even lay eyes on any of the possessions that were taken from him.

Unfortunately, the raids on Ranelli"s business and Hightower"s apartment are not isolated incidents. They are just a couple of many similar cases that have taken place in Alabama and across the U.S. in recent years, according to Joseph Tully, a California criminal lawyer with expertise in civil asset forfeitures.

Long used in major criminal busts as a means to confiscate money and possessions obtained by illegal means, civil asset forfeiture impacts thousands of Americans each year and has become the subject of intense national and local scrutiny over the past decade.

 

The ability of law enforcement agencies to use such tactics to take people"s assets and property almost at will "lends itself to abuse," Tully, who describes cases like Ranelli"s as "theft," said.

 

"It"s really hard to fight the system. If it was a private citizen who stole your things, you could go get your things, or in the olden days you could get your shotgun and pay the thief a visit and say, "give me my stuff back." But you can"t do that in this case because it"s the police."

 

In fiscal year 2016, law enforcement agencies in Alabama seized more than $2.2 million worth of "assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate federal crimes," according to its annual report to Congress. In fiscal 2014, the total value of such assets seized by law enforcement in the state was more than $4.9 million.

That recent drop is the local manifestation of a nationwide reduction in the use of civil asset forfeiture as public awareness and outcry over its widespread use has grown in recent years, according to experts. The tactic is still regularly deployed, impacting dozens of Alabamians each year. But the tide is turning. Fourteen states, from New Mexico to Connecticut, have passed laws in recent years to stop police from seizing property absent a criminal conviction.

"The pendulum is starting to swing but I wouldn"t say that it has been swinging back the other way for too long," Tully said. "State and local governments are starting to act ... Law enforcement officers are coming around a bit and there"s a little bit of a curb in police doing whatever they want."

 

And on Tuesday, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo directing a deputy to establish a unit aimed at ensuring there are no abuses of a federal policy reinstated by Sessions in July to help state and local law enforcement agencies seize accused criminals" property.

 

Alabama"s laws, however, still provide the state"s citizens with few protections from the practices, earning the state a "D- for its civil asset forfeiture laws" in a November 2015 report by the Institute for Justice, a Virginia nonprofit advocacy law firm.

 

Alabama laws stack the deck against victims of asset forfeiture by establishing a "low bar to forfeit" and not requiring a conviction to do so; offering "limited protections for innocent third-party property owners"; and letting "100% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement," the report stated.

The irony here, of course, is that we live in a country where the police can show up to any "Regular Joe"s" apartment on any given day and legally confiscate all of his stuff but James Comey couldn"t even manage to interview a material witness in the Hillary email investigation without first granting them an immunity deal.  Seems fair...

Cops Abandon Search for Lost Child to Bust Man For Weed Pipes, Then Brag About It on Facebook

The Ashley Borough Police Department received a call for help in finding a missing child. But instead of locating the missing child, when they smelled marijuana at a nearby residence, they abandoned their search and confiscated a cannabis user’s bongs and smoking devices. That was their first mistake, according to some. Their second mistake, arguably, was bragging about their bust on Facebook

Here’s the photo they posted on their Facebook page and the accompanying caption.

The stash was undeniably a prized possession to someone who unwittingly had drawn the attention of Ashley Borough police. Now it’s in the hands of law enforcement. But if the department was looking to be praised by the local community, they were sadly mistaken. Instead of lauding the accomplishments of the boys in blue, the public ripped them a new one.

Spencer Holt was seemingly perplexed when he wrote, “You must be so proud of yourselves. How about the kid? A lost child is a time-sensitive issue, how did that situation develop while you were rounding up the giggle weed?” Holt’s sentiments echoed the overall feelings of the public who viewed abandoning the search for a missing child to committing a cardinal sin.

Chad Mummert blasted the department as well. He wrote, “This basically states that you’ve abandoned a lost child investigation…let’s repeat that…a lost child investigation because you smelled marijuana and went for some low hanging fruit to eventually exploit on social media. You deserve every bit of the roast (pun intended) that you are getting with this foolish post.

