Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21, by Tom DeWeese


eagle

apclogo600
https://americanpolicy.org/2019/02/25/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21/

25 Feb
Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21
Posted at 13:59h
Environment, Featured, Property Rights, Sustainable Development
by Tom DeWeese

h-15151184-ocasio-1542147296-e1542147448245

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals. They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

105767748-1551385404955preview-1-150x150

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-speaks-as-other-house-news-photo-11

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action – just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington Post, Esquire magazine, Wingnut Watch, Mother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Cortez

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over night. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority. Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda! Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it. Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch freedom die.
Share

The Whole Country is Running Amok!



You know that just thinking bad things about Obama landed people in jail, and I don’t know anyone who liked or voted for him. In fact, he should be in jail for numerous items he did.


Trump on the other hand I voted for and like, and know many, that if they did not like him in the beginning, saw he was not full of shit, and came his way.

Yet, people are always threatening, and in fact, trying to kill Trump, and even saying it publicly does not cause them to land in jail.

Personally, the likes of Madonna saying that she had been thinking “a lot lately about blowing up the white house”, the bitch should have been locked up.

Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi should be there with the bitch, and Clinton should have been there back before the elections.

Since when, do people trying to get people to murder anyone not go to jail?  Dumb question, how many are on the Clinton’s list of dead bodies?


Especially when it is the US President they are trying to get murdered?

Same thing with riots? 

Since when does attempting to incite riots not an arrest-able offense?

The whole country is running amok with would be communists, at one time people like that were taken care of one way or another.

Yet, today, we have fewer rights than we have ever had.

We have a news media that all of them should be fired and put on public display handcuffed and shackled. Can’t believe a word out of their mouths.

We have alternative news sites being yanked off the internet, and social media idiots going from one side to other, scared they are going to lose their riches.

Then there are these ANTIFA screwballs.

They hide who they are, go out and commit crimes, and the cops stand there with their sticks in their hands jerking off.

Hell, I remember the riots of the 60s when the cops came, they told you to leave.

If the kids did not leave they would go to clubbing the whole lot of them.
Sometimes, they were shot at. They did not care race or gender, they would bat you down.

Then there are these idiots that are trying to tell kids that there are many different genders, and if they want to be a different sex, that is ok.

If they want to be an animal that’s ok too. They are teaching kids about sex in school, and that transgender men can go to the same bathroom as our little girls.

WTF is wrong with this picture?

And since when do our kids not belong to us, and they do belong to the whole community? I guess that was about the same time, that the vaccines started giving the kids autism.

Is the whole community stepping in to help pay for these kids riddled with autism? Hell no.


The courts will rule against all known law, and in fact make up some laws as they go along.

Foreclosure hell awakened judges making laws. Seen it in a bunch of different states.

And just try going into the court as pro se. What a fucking joke.

No matter how well versed a person is in the law. No matter how well a person follows the rules to a “t”, no matter if the persona has a cut and dry case in their favor, if they don’t have an attorney, they might as well go jerk off in the bushes, because that is about how much it is going to matter.


And that’s not even mentioning the child sex rings stealing, selling, and killing children in this country.

I am so sick of the shit that I could go on, and on, and on…

I guess all I can say is damn, the whole country is running amok.

Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale, by Neil Garfield


Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale
Posted on July 3, 2018 by Neil Garfield
https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/pay-attention-look-at-the-money-trail-after-the-foreclosure-sale/

My confidence has never been higher that the handling of money after a foreclosure sale will reveal the fraudulent nature of most “foreclosures” initiated not on behalf of the owner of the debt but in spite of the the owner(s) of the debt.

It has long been obvious to me that the money trail is separated from the paper trail practically “at birth” (origination). It is an obvious fact that the owner of the debt is always someone different than the party seeking foreclosure, the alleged servicer of the debt, the alleged trust, and the alleged trustee for a nonexistent trust. When you peek beneath the hood of this scam, you can see it for yourself.

Real case in point: BONY appears as purported trustee of a purported trust. Who did that? The lawyers, not BONY. The foreclosure is allowed and the foreclosure sale takes place. The winning “bid” for the property is $230k.

Here is where it gets real interesting. The check is sent to BONY who supposedly is acting on behalf of the trust, right. Wrong. BONY is acting on behalf of Chase and Bayview loan servicing. How do we know? Because physical possession of the check made payable to BONY was forwarded to Chase, Bayview or both of them. How do we know that? Because Chase and Bayview both endorsed the check made out to BONY depositing the check for credit in a bank account probably at Chase in the name of Bayview.

