Tag Archives: culture

Home Defense and Property Rights Get a New Tool

Posted on by
Reply

In Florida, at least.

The Florida Legislature unanimously passed a bill that would allow police to immediately remove squatters—a departure from the lengthy court cases required in most states.
…
The legislation, which passed both chambers earlier this month, would allow police to remove squatters without a lease authorized by the property owner and adds criminal penalties. Landlords, under the current law, typically have to wade through a long and expensive legal process to remove squatters.

The bill now goes to Governor Ron DiSantis (R) for signature and final enactment.

If the Florida legislation becomes law, intentionally presenting a phony lease would be designated as a misdemeanor, and selling or leasing someone else’s property would be a felony, as would causing more than $1,000 in property damage.

This is a good move. Squatters of this sort are nothing other than criminals, slow-motion home invaders.

Lies of Progressive-Democratic Party Politicians…

Posted on by
Reply

…and their supporters. Here’s the latest batch, via Just the News.

  • FBI agents took allegations from Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the midst of the 2016 presidential election and provably misled a court [the FISA Court] by omitting key information, in one case even doctoring evidence.

The FBI as a supporter of one political party? Yes, the agency has chosen a side and abandoned the requirement for it to be a coldly objective investigator of criminal behavior regardless of the behaver.

  • Fifty-one intelligence experts who derived their credentials from American taxpayers signed a letter cheered on by Joe Biden’s campaign to falsely portray Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation when the FBI had already corroborated it as authentic.
  • An official congressional select committee [the J-6 Committee, for those following along at home] concluded a White House aide’s third-party hearsay account that Donald Trump tried to violently commandeer his presidential SUV on January 6 was more credible than the Secret Service driver’s firsthand account—which it suppressed—that such an event never happened.
  • A White House official [Ian Sams, White House Office of Counsel to the President] used the power of the bully pulpit to insist it was a “significant error” for journalists to report Joe Biden “willfully” kept and disseminated classified information when in fact that is exactly what the Biden Justice Department’s appointed special counsel had concluded.

And this one from Party’s communications arm, the press guild:

…”[ABC News‘ George] Stephanopoulos said 10 times, on 10 separate occasions, Donald Trump was found ‘liable for rape’ in the E Jean Carroll case. He specifically said that the jury found Trump ‘liable for rape’—now that’s important. In fact, the jury specifically found Trump not liable for rape,” [Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron] York told Fox News Digital.”
…
“[I]t’s just a fact that the court asked the jury, ‘Do you think Miss Carroll proved by preponderance of the evidence that Donald Trump raped her?’ And they said, ‘No.'”

This is what’s a stake this fall. Will we be reigned over by an intrinsically dishonest political syndicate, or will we succeed in electing a Conservative government that would be markedly less dishonest, if not itself precisely lily-pure?

Soviet Canada

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Justin Trudeau government that’s reigning over Canada wants to lock Canadian citizens away for the crime of speculating—thinking—in ways Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds personally objectionable.

On February 26 Mr Trudeau’s Liberal government introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which targets so-called hate speech on the internet. One of its provisions would enable anyone, with the consent of the federal attorney general, to “lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit” an offense. The judge could then issue a “peace bond” imposing conditions, including house arrest and electronic monitoring, on the defendant merely because it’s feared he could commit a hate crime.

Enhancing this attack on Canadian citizens’ liberty, Trudeau wants to pay individuals for denouncing their neighbors.

The commission [the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the central government arm charged with enforcing the Denouncement Law] would have the power to levy [fines] of up to 20,000 Canadian dollars (around US $15,000), payable to the complainant, not the treasury.

Is Trudeau moving to reduce Canada’s Provinces to the status of soviets under the control of the central committee?

On the other hand, given Trudeau’s…thought processes…maybe some concerned citizens might lay an information before an Ontario judge, provide the Ontario Provincial Police with the peace bond for enforcement, and see Trudeau confined to 24 Sussex adorned with an electronic monitoring device.

Nah. With his government determining what constitutes unacceptable thinking, Trudeau is proof against enforcement. Laws are only for the disdained bourgeoisie.

Trump Wasn’t the First

Posted on by
Reply

Since NATO’s creation, the European nations have, in the main, been shirking their obligations to the alliance and with that betraying their fellow alliance members. Then-President Jack Kennedy (D) was among the first American government officials to grow tired of that shirking and to object to it out loud.

John F Kennedy in 1963 told his National Security Council that “we cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share.”

Then it was then-Deputy Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1981 in front of the Munich Security Conference:

[T]he United States cannot be expected to improve and strengthen US forces in Europe, unless other allies increase their own contribution to the combined defense effort.

With the end of the Cold War almost 35 years ago,

NATO asserts that almost half its members won’t spend 2% of their gross domestic product on defense this year, a decade after the alliance affirmed that baseline expectation.

But those were just a bunch of polite noises.

Nor is Trump the only one objecting to European NATO members’ sloth and perfidy today, although today’s Progressive-Democratic Party politicians are standing silently on the sidelines in a reversal (repudiation?) of their Democrat predecessors.

[I]ncreasingly prominent voices in the US think “the time has come for Europe to stand on its own feet,” as Senator JD Vance (R, OH) put it recently.

Trump still is right, and it’s been his sharp rhetoric as opposed to those 50 years of “pretty please” that has gotten more NATO members—but not all of them, shamefully—to start honoring their fiscal and equipment commitments to NATO.

Government Making Crime Pay

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Progressive-Democratic Party reigning in the New York State government wants to reward felons for their crimes. After those felons have paid their debt to New York society through their jail time (and apparently before they’ve served out the rest of their penalty in the form of parole), the State wants to give them $2,600 for their trouble.

The legislation, introduced by State Senator Kevin Parker [D] and Assemblyman Eddie Gibbs [D], would allow inmates to collect around $400 each month over six months once they leave prison.
As the bill currently stands, there are no limitations on how or where the money can be spent, according to Fox 5 New York.

They’re looking at setting aside $25 million for this reward fund.

Instead of paying criminals for their crime, maybe this taxpayer money (the original $40 the felons routinely get on release came from their garnished wages from the jobs they held while in jail) would be better spent going to a victim rehab/make whole fund instead. Alternatively, maybe this taxpayer money would be better spent countering, if only a little, the State’s Defund the Police movement.

Alternatively alternatively, maybe this taxpayer money—evidently excess collections since it’s aimed at such foolishness—could be returned to the State’s citizens. After all, as Progressive-Democrat Gibbs complains,

In this economy that [the original $40] amount is barely enough to get groceries or purchase clothes for a job interview[.]

That’s also the case for the honest citizens of New York, both jobless and working poor.

It’s highly useful to help released felons readjust to life on the outside and start to recover (or begin) an honest life. Paying them for their crimes doesn’t accomplish that. Thus, and additional alternative: commit the $25 million to programs—not State-run!—jail house training in the trades, half-way house rehab and job prep, and the like. Gibbs and Parker like the idea of no strings attached for the felons’ spending their $2,600 each; they should have no trouble committing, unrestricted, their aggregated $25 mil to private enterprises to run these programs. Or—the horror—paying the $2,600 per to the employer who hires a newly released felon.

It’s instructive that of all the plethora of alternatives available, these Progressive-Democrats picked the absolute worst of the lot, the one that directly rewards the felon with free cash.