Approaching with a more lighthearted statement Connor Cormier asked police if he could buy the bong. He said he’d pay, “$45 for the Zong,” and promised to, “meet you wherever is most convenient.”

The cynicism was not lost in the seriousness of what police had admitted to doing. They openly confessed to devoting at least a portion of their department to potentially charging an individual for treating his/her ailments with cannabis.

As TFTP has reported, cannabis has been decriminalized and made available as medical marijuana in at least 29 states with eight states allowing for recreational use. The states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington now allow for full recreational use of cannabis.

Some of the Ashley Borough Police Department’s critics understand there are many sick people who use cannabis to deal with their illnesses and are not afraid of committing a misdemeanor crime to do so. Alex Hardy didn’t hold anything back when he criticized the department’s seizure. Hardy asked, “Lemme get this straight. You dickless little shits get sidetracked from looking for a missing child to hassle someone for their pot gear. And then you actually brag about it on fb?”

Dallas Shaefer attempted to shame the PD into repentance. “You should be ashamed of yourselves. This is a waste of public resources and damaging to the record of someone who was likely hurting no one,” he wrote.

Whatever their motivations, the Ashley Borough Police Department understandably opened up the proverbial can of worms with their post. The ongoing criticism serves to illustrate how attitudes toward cannabis are changing at the what seems to be the speed of light. People are waking up to the fact that pharmaceutical companies have used their lobbying power for years to convince the federal government, the FDA, and the DEA to keep cannabis categorized as a Schedule I narcotic.

All the while they’ve quietly been addicting millions of Americans to their synthetic opiates which killed more Americans in 2016 than in the entire Vietnam War. Maybe what Ashley Borough Police should do is begin to arrest pharmacists for dispensing addicting and life-ending opiates. Only then can they rightfully claim they’re protecting the public.

How a Dog Named Brutus Was Used to Steal $36,000

Via The Daily Bell

For the egregious crime of being in the right lane at the wrong time, a driver was pulled over in Lowndes County, Georgia. Thanks to the heroic efforts of one Georgia State Police dog, and his faithful officer, a major threat to the people of Georgia is off the streets.

The responding police dog, Brutus, made a major bust. The vehicle was transporting $36,000 of cash; an imminent danger to Georgians across the state.

The cash may have eluded officers if not for the quick thinking of Brutus. He sat down next to the car to let officers know the money was being stored in a speaker inside the vehicle. The officer was quick to confiscate the cash, take a picture of it for social media, and let the driver go. 

Wait, the police let the driver get away? Yes, they did. The driver was not charged an actual crime, and no one was arrested during the “major bust” that took place. The driver’s only crime was carrying cash.

Under Georgia’s criminal code officers can take property from any citizen they suspect may be part of a criminal enterprise. In this case, the only hunch officers had of criminal activity was Brutus the dog taking a seat.

The police took more than half of the state’s median yearly income from someone because a dog sat next to their car. If you think this is a horrific injustice, you should feel relieved to know the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with you. 

Civil asset forfeiture is the formal name for this form of state sanctioned theft. It has become a hot topic in the last few years for Americans concerned about their fundamental rights. The practice is troublingly common among law enforcement agencies at all levels of government.

Its history of abuse has resulted in BILLIONS of dollars taken from Americans who were never charged with a crime. While marginalized groups are the most likely victims, anyone can be targeted. From entrepreneurs and small business owners to Christian music groups, law enforcement agencies only see dollar signs. 

A growing number of states have implemented forfeiture reforms aimed at holding police agencies accountable. They aim to protect citizen’s right to due process supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. Unfortunately for this driver, and the rest of the country, state laws may soon be futile. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced a federal policy to ignore state statutes prohibiting civil asset forfeiture.

To be clear, the Attorney General is the top official appointed to keep the rule of law alive in America. Instead, he is encouraging law enforcement agencies to seize property from law-abiding citizens. We’re supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Sessions’ reversal of justice reform raises serious civil rights concerns.

The government can take your money simply because a dog gets tired of standing. But you may find it a relief that some elected officials are making it a priority to end this archaic and evil practice once and for all. States may lead the way, but Jeff Sessions’ actions make it clear that there needs to be real reform at the federal level.