OK so we have the check made out to BONY and TWO endorsements — one by Chase and one by Bayview supposedly — and then an account number that might be a Chase account and might be a Bayview account — or, it might be some other account altogether. So the question who actually received the $230k in an account controlled by them and then, what did they do with it. I suspect that even after the check was deposited “somewhere” that money was forwarded to still other entities or even people.

The bid was $230k and the check was made payable to BONY. But the fact that it wasn’t deposited into any BONY account much less a BONY trust account corroborates what I have been saying for 12 years — that there is no bank account for the trust and the trust does not exist. If the trust existed the handling of the money would look very different OR the participants would be going to jail.

And that means NOW you have evidence that this is the case since BONY obviously refused to do anything with the check, financially, and instead just forwarded it to either Chase or Bayview or perhaps both, using copies and processing through Check 21.

What does this mean? It means that the use of the BONY name was a sham, since the trust didn’t exist, no trust account existed, no assets had ever been entrusted to BONY as trustee and when they received the check they forwarded it to the parties who were pulling the strings even if they too were neither servicers nor owners of the debt.

Even if the trust did exist and there really was a trust officer and there really was a bank account in the name of the trust, BONY failed to treat it as a trust asset.

So either BONY was directly committing breach of fiduciary duty and theft against the alleged trust and the alleged trust beneficiaries OR BONY was complying with the terms of their contract with Chase to rent the BONY name to facilitate the illusion of a trust and to have their name used in foreclosures (as long as they were protected by indemnification by Chase who would pay for any sanctions or judgments against BONY if the case went sideways for them).

That means the foreclosure judgment and sale should be vacated. A nonexistent party cannot receive a remedy, judicially or non-judicially. The assertions made on behalf of the named foreclosing party (the trust represented by BONY “As trustee”) were patently false — unless these entities come up with more fabricated paperwork showing a last minute transfer “from the trust” to Chase, Bayview or both.

The foreclosure is ripe for attack.

Spread the word

Iowa Supreme Court Rules Civil Forfeiture Laws Violate Fifth Amendment, Upholds Pleading The Fifth


May 30, 2018 @ 02:02 PM 23,367
2 Free Issues of Forbes
Iowa Supreme Court Rules Civil Forfeiture Laws Violate Fifth Amendment, Upholds Pleading The Fifth
https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2018/05/30/iowa-supreme-court-rules-civil-forfeiture-laws-violate-fifth-amendment-upholds-pleading-the-fifth/#3d1978161655

Institute For Justice
We are the national law firm for liberty.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Nick Sibilla Nick Sibilla , Contributor

The Iowa Supreme Court struck a blow on Friday against the state’s civil forfeiture laws, which allow the government to permanently confiscate property without ever filing criminal charges. In a unanimous, 33-page ruling, the court strengthened the constitutional protection against self-incrimination for owners fighting civil forfeiture, revived a motion to suppress evidence, and rejected a tactic commonly used by prosecutors to prevent owners from being awarded thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees.

Iowa has been a surprising hot spot for civil forfeiture, ensnaring motorists, professional poker players, and an entrepreneur who ran a Mexican restaurant for almost four decades. The state even rewards the aggressive pursuit of forfeiture cases: Police and prosecutors can keep up to 100 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property. Little wonder then that forfeiture has become quite profitable for law enforcement. An investigation by the Des Moines Register revealed that Iowa law enforcement agencies had taken over $55 million in cash and more than 4,200 vehicles since 1985.

Spurred by these abuses, last year, Iowa legislators strengthened due process protections for innocent owners, and required a criminal conviction to forfeit property valued at under $5,000. Although Iowa’s conviction threshold is the lowest of the 15 states with a conviction requirement, in 2015, data analysis by the Institute for Justice found that only 14 percent of Iowa’s cash forfeitures topped $5,000. Friday’s ruling should further curtail civil forfeiture.

The case began when Jean Carlos Herrera was driving from New York City to Los Angeles in September 2015. While Herrera was passing through Pottawattamie County, Iowa on Interstate 80, he was pulled over by Sergeant Kevin Killpack for going four miles over the speed limit. During the stop, a drug dog alerted to the car. Without Herrera’s consent, Killpack searched the Expedition, but only found some tools, a cell phone, a hollowed-out ice cream machine, and a Pelican case that “contained drug paraphernalia and remnants of marijuana.” No other drugs were found.

