Sometimes, politicians steal people’s homes. Really. If homeowners miss property tax payments, even if they never received the bills, some towns grab the whole house and keep the proceeds. All the proceeds. Even if the total is much more than the property tax owed. I reported on this (mal)practice a couple years ago. Since then, there’s been good news from the Supreme Court. But as my new video points out, some towns still steal homes. Tawanda Hall was behind on her property taxes. For that, she lost her family’s $308,000 house—$286,000 more than what she owed. When Hall first learned that Oakland County, Michigan, bureaucrats were seizing her home, she went to the mayor’s office to try to pay off her debt. But “they didn’t want our money,” Hall tells me, “They wanted the house. … They stole our home.” She didn’t even know she was behind on taxes: “We did not receive anything other than, ‘Get out.’” Christina Martin, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation, says government officials routinely notify people in legalese so dense that the homeowner doesn’t understand what the town demands. “They have an incentive not to work with people who are honestly trying to pay.” Martin took Hall’s case to court, claiming the county violated the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which ensures that private property can’t be taken for public use without just compensation.  But a Michigan judge dismissed her case because the government itself didn’t make a profit. Instead, the county gave her home to the Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, a private company. It then sold her house and kept most of the money. “The government shouldn’t be able to steal from its own people and then give it to their friends,” says Martin.  “How do you know that they’re ‘friends’?” I ask. “The company is run by the mayor and the city administrator.” It’s true. The Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative made $10 million selling foreclosed houses. Between 2016 and 2019, the company sold 138 homes. They didn’t give any money back to the original homeowners. Uri Rafaeli, a retired engineer, accidentally underpaid his property taxes because he didn’t add interest on his debt. His math was off by just $8.41. But Oakland County bureaucrats didn’t care. They foreclosed and sold his house for $24,500. The county kept all that money, not just $8.41. “You think if he knew he owed $8, he would have paid it?” Martin says. “Of course. He didn’t know. There wasn’t the proper incentive to let him know.” Sixty-seven-year-old Deborah Foss fell behind on property taxes. She owed New Bedford, Massachusetts, $9,626. Bureaucrats sold her house for $242,000 and kept the difference. Foss resorted to living in her car. The Pacific Legal Foundation appealed these home thefts and finally won at the Supreme Court. The court ruled 9-0 that the practice is unconstitutional. “You only take what you’re owed,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. Finally. Justice.  Except the county that stole Tawanda Hall’s house still won’t return the excess money. They’re spending more taxpayer money on legal fees, demanding that Hall prove the house’s value in court. At least the woman living in her car got $85,000 back. She is no longer homeless. I wish I could say such abuses are over, but a handful of states still use loopholes to get around the Supreme Court ruling. The Pacific Legal Foundation says they will continue to sue until towns end this practice for good. COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post How Politicians Steal Homes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder and Chairman Klaus Schwab appears quite enthusiastic about a future where technology takes the lead and central role in people’s everyday lives, but also across industries. More likely, when he talks about the supposedly upcoming “Intelligence Age” – given his own and his organization’s track record – Schwab might actually have in mind advanced technology programmed by the few, in control of the rest. Schwab’s recent post on the WEF’s website reveals that he does see himself as a visionary: first, he takes credit for the phrase “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” (that, true, has produced a world where elites use Big Tech to control, influence, and muzzle the “unwashed masses”). And now it’s time for the “Intelligence Age.” The concept is as simple as it is expansive: notions of the physical and biological “fusing” with the digital, while blockchain, but also currently more esoteric categories like quantum computing, and A(G)I, would “converge.” And where they’d “fuse and converge” is – people’s lives. It’s already very much so happening, Schwab says, while promoting something he calls “environmental, social and geopolitical intelligence” to make sure everything goes smoothly, that is, without “divisions” (which is in his circles often a code word for, dissenting opinion). According to Schwab, already “AI-driven systems are outperforming humans” in the healthcare industry. Similar, “positive” developments are present in agriculture as well, he goes on, as well as in finance. Not to mention the so-called smart, heavily mass-surveilled cities, “with sensors and AI managing everything from traffic flow to energy usage.” Schwab does pay lip service to “risks” such as excessive automation in the workplace leaving huge amounts of people jobless, but he talks about it in terms of new opportunities, and seems to think politicians, education systems, etc., will “help people transition to new roles.” What those “roles” may be, he doesn’t go into, except to note they will require “entirely different skill sets.” If anything screams actual societal divisions, going forward – should Schwab’s predictions come true – it’s this. But he decides to treat this point as a minor problem. And, there is one thing the WEF founder no doubt wants to present as far more concerning – and that is, “bias and misinformation” as a result of future sophisticated AI. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Klaus Schwab Champions the “Intelligent Age,” Despite Concerns Over Censorship and Surveillance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Melania Trump: Abortion Rights Defender?