In reality, impactful reforms are nowhere near the horizon. If you are concerned with protecting your assets from government seizures you are best taking matters into your own hands. Of course, the state doesn’t make that easy.

Officials have gone out of their way to ensure any legal protections you thought you had go out the window when stopped by police on the road. As the example in Georgia shows, the victim looked to store his money in a speaker system to keep it out of plain sight. But Brutus made short work of that tactic. 

Others have gone further by making alterations to the interior of their vehicles. But in a case that went to the Supreme Court, the state gave itself the right to physically tear your car apart in search of anything valuable (Carroll v. United States U.S. 132, 1925). The state also deemed it appropriate for officers to search any containers, including locked safes, inside a stopped vehicle (California v. Acevedo 500 U.S. 565, 1991).

To recap, imagine you are traveling in a vehicle and are pulled over, for even the most minor traffic violation, like looking nervous. Suppose the responding officer can establish probable cause, like having his dog sit. They can then destroy anything inside your car, including the seats. They can take anything they find without charging you with a crime.

What can you do in the face of this draconian action by the state? Digitize your assets.

As the law currently stands going digital is the best way to get around forfeiture. Using decentralized online currencies, you can side step efforts to police for profit.

Luckily officials have not yet devised a way to completely gut the Fifth Amendment. Federal courts have ruled that law enforcement cannot coerce you into revealing passwords to your electronic devices. To keep your wealth safe from state led highway robbery, keep your money online with hefty encryption.

The law allows, and incentivizes, law enforcement agencies to use asset forfeiture. Citizens can live with the fear of their money being taken on a whim. Or, individuals can stand up, en masse, to challenge this egregious and open aggression against innocent citizens.

Until then, the best bet to keep the greedy hands of government out of your pockets is to seek refuge in blockchain technology. If you need to move lots of cash, digitize your wealth.

Policing For Profit: Jeff Sessions' Thinly Veiled Plot To Rob Us Blind

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner.” - H.L. Mencken

Let’s not mince words.

Jeff Sessions, the nation’s top law enforcement official, would not recognize the Constitution if he ran right smack into it.

Whether the head of the Trump Administration’s Justice Department enjoys being the architect of a police state or is just painfully, criminally clueless, Sessions has done a great job thus far of sidestepping the Constitution at every turn.

Most recently, under the guise of “fighting crime,” Sessions gave police the green light to rob, pilfer, steal, thieve, swipe, purloin, filch and liberate American taxpayers of even more of their hard-earned valuables (especially if it happens to be significant amounts of cash) using any means, fair or foul.

In this case, the foul method favored by Sessions & Co. is civil asset forfeiture, which allows police and prosecutors to “seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime.”

Under a federal equitable sharing program, police turn asset forfeiture cases over to federal agents who process seizures and then return 80% of the proceeds to the police. (In Michigan, police actually get to keep up to 100% of forfeited property.)

This incentive-driven excuse for stealing from the citizenry is more accurately referred to as “policing for profit” or “theft by cop.”

Despite the fact that 80 percent of these asset forfeiture cases result in no charge against the property owner, challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself. As a result, most property owners either give up the fight or chalk the confiscation up to government corruption, leaving the police and other government officials to reap the benefits.

And boy, do they reap the benefits.

Police agencies have used their ill-gotten gains “to buy guns, armored cars and electronic surveillance gear,” reports The Washington Post. “They have also spent money on luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.”

Incredibly, these asset forfeiture scams have become so profitable for the government that, according to The Washington Post, “in 2014, law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did.”

In 2015, the federal government seized nearly $2.6 billion worth of airplanes, houses, cash, jewelry, cars and other items under the guise of civil asset forfeiture.

According to USA Today, “Anecdotal evidence suggests that allowing departments to keep forfeiture proceeds may tempt them to use the funds unwisely. For example, consider a 2015 scandal in Romulus, Michigan, where police officers used funds forfeited from illicit drug and prostitution stings to pay for ...  illicit drugs and prostitutes.”