Killpack cited Herrera for speeding but never charged him with a crime. Yet that didn’t stop the sergeant from seizing the car, a 1999 Ford Expedition registered to Herrera’s friend, Fernando Rodriguez, and all the equipment inside.

Less than a week after the Expedition was seized, Rodriguez hired an attorney, who promptly emailed Pottawattamie County that Rodriguez was fighting back as an “innocent owner.” Rodriguez’s attorney also noted that under Iowa law, the government must pay attorney’s fees to property owners who win their civil forfeiture cases. He also noted that “the fees are going to be greater than the vehicle value, so this might be one to let go.”

Soon after, Sergeant Killpack applied for a warrant to search possible hidden compartments within the vehicle, based on the fact that Rodriguez had hired an attorney. According to Killpack, “it does not make financial sense to spend a significant amount of money, in attorney fees, in an attempt to reclaim a vehicle worth $2,132,” which in his mind meant that “there is something much more valuable still inside the vehicle that has not been found by law enforcement in the initial search.”

A district court granted the warrant, though, as the Iowa Supreme Court noted on Friday, Killpack’s warrant application “failed to mention that Rodriguez had argued he was entitled to attorney fees from the State as an innocent owner.” On his second search, Killpack found and seized almost $45,000 in cash hidden inside a false compartment.

In October, prosecutors filed a complaint to forfeit the cash, the car, and the rest of the property taken during the traffic stop, claiming that the property was “drug proceeds” or “used in the transport of drugs.”

The two men (who were now represented by the same lawyer) filed an answer together that stated they had an interest in the seized properties and demanded their return. Herrera also invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to completely comply with the state’s disclosure requirements.

Under state law, property owners who want to reclaim their seized property must fully disclose “the nature and extent” of their interest in the property, as well as “the date, the identity of the transferor, the circumstances of the claimant’s acquisition.” Refusing to comply can result in the property forfeited to the state. Yet those forced disclosures may reveal information that could incriminate the owner or trigger a perjury trap, which would violate the Fifth Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas Waterman noted that Iowa’s forfeiture laws burden owners with a “difficult choice between asserting [their] privilege against self-incrimination or foregoing [their] claim for return of the contested property.”

As Waterman recounted, Herrera omitting that information was “fatal to his claim:” The district court ruled that Herrera’s reply was not a proper answer and so he was not entitled to a forfeiture hearing.

But on appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and held that “assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination excuses compliance” from Iowa’s disclosure requirements for civil forfeiture claims. “The court may not enforce the specific disclosure requirements…over the claimant’s Fifth Amendment objection,” Waterman ruled.

Friday’s ruling also revived Herrera’s motion to suppress evidence, which the district court had dismissed as well. Both the Iowa Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that the “exclusionary rule,” which prohibits the government from using evidence that was not lawfully obtained, applies to criminal prosecutions and civil forfeiture proceedings.

In this case, Herrera claimed that the stop, search, and seizure of the car violated the Fourth Amendment and should be suppressed accordingly. Justice Waterman ruled that “the district court must first rule on motions to suppress evidence before resolving forfeiture claims,” since that ruling “determines what evidence the state can rely on during the forfeiture proceeding.”

The court’s ruling should strengthen safeguards for property owners facing civil forfeiture. According to Dean Stowers, who represented Herrera and Rodriguez, “this decision will require the state to establish the legality of the seizure” before the state can attempt “to forfeit property or to compel persons to answer questions about their property.”

A representative from the Iowa Attorney General’s Office said they were “still looking at the possible impact of the ruling” and declined to comment further.

“It appears that we followed the forfeiture rules as they existed at the time, and we argued that the claimants did not follow the rules,” said Pottawattamie County Attorney Matt Wilber. ”The District Court and Court of Appeals agreed with our position. The Iowa Supreme Court has now ordered that they are changing the rules, so we’ll all follow the new rules.”

As for Rodriguez, five months after the state filed its forfeiture complaint, prosecutors decided Rodriguez could get back his Ford Expedition. His attorney then filed to recover nearly $9,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses, which, under Iowa law, are owed to prevailing parties. But because the state dropped its forfeiture case just before a court hearing, the district court ruled that Rodriguez didn’t actually prevail because he didn’t technically win on the merits in court.