Playing the "FEMA Got No Mo Money Blues"

On Oct. 1, the Islamic Republic of Iran launched some 181 ballistic missiles at the state of Israel. Most were shot down; those that weren't fell largely in uninhabited areas. Thanks to the technological and intelligence superiority of Israel and her allies, the Iranian attack -- the second such attack in six months -- was foiled. As of this writing, the world waits for Israel's promised response. The reason for Iran's attack is obvious: Israel is currently thoroughly destroying Iran's terror proxies in the region. Since Hamas' brutal mass terror assault of Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has devastated the terrorist group: some 23 of its 24 battalions have been destroyed; its leadership caste has been wiped out, from political leader Ismail Haniyeh (assassinated with pinpoint accuracy in Tehran) to military leader Mohammed Deif (killed in a targeted airstrike) to the missing Yahya Sinwar, Oct. 7 mastermind. Israel has established working military control over virtually all of the Gaza Strip, including the border between Gaza and Egypt, which had been used as a resupply thoroughfare by Hamas. Hamas has been degraded to fighting a low-level insurgency against IDF forces. Meanwhile, after nearly a year of taking thousands of incoming rockets in its north from the Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, Israel finally responded with overwhelming force and competence. First, in a feat of espionage that beggars the imagination, Israel simultaneously exploded the beepers of Hezbollah's terrorists, wounding or killing thousands of them and wrecking Hezbollah's methods of communication; then, when Hezbollah attempted to reestablish communications via walkie-talkies, Israel blew those up as well; after that, Israel proceeded to unleash the Israeli Air Force on targets across southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley and Beirut, wiping out the vast majority of Hezbollah's long-range munitions; finally, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the thoroughly vile United Nations and warned that Israel would no longer be crossed, the IAF dropped a series of bunker busters on the head of Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah, killing him and more of his top lieutenants. All Hezbollah could do in response was uselessly fire rockets into empty areas of Israel's north. Even the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have been firing cruise missiles at Israel, have felt Israel's wrath: Israel has issued multiple direct strikes at Houthi-controlled ports in a country some 1,800 kilometers away. Iran's proxies are on the ropes. This means that the forward operating arm of the Iranian regime has been amputated. And that's what necessitated Iran's attempts to strike Israel directly. This was a major miscalculation. Israel in the post-Oct. 7 era is not the Israel of before. It is a state unwilling to risk its future on the bet that its enemies will act with reasonable caution. It can no longer afford such bets. And so Israel has set about a mission the West has not pursued in decades: victory. Israel will not back down and cut deals that merely delay the inevitable, buying time for her enemies to arm up. Israel has struck at its enemies and will continue to do so. And it is working. The Abraham Accords, negotiated by President Donald Trump's team, have remained durable. The Sunni Gulf states see that Israel remains the region's most powerful military and economic force, and will act accordingly to ally with it. Iran has been forced into a defensive crouch, lashing out ineffectually at Israel and America while blustering about its larger-scale ambitions. But, in an utter inversion of Iran's ambitions since Oct. 7, Israel has grown stronger. Iran has grown far weaker. The Iranian regime is unpopular; its military has proved itself ineffectual in anything but quashing its own citizenry and facilitating the death of civilians in Iraq and Syria; its terror proxies have f**ked around and found out. And the region will be better off for it. All of which should remind the West of a simple principle: there is no substitute for victory. Peace results from the credible threat of use of overwhelming force, not from empty words around glossy tables. A strong and more confident West makes for a better and more prosperous world.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid likes to fashion herself as a good race and gender conscious progressive, which is why it was weird when she declared on Monday’s edition of The ReidOut that it was natural that Donald Trump said he admires President William McKinley because the 1890s were a time that was “only great for men like Donald Trump.” At the same time, Reid had nice things to say about segregationist Woodrow Wilson. Trump’s admiration for McKinley comes from the latter’s support of tariffs, but Reid made sure to add, “McKinley's presidency wasn't just about tariffs. It was also about empire. After an explosion on a U.S. battleship called the Maine, that was later found to be just a structural failure, not sabotage, the U.S. launched a war against Spain to take Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines out of their empire and put the latter three into ours.”     