Memo to the rest of my fellow indentured servants who are living through this dark era of government corruption, incompetence and general ineptitude: this is not how justice in America is supposed to work.

We are now ruled by a government so consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population that they are completely unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.

Our freedoms aren’t just being trampled, however. They’re being eviscerated.

At every turn, “We the People” are getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.

Americans no longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property, rights and liberties. All you have to be is in possession of something the government wants. And if you happen to have something the government wants badly enough, trust me, their agents will go to any lengths to get it.

If the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

Here’s how the whole ugly business works in a nutshell.

First, government agents (usually the police) use a broad array of tactics to profile, identify, target and arrange to encounter (in a traffic stop, on a train, in an airport, in public, or on private property) those  individuals who might be traveling with a significant amount of cash or possess property of value. Second, these government agents—empowered by the courts and the legislatures—seize private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity.

Then—and here’s the kicker—whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, without any charges being levied against the property owner, or any real due process afforded the unlucky victim, the property is seized by the government, which often divvies it up with the local police who helped with the initial seizure.

In a Kafkaesque turn of the screw, the burden of proof falls on the unfortunate citizenry who must mount a long, complicated, expensive legal campaign to prove their innocence in order to persuade the government that it should return the funds they stole. Not surprisingly, very few funds ever get returned.

It’s a new, twisted form of guilt by association, only it’s not the citizenry being accused of wrongdoing, just their money.

Unsurprisingly, these asset forfeiture scams have become so profitable for the government that they have expanded their reach beyond the nation’s highways.

Any American unwise enough to travel with cash is now fair game for government pickpockets who are out to rob you of your cold, hard cash.

This is not freedom.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if the government can just take from you what they want, when they want, and then use it however they want, you can’t claim to be anything more than a serf in a land they think of as theirs.

It’s up to “We the People” to demand reform.

These injustices will continue as long as we remain silent.

In other words, make them hear you.

And if they won’t listen, then I suggest it’s time for what Martin Luther King Jr. called for when government doesn’t listen: “militant nonviolent resistance.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture - Ruining Lives, While Failing To Stop Crime

Submitted by Duane via Free Market Shooter blog,

Yesterday, President Trump met with the National Sheriff’s Association at the White House.  Like so many Trump comments, this one took a strange turn when Trump (jokingly or not) threatened to “destroy the career” of a Texas state Senator:

During the meeting, Rockwall County, Texas, Sheriff Harold Eavenson told President Trump about a piece of asset forfeiture legislation he believes would aid Mexican drug cartels…here’s the full conversation:

Eavenson:  “There’s a state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money.”

Trump:  “Do you believe that?”

Eavenson:  “And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed.”

Trump:  “Who is that state senator? I want to hear his name. We’ll destroy his career…”

Though the major point of conversation was about Trump’s threat to a state legislator, the bigger story should be the implicit support Trump gave to civil asset forfeiture, whether he realized it or not.  And if you are not aware what civil asset forfeiture is, it is (surprisingly) something that is agreed by both sides of the aisle to be unjust and unconstitutional, and rightfully so.

Civil asset forfeiture is defined by Wikipedia as “a controversial legal process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.”  The practice is commonplace in the war on drugs, but it can be extended to almost anything.

What it means is that the government can essentially seize any of your assets it can find (be it in a bank account, or cash/gold/whatever you have in a safe or under the mattress), label them a part of a “criminal investigation,” and keep them indefinitely, without sufficient due process for the citizen to challenge the seizures, and whether you are ultimately charged with a crime or not.

Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics explains how police have every reason to seize assets, largely because these civil asset forfeitures are literally funding police departments:

Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989. Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

 

The police have been violating the laws to confiscate assets all over the country. A scathing report on California warns of pervasive abuse by police to rob the people without proving that any crime occurred. Even Eric Holder came out in January suggesting reform because of the widespread abuse of the civil asset forfeiture laws by police.

 

Bloomberg News has reported now that Stop-and-Seize authority is turning the Police Into Self-Funding Gangs. They are simply confiscating money all under the abuse of this civil asset forfeiture where they do not have to prove you did anything. Prosecutors are now instructing police on how to confiscate money within the grey area of the law.

