War On You: Breaking Alternative News » Property Rights

The ‘Fake’ Cities of Syria’s Unrest

WarOnYou — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:48:51 +0000

The ‘Fake’ Cities of Syria’s Unrest

September 27, 2011

It’s been reported briefly by a number of news outlets that a documentary/news show in Syria recently suggested the unrest currently taking place there is not really happening. Instead, they allege it’s actually being staged in cinematic replicas of Syrian cities for the Al Jazeera news organization.

That’s right: fake cities, built in Qatar by Al Jazeera, occupied by hordes of actors, under the direction of filmmakers to create a false impression of what’s happening on the ground in Syria. Or at least that’s the spin.

Or perhaps more accurately, propaganda. As this post from The New York Times mentions, the station that ran the allegations on September 9 is closely tied to the ruling regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

“Addounia TV is owned by Mohamed Hamsho, who is the brother-in-law of Maher al Assad, the commander of Syria’s Republican Guard and the brother of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

The post also links to this video of the broadcast, subtitled in English by a YouTube channel called the Syrian Interpreter and aptly titled “Addounia TV hitting the crack pipe, 9 Sept.”

The segment claims that movie-set versions of Syrian cities and public squares have been constructed with the help of American and French directors to dupe the global audience. It’s also suggested that a similar illusion was created in Libya.

“The world and the Libyans were deceived by those replicas that Tripoli fell. With those replicas, Al Jazeera will continue media fabrication and cinematic tricks by shooting scenes of big defections from the Arab Syrian Army and shooting scenes of clashes between some elements who claim being defectors and elements from the regime.”

The report also claims that Al Jazeera has had replicas built of Al Asi Square in the city of Hama, the Clock Square in Homs, and some of the neighborhoods in Idlib. Unconvincing zoom-ins of satellite images purport to back up these allegations.

The construction of a fake city—let alone multiple fake cities—would be a major undertaking. The sheer scale of it makes even the suggestion almost laughable. It calls to mind the climax of the 1974 Mel Brooks film Blazing Saddles, in which a fake version of a town is created to fool a band of thugs intent on terrorizing the locals into leaving. Or the fake war created for TV in Wag the Dog. Or even the theory that the moon landing was filmed on a soundstage.

But if such a monumental building project were to take place, a pretty surreal alternate reality could be created. Maybe the Syrian government could even follow its own line of reasoning and build some fake cities to counter the fake cities they claim Al Jazeera has built. Instead of “staged” conflict, they could film a smoothly-functioning government that respects the will of its people. In Syria right now, a film set in a fake city might be the only place to find such a thing.

World Bank Policies “enabling” African Land Grab

WarOnYou — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:28:26 +0000

World Bank Policies “enabling” African Land Grab

September 18, 2011

Print Version

Source: Global Research

New research accuses the World Bank Group’s policies of facilitating land grabs in Africa and favouring the interests of financial markets over food security and environmental protection.

Agriculture and the food crisis are a high-profile agenda topic at the upcoming World Bank annual meetings, and critical voices are growing on the Bank’s approach to food price volatility (see Update 77, 76). Recent in-depth research by the US-based Oakland Institute raises further difficult questions on agriculture policy for Bank officials. The report implicates the World Bank Group (WBG) in the increasing acquisition of farmland in the developing world by private investors and wealthy nations, which critics are calling a global ‘land grab’ (see Update 76, 72, 71, 68). The investigative research, published between March and June, analyses a series of land deals in countries across Africa and finds that the purchases of land, often by large institutional investors, are mainly unregulated, produce few of the promised benefits to local people, and instead are forcing thousands of small farming communities off ancestral land, creating serious food insecurity and driving environmental destruction.

Writing in a blog for Reuters, Joan Baxter, a research fellow at the Oakland Institute, said that “more than any other institution or agency, the World Bank Group has been promoting direct foreign investment in Africa, and enabling the farmland rush.” Their in-depth reports on Mali and Sierra Leone reveal how the WBG “has shaped the economic, fiscal, and legal environment … in a way that favours the acquisition of vast tracks of fertile lands by few private interests instead of bringing solutions to the widespread poverty and hunger.”

The Oakland Institute finds that the WBG has, through an array of different policies, overseen a shift towards prioritising large-scale commercial agribusiness, achieved by attracting and promoting foreign agricultural investment. The Foreign Investment Advisory Service and the Remove Administrative Barriers to Investment program, both projects of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Bank’s private sector arm, have “been working – often behind the scenes – to ensure that African countries reform their land laws and fiscal regimes to make them attractive to foreign investors” (see Update 68). The Bank has financed legal reform mechanisms that are promoting rapid changes in land tenure laws, “driven by a desire to facilitate large-scale agricultural investment”.

The Bank has also been funding investment promotion agencies in African countries that place private sector advisors in key governmental ministries, including presidential offices. This was a key part of the Growth Support Project for Mali, financed by a loan from the International Development Association (IDA), the Bank’s low-income country arm. The salaries of the directors of the Malian investment promotion agency are covered by the IDA loan. The agency also includes IFC consultants, and guarantees investments through the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), the Bank’s risk insurance arm.

Baxter observes that these agencies “are developing and advertising a veritable smorgasbord of incentives not just to attract foreign investment in farmland but also to ensure maximum profits to investors. These include extremely generous tax holidays for 10 or even 30 years, zero per cent duty on imports, and easy access to very large tracts of land, sometimes over 100,000 hectares. Investors may pay just a couple of dollars per hectare per year for the land, and in Mali, sometimes no land rent at all.”

