Tag: private property

Democrat Running for U.S. Senate in Maine Supports ‘Giving Land Back’ to Indigenous People

Graham Platner, the Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Maine recently said during a streaming session that he supports giving land back to indigenous people in his state.

Platner has been under fire in recent months after it was revealed that he had an actual Nazi tattoo on his chest. Since then, he has been running on a slightly lower profile, waiting for that news cycle to blow over.

His comments on indigenous people and land is a perfect example of progressive virtue signaling. He has to show Democrat base voters that he is as radically far left as they are.

The Washington Free Beacon reported:

‘A Foundation of My Politics’: Graham Platner Calls To Return Maine Land to ‘Indigenous Population’

Senate candidate Graham Platner (D., Maine) called to return land to natives in the state he’s running to represent, arguing that longstanding injustices committed by state and federal governments remain unresolved.

“I, for one, am a firm supporter in any legislation that increases tribal sovereignty for the indigenous population in Maine,” Platner said Monday during a virtual town hall. “I also am a firm supporter of any legislation on the federal level that begins to give more, frankly, land back to the indigenous peoples that was taken from them, and there are a few mechanisms of doing this.”

“Tribal sovereignty, quite frankly, is a foundation of my politics,” he added. “I don’t think we get to have a future full of justice, dignity, and peace, but we don’t right the injustices of the past.”

There are roughly 10,000 indigenous people living in Maine—the 10th smallest population in the United States, according Census data in 2021.

So-called land-back advocates typically call for returning public lands, specifically, to natives.

Keep reading

Canada spent nearly $1M killing ostriches, but full cost remains hidden

The federal government has now admitted that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the RCMP spent over $900,000 on the agency’s mission to slaughter more than 300 healthy ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C.

The numbers were revealed through an order paper question filed by Conservative MP Scott Anderson after months of stonewalling from Ottawa.

Despite Anderson pointedly requesting a complete accounting of all federal dollars spent, the amount the CFIA and RCMP did disclose is merely a glimpse into what was likely millions of tax dollars spent on lengthy court battles to avoid testing the birds to prove their health, and a nearly 50-day occupation of the farm with RCMP deployed at full force.

Nevertheless, for the farmers whose livelihoods and the healthy prehistoric creatures that were wiped out in the kill mission, the totals that have been revealed only add salt to the wounds.

The CFIA alone admits to $444,000, including $9,000 on feed that the farmers would have been happy to provide had they not been barred from caring for their birds weeks before the “cull.”

More than $72,000 was spent on portable toilets and hand-wash stations, and over $32,000 on unspecified “specialized equipment.”

It also paid $100,000 for private security at three of its offices.

Keep reading

OUTRAGE IN DC: Court Allows Squatter to Remain in Woman’s Home for MONTHS After Overstaying Airbnb Stay — Homeowner Faces Financial Ruin While System Protects the Trespasser

In yet another stunning example of the nation’s upside-down justice system, a DC court is allowing a squatter to remain inside a woman’s home for nearly a year after overstaying an Airbnb reservation, despite having no lease, no tenancy agreement, and no legal right to occupy the property.

The case has left homeowner Rochanne Douglas trapped in a nightmare that has cost her tens of thousands of dollars and pushed her to the brink, while alleged squatter Shadija Romero continues living inside Douglas’s property with total impunity.

Romero originally booked Douglas’s short-term rental for 32 days, ending on March 29. But after remaining in the home for more than 30 days, just long enough to exploit DC’s tenant-friendly laws, she suddenly declared herself a “resident” and refused to leave, 7News reported.

“I never gave her any tenancy,” said Douglas. “I never gave her a lease.”

From there, the situation spiraled. Douglas:

  • Served a 30-day notice to vacate
  • Called the police repeatedly
  • Sought court intervention
  • Even offered Romero $2,500 just to acknowledge she wasn’t a tenant and get out

Romero signed the agreement, but when her eviction date came on November 15, she refused to leave the property and claimed the arrangement “no longer works for me.”

To make matters worse, when Douglas attempted to enforce her rights, DC Metropolitan Police told her they could do nothing, despite Douglas being legally barred from entering her own home.

Neighbors later reported that Romero and her companions packed their bags, loaded the car, and left the property. Police cleared the home and informed Douglas she could secure it.

Keep reading

Michigan Man Guns Down Teen Who Broke into His Garage – Is Charged With Multiple Crimes Including Manslaughter Despite State’s “Stand Your Ground” Law

A Michigan man is facing a lengthy prison sentence after killing a youth who broke into his garage, sparking a debate regarding the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law.

As The New York Post reported on Sunday, 17-year-old Sivan Wilson and six other “mainly teenagers” broke into 24-year-old Dayton Knapton’s garage in White Lake just after 1 a.m. on July 8.

Knapton received an alert from his home security system, grabbed his 9mm semiautomatic handgun, and subsequently took fatal action to resolve the situation.

The Oakland County Prosecutor’s office alleges that Knapton left this house and fired two shots through a windowless locked door, which sent the burglars fleeing. Then he continued to fire as they tried to race away to safety.