 

A class action lawsuit was filed against Washington DC where police were robbing people for as little as having $100 in their pocket.  This is getting really out of hand and it has indeed converted police into legal criminals or “gangs” as Bloomberg News calls them.

And Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkreig even cites the Huffington Post, of all places, which detailed the case of two bakers who did not commit any crime, but had their assets (and lives) ruined by the IRS, because they were able to legally seize the business’s assets by just believing that they may have been engaging in criminal activity, with absolutely no evidence to support their claim:

But the IRS refused to believe Vocatura’s Bakery was operating on the up and up. Agents said the business raised red flags because of a series of cash deposits in sums under $10,000, the amount at which banks are required to report transactions to the federal government. They said this behavior was consistent with a crime known as structuring, which the IRS defines as making calculated financial transactions in order to skirt reporting requirements. The agents had no evidence of other wrongdoing, but thanks to a controversial law enforcement tool known as civil asset forfeiture, they didn’t need any to seize every penny in the Vocaturas’ bank account: $68,382.22.

Under the practice of civil forfeiture, authorities can move to permanently take property they suspect of being linked to criminal activity, without obtaining a conviction — and, in cases like the Vocaturas’, without even charging the owner with a crime.

For the past three years, the brothers have been fighting to get their money back, maintaining they’d done nothing wrong. The IRS has responded by subjecting David, 53, and his brother Larry, 69, to a series of increasingly aggressive legal maneuvers — including threats of significant prison time and additional fines — in an attempt to strong-arm them into permanently forfeiting their assets.

Hours after the suit was filed, the IRS said it would finally give the Vocaturas their money back. But the prosecutor didn’t drop the case. Instead, he now plans to mount an expansive investigation into the bakery’s finances, looking for a reason to bring criminal charges against the brothers.

It was just the latest twist in a protracted legal battle that has called into question some of the government’s favorite — and most problematic —methods of taking people’s money.

The practice is just as bad as it sounds – with the original intent being to stop big time drug dealers from recouping their assets, the practice has devolved into police and agencies of all types funding their departments by stealing the assets of civilians, whether they were obtained criminally or not.  This is also not a partisan trend, and as Michael Armstrong indicated above, the practice has been steadily increasing, across all administrations, since it was first implemented in the early 1980s.  Mike Krieger details the real problem with civil asset forfeiture below:

Civil asset forfeiture is a civil rights issue, and it should be seen as such by everyone. Just because it targets the entire population as opposed to a specific race, gender or sexual orientation doesn’t make it less important.

The problem with opposition in America today is that people aren’t seeing modern battle lines clearly. The greatest friction and abuse occurring in these United States today comes from the corporate-fascist state’s attack against average citizens. It doesn’t matter what color or gender you are. If you are weak, poor and vulnerable you are ripe for the picking. Until people see the battle lines clearly, it will be very difficult to achieve real change. Most people are divided and conquered along their superficial little tribal affiliations, and they completely miss the bigger picture to the peril of society. Which is why women will support Hillary just because she’s a woman, not caring in the least that she is a compromised, corrupt oligarch stooge.

All in the same, this makes Trump’s support of the policy quite disturbing.  Mother Jones, of all places, sums up what it all means, and whether or not Trump actually supports the policy (or even realized the significance of it):

My guess is that he has no idea what civil asset forfeiture is and has no real opinion about it. If, say, Trump had been in a meeting with a few senators, and Bob Goodlatte had remarked that “police can seize your money even if you weren’t convicted of a crime,” Trump probably would have reflexively answered, “Can you believe that?” Instead, a sheriff said it was a bad thing related to Mexicans, so Trump automatically agreed with him. That means it’s now official Trump administration policy.

Obviously, the Sheriffs who met with Trump support the policy – it helps fund their departments.  Perhaps Trump was merely supporting lawmen and trying to unify everyone behind his stated policy of “law and order” by agreeing with them in words, and doing something different in practice.  Surely, we would all like to believe that Trump is prepared to concede that every citizen is innocent until proven guilty, and should have recourse to challenge the legality of any seizure of personal assets.