Justice Waterman rejected this argument wholesale:

“Rodriguez sought to prevent the State from taking permanent possession of his vehicle. He fulfilled his primary objective of getting his vehicle back after months of contested litigation against the State. On this record, we hold that Rodriguez is a prevailing party even though the district court did not expressly find that he was an ‘innocent owner.’”

Moreover, Waterman noted that fee awards “help level the playing field for persons contesting government seizures,” as they “incentivize attorneys to represent citizens seeking return of their property from the government.”

The Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling contrasts starkly with the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Iowa. In 2016, the Eighth Circuit considered the case of Carole Hinders, who ran Mrs. Lady’s, a cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Based simply on the way she deposited her cash, in spring 2013, the IRS raided Carole’s entire business checking account—almost $33,000. The IRS accused Carole of “structuring” her deposits, or deliberately keeping her deposits under $10,000 to circumvent a reporting requirement. She was never indicted.

Institute for Justice

Carole Hinders.

With help from the Institute for Justice, Carole fought back. In October 2014, The New York Times ran a front-page story on her case. That prompted the IRS to announce it would “no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with ‘legal source’ structuring cases.” Less than two months after the Times article was published, federal prosecutors dropped the case against Carole’s cash.

Under the federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, property owners who “substantially prevail” in their civil forfeiture cases are entitled to interest as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Considering that she recovered her cash and even sparked a policy shift at the IRS, Carole believed she had “substantially prevailed.” Unfortunately, in 2016, the Eighth Circuit ruled that she did not, and instead held that “a voluntary change on the part of a defendant, even if it resulted in the outcome sought by the plaintiff, ‘lack[ed] the necessary judicial imprimatur’ to authorize a fee award.” With this ruling, the Eighth Circuit upheld a loophole for the government to skip out on paying hefty attorney’s fees to innocent property owners.

But with the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, owners fighting forfeiture in state court now have an easier time to be made whole than if their exact same case were in federal court. One Des Moines-based forfeiture attorney told the Des Moines Register that the new decision should deter the government from seizing property, since prosecutors “risk not only the return of the property but a significant attorney fee as well.”

“The Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling is another potent reminder that the best way to prevent abusive seizures is to end civil forfeiture once and for all,” said Institute for Justice Senior Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath. “Iowa legislators should follow the lead of counterparts in North Carolina, New Mexico and Nebraska and replace it with criminal forfeiture.”

This post has been updated to include comment from the Pottawattamie County Attorney.

Project Veritas: UNDERCOVER VIDEO: HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View “Everything You Post,” & Private “Sex Messages”


UNDERCOVER VIDEO: HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View “Everything You Post,” & Private “Sex Messages”
https://www.projectveritas.com/video/undercover-video-hundreds-of-twitter-employees-paid-to-view-everything-you-post-private-sex-messages/

by Staff Report January 15, 2018

Project Veritas has released undercover footage of Twitter Engineers and employees admitting that Twitter employees view”everything you post” on their servers, including private “sex messages,” and “d*ck pics.” The engineers also admit that Twitter analyzes this information to create a “virtual profile” of you which they sell to advertisers.

James O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018. Pre-order the book: http://www.americanpravdabook.com

This is part three in Project Veritas’ Twitter investigation.

See part one: Part One
See part two: Part Two

Pre-order James O’Keefe’s new book – a treatise on modern media, a true crime spy thriller, and a rollicking adventure story. Follow James and his undercover journalists as they expose mainstream media outlets like CNN and the New York Times and reveal dirty political tricks during the 2016 national elections.

Lying Little Shit Hogg: SHOCK: David Hogg Changes Story, Wasn’t At School When Cruz Opened Fire By Peter D’Abrosca – Mar 26, 2018


SHOCK: David Hogg Changes Story, Wasn’t At School When Cruz Opened Fire
By Peter D’Abrosca – Mar 26, 2018

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-david-hogg-changes-story-wasnt-school-cruz-opened-fire/

In a not-yet-released CBS Documentary, David Hogg, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student who has become the face of the gun control movement, changes his entire story and admits that he was not at the school during the event.

In a Time interview done within hours of the shooting Hogg recounted, “Our first response was ‘that sounded a lot like a gun shot’ and we closed the door.” Hogg claimed that he was in his AP enviromental science class during the shooting. He also made videos of himself and other students, regarding gun control, purportedly while the shooting was going on.

But CBS News has released some transcripts from its “39 Days” documentary, in which student David Hogg is quoted.