Reid also argued Trump’s view of McKinley’s record is incorrect because McKinley “updated his attitude from ‘Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs’ to something called reciprocity.” It should be added that Trump appears to favor trade reciprocity as well. As for Reid’s history lesson, she next recalled McKinley's “run ended in 1901, though, when, sadly, McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who shot him in the chest in the Pan-American exposition in Buffalo, New York, clearing the way for the progressive Roosevelt administration and the vast saving of public lands, which MAGA Republicans also hate. They want to drill, baby, drill, and sell those lands to billionaires. Billionaire developers.” Circling back to the 1890s, Reid added: But what you need to know about this era that Donald Trump says is the time when America was great before he made it great again is not just ‘Remember the Maine’ or Mount McKinley, which, by the way, was renamed Denali under the Obama administration to restore its indigenous Alaskan name, which is probably why Trump is so sore about it. The 1890s happened to fall smack dab in the middle of the gilded age, which began in the 1870s and kept going through the turn of the century.” Reid then sought to contrast the McKinley Era with the Wilson Era, “It was a time of rapid industrialization and extreme wealth inequality. A time when the super rich got richer and richer because the U.S. had no income taxes. Which would not be passed until 1909, and ratified in 1913 under Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Workers during the Gilded Age toughed it out in scary conditions with unions, no overtime, and no protection.” Praising the adoption of the 16th Amendment that allowed for the collection of income taxes while ignoring Wilson being a raging racist and eugenicist who threw his further-left critics in jail was certainly an odd choice, but the oddness didn’t end there: It was two decades before women got the right to vote, unions got the right to organize, children were barred from working in factories and mines. Non-white immigrants weren't blocked from coming to America, and black Americans got a new civil rights act, a voting rights act, and Supreme Court decisions ensuring their right to vote, to go to the theater or eat in a restaurant free from segregation and abuse, or to attend majority white schools. In other words, in the McKinley Era, America was pretty much only great for men like Donald Trump. What is Reid talking about? The next civil rights act did not pass until 1957 and Brown v. Board of Education wasn’t decided until 1954. Progressive hero Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era had nothing to do those. Here is a transcript for the September 30 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 9/30/2024 7:03 PM ET JOY REID: McKinley's presidency wasn't just about tariffs. It was also about empire. After an explosion on a U.S. battleship called the Maine, that was later found to be just a structural failure, not sabotage, the U.S. launched a war against Spain to take Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines out of their empire and put the latter three into ours. And McKinley launched an open door trade policy with China, having updated his attitude from “Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs” to something called reciprocity. You trade with us, we trade with you. After his VP died of a heart attack, McKinley ran for re-election in 1900 with a new running mate, Hanna referred to as “that damned Teddy Roosevelt.” His run ended in 1901, though, when, sadly, McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who shot him in the chest in the Pan-American exposition in Buffalo, New York, clearing the way for the progressive Roosevelt administration and the vast saving of public lands, which MAGA Republicans also hate. They want to drill, baby, drill, and sell those lands to billionaires. Billionaire developers.  But what you need to know about this era that Donald Trump says is the time when America was great before he made it great again is not just “Remember the Maine” or Mount McKinley, which, by the way, was renamed Denali under the Obama administration to restore its indigenous Alaskan name, which is probably why Trump is so sore about it. The 1890s happened to fall smack dab in the middle of the gilded age, which began in the 1870s and kept going through the turn of the century.  It was a time of rapid industrialization and extreme wealth inequality. A time when the super rich got richer and richer because the U.S. had no income taxes. Which would not be passed until 1909, and ratified in 1913 under Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Workers during the Gilded Age toughed it out in scary conditions with unions, no overtime, and no protection.  It was two decades before women got the right to vote, unions got the right to organize, children were barred from working in factories and mines. Non-white immigrants weren't blocked from coming to America, and black Americans got a new civil rights act, a voting rights act, and Supreme Court decisions ensuring their right to vote, to go to the theater or eat in a restaurant free from segregation and abuse, or to attend majority white schools. In other words, in the McKinley Era, America was pretty much only great for men like Donald Trump.