Knapton then supposedly went back inside his house to reload his gun and returned to the scene.

Wilson fled the scene with his cronies but was struck by one of the bullets. Unfortunately for him, he did not receive medical care for 30 minutes and later died.

Investigators later determined that one of the bullets fired by Knapton through the locked door struck Wilson. Another teenager in the group was also shot in the leg but survived.

On November 7, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald announced that she would be charging Knapton with multiple crimes, including Manslaughter, Assault With Intent To Do Great Bodily Harm, and two counts of Felony Firearm.

McDonald released the following statement explaining why she decided to pursue charges:

The rights to own firearms and protect one’s family and home are fundamental. Those important rights also come with profound responsibility. Our office worked closely with law enforcement to review the evidence, including the obvious mitigating factors, which led us to these charges.

We believe the evidence demonstrates this defendant crossed the line by firing outside his home at fleeing persons. His actions not only took a life but potentially endangered the surrounding community by firing his weapon into the night.

Knapton faces up to 15 years behind bars for Manslaughter, 10 years for Assault With Intent To Do Great Bodily Harm, and 4 years for the two counts of Felony Firearm. This means he could spend almost 30 YEARS in prison.

Keep reading

Who Really Owns America? The Banks, The Billionaires, & The Deep State

“The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear… They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else… It’s called the American Dream, ‘cause you have to be asleep to believe it.”

– George Carlin

As President Trump floats the idea of 50-year mortgages, Americans are being sold a new version of the American Dream—one that can never truly be owned, only leased from the banks, billionaires, and private equity landlords who profit from our permanent state of debt.

Keep reading

Immigration and Climate Activists Want a Nation of Renters

It’s harder than ever to buy a home, thanks to immigration, environmental regulations, and zoning restrictions. The word “crisis” gets used too often, but housing certainly qualifies.

On the heels of an election won by Democrats who stressed “affordability,” the Trump administration has floated the idea of introducing 50-year mortgages to lower the entry cost of buying a home. Is that a good idea?

“I bought my first condo in the early 1990s in Washington, DC. Paid $115,000 for it. It was in McLean, Virginia, a nice area, and it was three times my income,” says Peter Schweizer, host of The DrillDown podcast. “How many people today could say they can take their income, triple it, and buy a house for that price?”

Co-host Eric Eggers does the math. “Don’t get a 50-year mortgage,” Eggers cautions. “On a $350,000 house at 6 percent interest, you would pay $250 a month less, but you would spend an extra $367,000 in interest.”

Housing costs have risen for many reasons, but immigration is a big factor. Since 1995, immigrants — legal or illegal — to the U.S. have risen by about 30 million people and now account for 15.8 percent of the population, according to Pew Research. That adds demand for housing.

Environmental restrictions and zoning restrictions are another large factor. A recent study quantified their effects on housing prices. In San Francisco, as the hosts note, restrictive zoning laws added $400,000 to the cost of a home. “In Seattle, Los Angeles, New York City, it’s much better: it’s only $200,000 added to the costs there,” Schweizer adds.

Keep reading

Florida Wins Court Battle on Law Limiting Homes, Land Purchases by Chinese Citizens

A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Florida can restrict home and land purchases by Chinese citizens, dismissing claims that the 2023 law is discriminatory.

It comes after a court dismissed a challenge to a similar law in Texas that restricts the ownership of properties by Chinese individuals or entities.

The 2–1 ruling by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for Florida to enforce SB 264, or the Interests of Foreign Countries Act, which bans individuals who are domiciled in China from buying property in the state unless they already owned all or part of a property before July 1, 2023.

The ruling could also encourage other states to adopt so-called alien land laws, which were once common but fell out of favor a century ago.

The court said the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the law’s purchasing restriction because they failed to show an imminent injury.

According to court documents, three of the individual plaintiffs are domiciled in Florida, and the fourth, who’s “at least arguably domiciled in China,” already has a home in Florida and has no plans to buy another. The last plaintiff, a real estate brokerage firm primarily serving Chinese and Chinese American clients, also failed to establish an imminent injury, circuit judges said.

Keep reading

Judges Rule Against Property Owners Seeking Compensation for SWAT Team Damage

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Nov. 3 that the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT team is not liable for damage done to a business while chasing a criminal in 2022.

NoHo Printing & Graphics Owner Carlos Pena will ask the full court to rehear the case, his attorneys from the Institute for Justice said in a statement posted to the Institute’s webpage.

A majority ruled that arresting a criminal is an exception to the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. That clause requires the government to compensate the owners of property taken by government action.

In August 2022, a criminal barricaded himself inside the business Pena had owned for 30 years. Police actions resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in damage and lost profits. Pena’s insurance and the city refused to pay, so in July 2023, he sued.

In March 2024, the court ruled against Pena, and he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Pena vowed to keep up the fight. In an email to The Epoch Times, Pena wrote that the battle is larger than just his business.