However, I’m not naive enough to think that is a certainty.  Trump very well could have realized exactly what he was doing and the policy he was supporting, and the ramifications behind his support.  He could actually believe the practice helps stop crime, and be ready to willingly disregard the rights of citizens to do so.  It is an extremely dangerous position to take; one that the Trump administration should clarify as soon as possible.

Sheriff tells Trump that state senator is doing something he doesn"t like

Trump: "Do you want to give his name? We"ll destroy his career." pic.twitter.com/75y3t9zc54

— Steve Kopack (@SteveKopack) February 7, 2017

The average American citizen ends up being the big loser in the ongoing saga of oppressive conduct by the authorities, as the practice is unlikely to end without intervention via legislation and/or executive action.   So, while it would be nice if the media would ask the Trump administration for some clarity on their policy regarding civil asset forfeiture, they seem too preoccupied with asking Trump if he really wants to end a state Senator’s career, in their ongoing quest to boost their own ratings.

It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad.

The System Will Cycle: “Who and What Will Survive the Re-Set”?

This article was written by Charles Hugh Smith and originally published at his Of Two Minds blog.

Editor’s Comment: Prepping for a big change in the system, a huge catastrophe or a precipitous decline in the American standard of living isn’t about stocking food, water, guns, ammo, supplies and the like. It also means a very strategic assessment or your personal debts and liabilities, and what kinds of possessions and assets will benefit you after a collapse (if it comes in our time).

If you own yours own property, and have an entire survival system in place, it won’t do you any good if the debt is too high to repay, and the deed remains with the bank. The consequences of repossession, bankruptcy, asset forfeiture and other mechanisms for stripping away what is rightfully yours, and making impossible your survival can’t be ignored, and may be as important after the collapse as door-t0-door SWAT or army patrols. Seizure of stockpiles of resources of any kind can also be “legally” taken by the federal government if responding to an emergency, as per numerous executive orders that remain in place. On the other hand, if you play your investments just right, and also stock up on useful real-world skills that can help you and others thrive and survive, there may be capital to hold and wisely manage in a post-apocalyptic world, or merely one in which most people are much poorer.

Being truly prepared for what is coming means living up to a challenge that is multi-faceted. Subtle threats may be just as deadly.

Which Assets Are Most Likely to Survive the Inevitable “System Re-Set”?

by Charles Hugh Smith

Your skills, knowledge and social capital will emerge unscathed on the other side of the re-set wormhole. Your financial assets held in centrally controlled institutions will not.

Longtime correspondent C.A. recently asked a question every American household should be asking: which assets are most likely to survive the “system re-set” that is now inevitable? It’s a question of great import because not all assets are equal in terms of survivability in crisis, when the rules change without advance notice.

If you doubt the inevitability of a system implosion/re-set, please read Is America In A Bubble (And Can It Ever Return To “Normal”)? This brief essay presents charts that reveal a sobering economic reality: America is now dependent on multiple asset bubbles never popping–something history suggests is not possible.

It isn’t just a financial re-set that’s inevitable–it’s a political and social re-set as well. For more on why this is so, please consult my short book Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform.

The charts below describe the key dynamics driving a system re-set. Earned income (wages) as a share of GDP has been falling for decades: this means labor is receiving a diminishing share of economic growth. Since costs and debt continue rising while incomes are declining or stagnating, this asymmetry eventually leads to insolvency.

The “fix” for insolvency has been higher debt and debt-based spending–in essence, borrowing from future income to fund more consumption today. But each unit of new debt is generating less economic activity/growth. This is called diminishing returns: eventually the costs of servicing the additional debt exceed the increasingly trivial gains.

What happens when the bubbles pop, despite massive central bank/state interventions? The entire socio-political/financial system goes through a “system re-set” in which all the fantasy-based valuations, political denials, false promises and fraudulent claims collapse in a heap.

In a crisis, the privileged Elites will change the rules in a desperate attempt to expropriate the income and wealth of the bottom 99.5% to preserve their own power.
The trick is to do so in ways that won’t spark an immediate political insurrection.