“On the day of the shooting, I got my camera and got on my bike and rode as fast as I could three miles from my house to the school to get as much video and to get as many interviews as I could because I knew that this could not be another mass shooting,” Hogg said in his CBS News interview.

The shooting occurred in the afternoon, after alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz was dropped off after 2 PM.

“While I was in there, I thought, ‘What impact have I had? What will my story be if I die here? And the only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others. As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about,” Hogg recalled.


Watch David Hogg tell two different stories below:

Interesting. However, Hogg made some videos purportedly DURING the shooting from inside the school.

Here is Hogg’s interview with TIME magazine following the shooting in which he claimed that he was in his AP environmental science class at the time the shooting occured:

When Hogg heard a “pop” while sitting in an AP environmental science class around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, he told his teacher it sounded strangely like a gunshot. But there had been a fire drill that very morning and talk of a “Code Red” exercise to prepare for an active shooter. This must just be a surprise drill, he reasoned.

And then the fire alarm sounded. Dutifully acting on it, Hogg and other students tried to exit the building. A janitor—Hogg doesn’t know his name but calls him an angel—knew where the shots were coming from and sent the students back. Then a culinary arts teacher, Ashley Kurth, pulled Hogg and others inside, locked the door, and made them hide in a closet. Checking Twitter and Instagram, Hogg—who’s an editor at the school’s TV station—found the news that the shooting was real and ongoing.

The shots continued for what felt like an eternity. Hogg considered the possibility that he would not live to see the end of the day.

“While I was in there, I thought, ‘What impact have I had? What will my story be if I die here?’” Hogg told TIME in the hours following the ordeal. “And the only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others. As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about.”

Pretty big contradiction there.

Here is some of “student reporter” David Hogg’s interviews with his classmates, purportedly during the shooting. By the way, there is no way Hogg could have gotten into the school during the shooting, because the Broward County Sheriff’s Office set up a perimeter around the school during the shooting, all the while refusing to enter the school to stop the bloodshed.

Here is Hogg claiming to be inside the school during the shooting.

Here are Hogg’s interviews with his classmates, purportedly during the shooting:

Sheriff Scott Israel’s Broward County Sheriff’s Office made a concerted effort to not enter the Parkland high school during February’s mass shooting, instead allowing the shooting to happen.

The mainstream media is finally reporting on police and emergency scanner audio tapes that show the full extent of the Sheriff’s Office’s complicity in the horror at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“Do not approach the 12 or 1300 building, stay at least 500 feet away,” Sheriff’s Office deputy Scot Peterson said over radio dispatch, disproving his claim that he didn’t go inside the school because he was ordered not to do so if he didn’t have body cameras on. School surveillance footage has still not been released, and is unlikely to ever be released.

Big League Politics first reported on audiotapes showing that the Sheriff’s Office set up a perimeter around the high school during the shooting, after learning that multiple people were shot dead inside the high school. The police dispatcher ordered police to “hold all perimeters” while the shooter was still at large. Thirty minutes after learning of the active shooter situation, the Sheriff’s Office was still holding its perimeter and dispatchers were reporting “The shooter is not down. The shooter is not down.”

Our reporting proved that Israel’s office lied by claiming that they only set up a perimeter around the school AFTER the shooting, not during the shooting. In fact, they set up a perimeter four minutes after learning that people were shot dead inside.

I love this: So his point is that those kids are who they are because somebody has a design that it stay that way, that they become useful, that they become trained not to think but rather as sponges! David Hogg….


A Great Piece on Teenagers and Gun Control
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 28, 2018 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 3/28/2018, 4:45:31 PM by Kaslin

RUSH: We’re not quite through with the gun control aspect of this, because that’s the big area, number one, where the left has finally decided they don’t have to lie anymore and they don’t have to pretend. They’ve been saying for years: We don’t want to confiscate every gun. We just want life to be safer in America. We want get rid of the assault rifles. We wanted to get rid of the semiautomatics. We want to get rid of the killing machines. We love our children.

Well, that’s never been the case. Not that they don’t love their children. What’s never been the case is that they only have a few things they want to do. They want total confiscation of every weapon in this country. And if it takes them 20 years, fine and dandy. They don’t put four-year time limits, something the Soviets and communists taught them very well. The Soviet Union never had a time limit on things like we do.