“What happened to me isn’t right and sometimes it feels like the deck is stacked against good citizens. I just don’t want anyone else to lose everything they worked for, like I did,” Pena wrote.

Pena and McKinney, Texas, homeowner Vicki Baker both filed claims against their respective cities after police damaged their property.

In Baker’s case, a fugitive high on methamphetamine barricaded himself in her house with a teenage hostage. He eventually released the teen girl, who told police that her kidnapper told her he would not be taken alive.

Keep reading

Consumer Protection Laws: Unconstitutional Controls That Hurt the Very People They Claim to Help

From rent caps to “price-gouging” laws, a new wave of so-called consumer-protection laws is sweeping state capitols. These measures are marketed as compassion in a crisis — or “fairness” in housing — but their substance is the same: command-and-control price fixing that violates the Constitution, tramples private-property rights, and sabotages the free market’s ability to allocate goods and services when people need them most.

Three recent bills illustrate the trend. Alabama’s House Bill 528 (HB528) and Virginia’s House Bill 1301 (HB1301) expand anti-gouging controls to more transactions and longer periods after emergencies. New Jersey’s Assembly Bill 3361 (A3361) imposes rent control on manufactured-home sites. Nebraska’s Legislative Bill 266 (LB266), however, is a rare bright spot, preempting local rent control and affirming property rights. Together, these bills spotlight the central question: Will states defend a constitutional, republican system rooted in liberty and voluntary exchange, or drift toward administrative despotism under the banner of “consumer protection”?

Protecting Property and Contract Rights

America’s Founders understood what modern lawmakers too often forget: Price controls are a form of compelled exchange that violates liberty. The U.S. Constitution safeguards that liberty in multiple places:

  • Fifth Amendment: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Price ceilings that force owners to sell below market value are regulatory takings in substance, if not in name.
  • Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” When a legislature dictates the permissible price, term, or escalation of a private lease or service, it impairs the parties’ agreed-upon obligations.
  • Ninth and 10th Amendments: The people retain unenumerated rights, and powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. These clauses limit government; they do not license it to control every transaction.
  • 14th Amendment (due process and equal protection): Arbitrary economic edicts that single out owners for special burdens invite due-process and equal-protection concerns.

Consumer-protection statutes also collide with first principles. The Declaration of Independence identifies unalienable rights — life, liberty, and property — and charges government to secure them. Free exchange is a peaceful exercise of those rights, and upholds one’s pursuit of happiness. Substituting bureaucratic fiat for voluntary exchange undermines the moral basis of self-government.

Keep reading

Henry Family Saves 175-Year-Old New Jersey Farm From Government Seizure

For nearly two centuries, the Henry family has worked the same soil in Bedminster, New Jersey — a 175-year-old farm passed from one generation to the next. But earlier this year, their heritage came under attack. Local officials, invoking the state’s “affordable housing” laws, sought to seize part of the Henrys’ land through legal maneuvering that would have handed it to developers.

The battle lasted months. It was draining, personal, and emblematic of a deeper national struggle between individual liberty and government overreach. At its heart was a simple question: do Americans still have the right to protect their property from the encroaching power of the state?

The Henrys said yes — and refused to back down.

Bedminster Township officials claimed the family’s land was needed to satisfy New Jersey’s affordable housing requirements, part of the state’s “Mount Laurel doctrine,” which forces municipalities to set aside areas for low- and moderate-income housing. In practice, that mandate often translates to deals between town governments and private developers — deals that profit politically connected insiders while displacing long-time property owners.

For the Henrys, compliance wasn’t an option. The farm had been in the family since before the Civil War, and to lose it to bureaucratic manipulation would have been a betrayal of everything their ancestors built. “This isn’t just land,” patriarch John Henry said. “It’s our home, our history, and our future. We weren’t going to let the government take that away.”

The family took their fight to court, arguing that the township’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional land grab disguised as “public good.” Their legal team showed that the town’s plan violated both the spirit and the letter of eminent domain law — which allows government to take private property only for legitimate public use, not for private development masked as social policy.

After months of hearings, the judge ruled in favor of the Henry family, halting the township’s attempt to rezone and seize the property. It was a rare victory for ordinary citizens in an era when small landowners are routinely bulldozed by regulation and corporate collusion.

The case may have unfolded in a quiet corner of New Jersey, but its implications stretch nationwide. Across the country, similar battles are erupting as state and local governments exploit “housing equity,” “green energy,” and “climate resilience” initiatives to justify taking or restricting private land. What happened in Bedminster is a warning: government power, once expanded, rarely retreats — unless citizens are willing to fight back.

The Henrys did just that. Their courage reaffirms a truth that runs deeper than politics — that freedom is inseparable from property. The ability to own, cultivate, and preserve what one’s family has built is not a mere privilege; it is a cornerstone of self-government and human dignity.

Their victory isn’t only about acres of farmland. It’s about preserving a way of life rooted in responsibility, faith, and independence — values that have long defined America’s heartland and are increasingly under assault by bureaucrats who see people as obstacles to policy.

Keep reading