We can better understand their policy choices by asking: What’s easy to expropriate, what’s difficult to expropriate?

Those assets that are easy to expropriate will be expropriated first. Those that are difficult to expropriate are far less likely to be grabbed, due to the high costs of expropriation and the high risks of sparking a political insurrection.

History suggests the privileged Elites will pursue two basic strategies to expropriate the income and wealth of non-elites:

1. They will expropriate what is easy to expropriate: financial assets in centralized institutions the state controls: banks, brokerage accounts, insurance policies, etc.
2. They will use the time-honored “stealth expropriation” methods: inflation and taxes.

Any “money” held in a centrally controlled institution can be expropriated overnight. The rules will change without warning, so there will be no opportunity to escape the system.
Direct expropriation takes many forms. Your funds could be “bailed-in” (transferred to the bank). Large currency bills could be declared worthless. IRA and 401K accounts could be transferred into government bonds, to “protect the account owners from risky investments.” (Naturally, any expropriation will be presented as “for your own good.”)

Or a new currency could be issued that strips away 90% of the purchasing power of the old currency. It could be a New Dollar, an SDR global currency, or a state-issued cryptocurrency. The point is to strip away 90% of the wealth held in the old currency.

Indirect “stealth” expropriation has several forms: slow currency devaluation, also known as inflation, or higher taxes and junk fees (not called taxes, but you receive no additional value for the higher fees).

The end result of these policies is you may receive the $2,000 monthly pension you were promised, but after inflation, currency devaluation and taxes, your real purchasing power is $100 in today’s currency.
So what’s difficult to expropriate? I present some answers in my books An Unconventional Guide to Investing in Troubled Times and Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy.
It’s impossible to expropriate one’s skills, experience and social capital. These are intangible forms of capital and so they cannot be confiscated like gold, currency, land, etc.

Land and homes are difficult to expropriate for two reasons: private property is the backbone of capitalism and democracy, and the state confiscating private property would very likely spark a political insurrection that would diminish or threaten the power and wealth of the privileged Elites.

Secondly, it’s very costly for the state to maintain the productive output of real property it has confiscated. Guards must be posted, sabotage repaired, and the immense difficulties of coercing a rebellious populace to continue working what they once owned for the benefit of the state and its privileged Elites must be solved and paid for.

The state can expropriate farms, orchards and workshops for back taxes (or some similar extra-legal methodology), but how do you force people to work these properties productively?

As a general rule, whatever the super-wealthy own will be protected from expropriation. Private real property is the foundation of the Elites’ wealth, and while the land of debt-serfs may well be confiscated for back taxes (the wealthy will buy exemptions from rising taxes), those who own land and buildings free and clear constitute a political force to be reckoned with.

As I discuss in my book Resistance, Revolution, Liberation: A Model for Positive Change, there’s one other asset the state and its ruling Elites cannot expropriate: community.

The state will also have difficulty confiscating assets that are outside its reach. This explains the popularity of owning assets in other nations, and the debate over cryptocurrencies: will states be able to confiscate all cryptocurrencies at will, or is that technically unfeasible?

The main takeaway is this: your skills, knowledge and social capital will emerge unscathed on the other side of the re-set wormhole. Land and real property you own free and clear (no debt) is likely to remain in your possession, as long as you can pay soaring taxes/junk fees during the crisis phase. Your financial assets held in centrally controlled institutions will not make it through unscathed; they are simply too easy for central authorities to expropriate.

This article was written by Charles Hugh Smith and originally published at his Of Two Minds blog.

Three Strikes - You're Out... Of Freedoms

Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

In the nineteenth century, the Americans invented a new sport—baseball. At one time thought of by us Britons as a sort of “poor man’s cricket,” baseball eventually became an international sport and, at this point in time, in virtually any country in the world, the exclamation “Three strikes—you’re out” means to all and sundry that the individual in question is finished for the time being.

And the phrase is sometimes used in investment circles. One investor can be heard advising another, “Don’t buy that stock—they’re underfunded, have poor management and an unsustainable business plan. You’d have three strikes against you even before you started.”