We have four-year administrations. If the president doesn’t get something done in four years or a second term, eight years, that’s considered, “It’s over. Somebody else has to start again.” In totalitarian countries, dictatorships, there’s no such thing as a time limit. You just get it done when you got it done. You have an objective and you work towards it, period. You don’t get derailed, and you don’t get stopped, and you don’t stop yourself. And people on our side just don’t believe anybody could have that kind of commitment and intensity. But these people have had it trained and educated, burned into them.

But I ran across a piece today that I want to share some excerpts with you from. This is Bruce Thornton, Shillman Journalism Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center. This is from FrontPageMag.com. “Teenagers Make Great Progressive Shock Troops.”

I just want to read a few excerpted paragraphs here, because you know what this piece is? This piece is one of those I wish I would have written. It contains elements, details, explanations for why things have been happening by certain people on the left for all these years, what the objective is, how they’ve gone about it and so forth. It’s really enlightening. And it deals with, how did we go off the rails?

It wasn’t that long ago that there were virtues and that there were tenets, there were time-honored traditions, institutions, and philosophies that everybody followed because they were time-honored and believed in, and they worked. And they were all oriented around virtue and morality, doing the right thing, overcoming obstacles, learning how to deal with adversity, not whining, not moaning, not complaining, not becoming a victim. When did all this change? Bruce Thornton here tackles it. So I JIPped this. I join it in progress.

“Once upon a time, experience in a hard, indifferent world, the virtues like self-reliance and impulse-control nourished by faith and tradition, and an education based on mental skills and the lessons of history taught the young that their feelings and ‘self-esteem’ don’t amount to a hill of beans in this flawed world.”

Once upon a time experience mattered, virtue, self-reliance, impulse control nourished by faith and tradition and an education system that taught people how to think, taught the lessons of history, taught young people that feelings were no substitute for knowledge and experience.

“Once upon a time people learned that good deeds are more important than fine words, that acting on their impulses and seeking instant gratification carry a high price, and that duty and obligation and responsibility to others in the end are the foundations of our political and social order.

“Starting in the postwar fifties, increasing wealth, more time spent in school rather than factories and fields, consumer capitalism’s promotion of impulse-buying, and a culture of materialism that defines the self through fashion, consumption, and popular culture rather than through education, challenges, and character — all exacerbated the flaws of youth that the larger culture once tried to correct, but now indulged.”

So he’s saying that the descent into current pop culture can be traced back to the economic boom of the postwar fifties. He’s not blaming economic booms. He’s not blaming a good economy. What he says is that with the increased wealth per capita, family income, more time spent in school rather than in factories and fields, so more professional training rather than vocational, consumer advertising promoting impulse buying and a culture of materialism as a definition of yourself. And of course yourself is defined by fashion, consumption, pop culture. That’s when it all began.

“Movies, music, and soon the therapeutic curricula of schools reinforced and glorified these flaws rather than disciplining and correcting them. The ‘human sciences’ replaced the doctrines of faith and wisdom of tradition in explaining human nature and its proper aims. The last three generations have been marinated in these social and cultural dysfunctions –” So he’s talking about anywhere from 60 to 75 years. So the last 60 to 75 years people have marinated, kids have “marinated in these social and cultural dysfunctions that have resulted in a sense of entitlement and outlandish expectations. Adolescence has been extended far beyond the traditional beginning of adulthood.”

That means parents are perfectly fine with their kids not growing up. Parents are perfectly fine with their kids remaining kids. I have a story in the Stack today, 75% of Millennials, mom and dad are still paying most of the bills, even after they’ve left the house. Because their parents say, “It’s so hard out there.” Good Lord. But, anyway, Mr. Thornton here is exactly right. Adolescence has been extended far beyond the traditional beginning of adulthood. What would you say that is, 21? Graduating from college, you’re an adult, you strike out on your own.

Anyway, it’s a great point here that parents have willingly accepted that their adult kids are still their kids, they’re still adolescents. This has been “increasingly shaped by a leftist political ideology that rationalizes and exculpates bad character and destructive choices as the fault of a corrupt political, economic, and social system. But the old-left call for the violent overthrow of such an evil establishment is now merely a rhetorical flourish. Symbolic politics like marches and demonstrations that occasionally stray into vandalism and petty thuggery are preferred, for they are relatively risk-free, and draw the attention of sympathetic media and like-minded adults who praise the youngsters’ ‘passion’ and ‘commitment’ to ‘change’ and a ‘better world.’”