Q. When is an October Surprise not an October surprise?  A. When it's aimed at Donald Trump. Just ask Morning Joe. On today's episode, Jonathan Lemire and Katty Kay agreed: Nope, Jack Smith's new filing in his election interference case against Trump was not an October Surprise. Lemire's first argument was particularly lame: Okay, yeah, the filing came in October. But it came at the beginning of October, not like Jim Comey's letter regarding the Hillary Clinton private email server probe that came about one week before the 2016 election. This -- we kid you not -- "much further out." New rule for October Surprises: They've got to come in Halloween Week—or no cigar! Don't forget that while they're loving this new Jack Smith term paper, the liberal media offered red-hot hate for Comey's late announcement in 2016. Andrea Mitchell called it "the worst possible situation for the FBI, for the country, for Hillary Clinton certainly." Then Lemire actually blamed Trump for Smith's filing coming at this time: "The reason why this is coming out now is because of Donald Trump's legal team's own delay tactics. The push that they have made, and then the Supreme Court decision about immunity which Jack Smith is trying now to circumvent." Yeah, how dare Trump try to defend himself! He should have rolled over and pled guilty to all the charges! Lemire began by saying he had two "rebuttals" to Trump's depiction of the Smith filing as election interference. Rebuttals, Jonathan? That's the kind of lingo opposing counsel would use against Trump. A bit of unintentional honesty on Lemire's part! Note also that Lemire, while denying that the Smith filing is an October Surprise, suggested that it will remind voters about how horrible Trump's past presidency was, and how bad another Trump presidency could be. So it's fine for the filing to be a sword against Trump -- just not one he can use as a shield! Katty Kay agreed with Lemire that the Smith filing doesn't constitute an October Surprise:  "We've got a lot of October Surprises, and we're only, what, into day three or day four of October, and there are a ton out there, most of them around the world. I don't think this counts as one." So because it's early October, and there could be other surprises floating around out there, this one doesn't count. Gotcha, Katty! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 10/3/24 6:13 am EDT JONATHAN LEMIRE: Katty, you know, this comes, Donald Trump claims this is election interference. Two rebuttals to that. First of all, let's remember that in 2016, James Comey's letter about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton came about a week before the election. This is much further out. Also, the reason why this is coming out now is because of Donald Trump's legal team's own delay tactics. The push that they have made, and then the Supreme Court decision about immunity, which Jack Smith is trying now to circumvent. So I don't think this quite qualifies as an October surprise. But it is a reminder to so many Americans what Trump did, what those years were like, what another Trump presidency could be like. Do you think it is going tomatter in this election? KATTY KAY: I think you're right. I mean, we've got a lot of October Surprises, and we're only, what, into day three or day four of October, and there are a ton out there, most of them around the world. I don't think this counts as one.

MSNBC host Ari Melber expressed shock on Wednesday when a star witness at Donald Trump's first impeachment inquiry endorsed the former president.In 2019, Gordon Sondland, then-United States ambassador to the United Nations, testified as a key witness in Trump's first impeachment inquiry in which Trump was accused of abusing his power as president by withholding military support from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigated Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Sondland's testimony implicated Trump and other top administration officials. However, two days after the Senate acquitted Trump, Sondland was fired.'That is how badly the Biden-Harris team have prosecuted their job.'Despite being fired, Sondland still supported Trump. But that changed after Jan. 6. On Wednesday, Melber asked Sondland if he stands by his Trump disavowal."No, I don't stand by it, and I'll tell you why," Sondland answered. "I've now lived four years under the Biden-Harris policies, and I have to say that those policies are not only becoming an existential threat to our country's way of life but to our allies as well."That answer sent Melber into a frenzy of interrupting Sondland and shouting."I'm going to let you finish, but this is so striking! You said it was a 'no for me' after that — after Jan. 6. And here we are right now, and you're saying it's a 'yes' for you?" the MSNBC host interjected."It is a yes for me. It is an absolute yes for me," Sondland responded. "That is how badly the Biden-Harris team have prosecuted their job."Melber was beside himself, unable to comprehend why Sondland would support Trump. And when Melber invoked the argument that Jan. 6 was a "kind of attack on democracy [that] is bigger than any policy," Sondland quickly shut down that talking point."I am seeing so many attacks on democracy that eclipse Jan. 6," Sondland replied.Later in the interview, Sondland reiterated that he is supporting Trump because the Biden-Harris administration, in his view, has decimated America.Sondland first announced his support for Trump in June before President Biden stepped away from the race. At the time, Sondland argued that Trump has the solutions to fix an America that has declined under Biden's leadership. The Democratic Party's installation of Vice President Kamala Harris as its presidential nominee has apparently only solidified Sondland's view. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The one and only vice presidential debate on Tuesday went better than conservatives expected — and JD Vance walked away with their utmost respect. Dinesh D’Souza is one of those conservatives, and in his eyes, it’s a no-brainer which of the two VP picks can claim victory. “The problem with Walz, you know, to some degree, there are elements of him that are charming, and that have a certain folksy quality, but he’s so over the top that at least from my sensibility, he borders on the ridiculous. And there’s an element of insincerity, fakery, putting it on, and Kamala is like that, too,” D’Souza tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.” Meanwhile, Trump and Vance appear “both real and authentic.” Savage agrees, and points out that in addition, Walz has made pro-censorship comments in the past. “We know from a comment that he made back in 2022, he said, ‘There’s no guarantee for free speech when it comes to misinformation.’ Now, you combine that with an apology from Mark Zuckerberg saying, ‘Oh, I’m sorry that we worked with the White House in censoring so many Americans,’” Savage says. Walz “tried to get out of it” when it was brought up in Tuesday’s debate by invoking the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” line. “The truth of it is that the stuff they censor has nothing to do with shouting fire in a crowded theater. It has to do with people pushing back against the CDC,” D’Souza says. “They’re censoring people who are fighting back against government-sponsored misinformation, and at no point did Walz even begin to defend that.” Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

TURNCOAT --> Liz Cheney's Latest Stunts Solidify Her Place As One of the Most PATHETIC RINOS of All Time