If the investor receiving the advice is wise, he would, of course, avoid the stock as he would avoid a plague. Although there might be some chance of success, the odds are so thoroughly stacked against him that he’s almost certain to lose his money.

But what of an entire country where the investor has three strikes against him before he starts? What if some country were to pass a series of laws that were so draconian that, whilst it may be possible that the investor might survive, the odds are stacked so much against him that loss is almost a certainty?

An excellent example of such a country is the home of baseball—the USA. Once regarded worldwide as “the land of opportunity,” the US has declined precipitously in recent decades and, as developed countries go, has become one of the world’s dodgiest jurisdictions in which to retain wealth.

Strike One: Confiscation of Wealth

In 2010, the US government passed the massive (2,300 pages) Dodd-Frank Act. Ostensibly, Dodd-Frank was intended to end the excessive risk-taking that had led to the 2008 crash. Although Congress could simply have reinstated the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (a mere 37 pages, the 1999 repeal of which led to the crash), it passed Dodd-Frank. Many congressmen admitted that they had never even read it before passing it. Unfortunate. Buried in that bill was legislation that allowed the opposite of what the bill was claimed to have been meant to do. It allowed US banks to confiscate account holders’ deposits—in other words, it codified the bail-in process.

Although no confiscation has yet taken place, a trial balloon for confiscation was sent up in Cyprus in 2013 and the world accepted the concept. The path is now paved for similar confiscation in the US. In essence, this means that any funds that are entrusted to any bank in the US are unsafe.

Strike Two: Civil Forfeiture

The stated purpose of the civil forfeiture law is to seize property that may have been connected in some way to a crime. In the 1980s, the US Congress gave the green light to law enforcement agencies to retain the proceeds of their seizures. In addition, the traditional “innocent until proven guilty” principle was thrown out. The onus was now on the accused to prove that his property was not connected to a crime. If he could not do so, the authorities could keep the proceeds.

But the enforcement of this law has not been focused on wealthy drug kingpins. Nationwide, it has been focused on the average citizen, who is limited as to his ability for recourse. Typically, he’s stopped by police as he’s driving down the road. His possessions (particularly cash) are seized on the claim of a minor traffic offense. Another method of seizure is to raid a home or business premises. Often, anything of value is taken, under the assumption that it “may have been connected to a crime.” And often, the charges are trumped-up and the arguments flimsy.

The accused must then fight in court to regain his property, which happens rarely. Most cases never reach the courtroom. In many that do, the individual finds he cannot afford the legal fees, so he either gives up or settles. Abuses abound and in some jurisdictions, seizure has become a full-time activity, netting hundreds of millions in value, little of which is ever returned, even if no charges are ever filed against the accused.

Strike Three: Removal of Free Speech

In December of 2016, the US Congress passed the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, following a television campaign warning that “fake news” created by Russia had increased support for presidential candidate Donald Trump, allowing him to defeat Hillary Clinton.

The law provides for the implementation of an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation” that ostensibly threatens “security” and “stability.”

No single government agency has been charged with the enforcement of this law, which suggests that any government agency that objects to published information that disagrees with its own will have the power to take action. It may punish “the extensive and destabilising foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us.”

The upshot of this is that the US government will have the authority to crack down on any group or individual that it decides is disseminating “propaganda,” including punishing and/or shutting down any source it deems guilty of disseminating information that does not match its own propaganda.

And so, returning to our investor, he’s looking at a country in which he already has three strikes against him. He’s almost certain to lose. What will he do? Well, sad to say, human nature dictates that he’s most likely to simply put his head in the sand and continue on regardless. If he’s already neck-deep in the US investment game, he’ll be inclined to continue and hope for the best, much to his eventual regret.

Historically, whenever any country declines to the point that its government has removed the rights of property ownership and freedom of speech, most people do tend to just hang in there and ride the train to the bottom.

Very few choose to vote with their feet and decamp to another jurisdiction where the laws are not so draconian. For whatever reason, that which is so easy to understand in baseball is very hard to understand with regard to investment and residency.

*  *  *

Unfortunately most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare… The coming economic and political collapse is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past. That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video. Click here to watch it now.