“Take David [‘Camera’] Hogg, who was present during the attack last month on the high school in Parkland. The 17-year-old appears with four other Stoneman Douglas students on the cover of Time [magazine], and has become a darling of the anti-gun crowd for his profanity-laced tantrums that demonstrate perfectly the portrait sketched above…” Adolescents not being reined in. Profane language and behavior being applauded.

Isn’t he cute? Don’t we want to reward his passion and commitment? You know, I ask people who have kids, “Would you let your kid be doin’ this? Would you let your kid go on national TV at a march and make YouTube videos, and every other word be the F-bomb?” “No way! No way!” See, every parent that I ask… Where are this kid’s parents? I don’t know. I don’t know anything about him. I don’t know if they’re applauding. I don’t know if they’re troubled by it.

He’s out there calling the people that he’s upset with “‘The pathetic f—ers that want to keep killing our children, they could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they all still see those dollar signs,’ [Hogg] said of the NRA and” people like Marco Rubio. “Notice how this…” I’m reading now Mr. Thornton. “Notice how this callow youth simply regurgitates the stale clichés of the gun-control fundamentalists. [This kid] obviously has no clue that the NRA has political clout not because of the pittance it gives politicians compared to, say, public-employee unions…”

No! “[T]he NRA has political clout … because millions” and millions and millions of Americans support it to defend a constitutional right they cherish. “Nor does [this kid] realize that a young person dying in a mass school shooting by a psychopath with a rifle is a rare occurrence, compared to dying in a car accident, or being beaten to death, or being killed by a motorist while walking or biking to school. He has no clue that the demonized, perfectly legal AR-15 was already banned from 1994-2004, without lowering gun-deaths…

“Like his equally addled elders, he can’t fathom that more regulations of guns do nothing to keep them out of the hands of” bad guys. In other words, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about — and it was that long ago where people that didn’t know what they were talking about were not given pedestals, and were not proclaimed experts, and the rest of the country was not required to agree and shut up. The rest of the country was not required to applaud and say, “Isn’t that cute!”

And the rest of the country was not prohibited from calling out that whoever didn’t know what they were talking about. But all of that’s changed. We can’t criticize it! We have to respect it. We have to applaud it for reasons that have nothing to do with fact, reasons that have nothing to do with truth. “This same juvenile thinking characterizes another high-school teen, this one interviewed by The Wall Street Journal:

“‘I make it a point to tell my mother I love her every day, because I want that to be the last thing I say to her in case anything happens to me at school,’ [the student] said, adding that gun violence ‘is something I don’t want to have to think about on a daily basis.’ While the young [student] is obsessing over the rare deaths from school shootings, 11 teens die every day from texting while driving. But we see no mass-movement to hold cell-phone manufacturers, and their billions spent in lobbying po[itician]s, responsible for the carnage their products cause.”

And likewise my old standby: We don’t see anybody protesting the automobile companies because the number of people killed every year by the wheel dwarfs the number of students shot in school. “Throw in drug overdoses and drunk-drivers, and kids and their parents have much more likely risks to worry about when a child leaves for school.” He’s the thing: “But we can’t blame the young. The progressive transformation of our culture has been directed at creating just such students, whose natural inclinations to self-drama and emotion rather than thinking make them perfect constituents for an ideology that flourishes among those who obsess over their feelings, and who demand the elimination of the sad constants of risk and suffering.

“The tragic wisdom that flawed humans are free to choose wickedness, and that the utopia of a world without risk or suffering is impossible, contradicts the pipe dreams of the left,” and all they are teaching. “So those who believe traditional wisdom must be trained from an early age to [give up] their freedom and autonomy to the technocratic elite that needs them to remain children.” So his point is that those kids are who they are because somebody has a design that it stay that way, that they become useful, that they become trained not to think but rather as sponges.

And they grow up to be exactly who they are as 17-year-olds, and they never change.

And they end up being incapable of self-reliance, incapable of thinking for themselves, incapable of being moved by facts.

They remain intolerant. So his point is: You can’t blame the kids. This is how they’re being raised. It’s how they’re being educated. It’s how they’re being taught. But at the same time, there are millions and millions of kids who somehow have managed to avoid this progressive inculcation. They join the military. They work for charities. They march for the right to life of the unborn. You just don’t know hear nearly as much about them, but they’re there, and they’re in much greater numbers than the students on Saturday. And that crowd, again, is estimated to be 10% kids.