RAI principles found wanting

The reports from both Sierra Leone and Mali also argue that the land deals facilitated by the Bank’s investment promotion policies fail to comply with it’s own large-scale responsible agricultural investment principles (RAI, see Update 76, 71). The report on Sierra Leone says the RAI principles are “vague and minimal”, and are “based on the controversial assumption that industrial-style agriculture and land use can increase food production and fuel economic growth in host countries”, and “do not consider the overall questions about the enormous risks and inherent injustices of the global rush by investors and nations for farmland”. It argues that that land deals in Sierra Leone do not conform to the RAI principles, while the Mali report argues that the “Bank ignores its own principles by supporting institutions and policy reforms that disregard them.”

The RAI’s have also come under fire for legitimising corporate land grabs in a recent press statement by social movement Via Campesina. Released before the meeting of G20 agriculture ministers in June, it states that the “World Bank initiative to make land grabbing more socially acceptable is no solution at all. The Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) are set up to legitimise land grabbing from small holders.”

Meanwhile, the IFC has dropped a controversial proposed investment in a company accused of land grabbing. It had planned to lend $30 million to Calyx Agro Ltd, an Argentinean subsidiary of a French owned commodities trading company. Calyx Agro holds farmland across South America. In June a group of NGOs and social movements, including Via Campesina and Focus on the Global South, sent a letter to IFC head Lars Thunell opposing the investment. The letter states that “at a time when social movements in Latin America and around the world are calling for a stop to the ‘farmland grab’ and where many of the region’s governments are pursuing measures to restrict foreign investment in their farmland, it is unacceptable for a multilateral institution like the World Bank to be offering direct support to some of the world’s leading actors involved in land grabbing.”

Supreme Court Okays Police Search Based on Pot Odor, Noises

WarOnYou — Mon, 16 May 2011 21:52:46 +0000

Supreme Court Okays Police Search Based on Pot Odor, Noises

Monday, May 16, 2011 2:14

Originally published at Stop The Drug War

The US Supreme Court Monday upheld the search of a Kentucky man’s apartment after police broke in without a search warrant because they said they smelled burning marijuana and heard sounds suggesting he was trying to destroy the evidence. The decision in Kentucky v. King overturned a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling in favor of the apartment resident, Hollis King, who was arrested after police entered his apartment and found drugs.

[image:1 align:left caption:true]Fourth Amendment doctrine holds that police must obtain a search warrant to search a residence unless there are “exigent circumstances.” In the current case, the exigent circumstance was that, after they knocked on the apartment door, they heard noises they said suggested evidence was being destroyed.

The Kentucky Supreme Court had held that police could not use the exigent circumstances exception because they themselves had created the exigent circumstance by knocking on the door. The US Supreme Court begged to differ.

In his opinion for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that people have no obligation to answer the door when police knock or to allow them to come in if they have opened the door. In such cases, police would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.

But that’s not what King and fellow apartment residents did. They started scuttling around suspiciously upon hearing police announce their presence. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,” Alito wrote.

Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, arguing that in ruling for the police, the court was giving them a way to get around the search warrant requirement in drug cases. “Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant,” she wrote.

Oddly enough, King was not the target of police. Lexington police had set up a controlled drug buy on the street outside the apartment building, but when they attempted to arrest the suspect, he fled into the building. When police arrived in the hallway, the suspect had vanished, and all police saw was two apartment doors. When they smelled the odor of pot coming from King’s apartment, they chose that door. The original suspect was in the other apartment. They arrested him later.

Originally published at Stop The Drug War

The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations

WarOnYou — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:52:58 +0000

The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations
Published on 09-29-2010	Email To Friend Print Version
Share \| Source: The Big Picture – Barry Ritholtz Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc. I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics. For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets. The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights. This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing. Consider: • Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations; • The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying; • Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage; • PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections; • The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options. • DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit; • Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will; • The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!) None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues. For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit. What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever. How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm – yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not). What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms? In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates. There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content – YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren’s concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight. But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade. Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing . . . ~~~ This short commentary was conceived not to be an exhaustive research, but rather, to stimulate debate. There are many more examples and discussions we can have about this, and I hope readers do so in comments. But my bottom line is this: If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world at all . . .

The CLEAR Act of Another Federal Land Grab

WarOnYou — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:42:15 +0000

The CLEAR Act of Another Federal Land Grab

By Cassandra Anderson
July 21, 2010

U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) addressed Congress on July 15th to report the Natural Resources Committee’s passage of HR 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act (CLEAR Act) of 2009. Congressman Gohmert said that the bill was to “deal with the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico” but it contains plans for the federal government to acquire land and was introduced in 2009.

The CLEAR Act is ambiguous so if the bill is passed, federal agencies will determine how it is implemented and how the land will be used.(1)

Congressman Gohmert pointed out that a portion of the CLEAR Act contains a provision for the federal government to spend $900 million a year to purchase private land over the next 30 years, for a grand total of $27 billion dollars over 3 decades. Gohmert noted that the federal government already owns or manages about 30% of the land in America, most of it in the western states. He said that the federal government has failed to maintain the federal and national parks that it already controls and is $3.7 billion behind in basic maintenance costs, according to one report. When land is federalized, it is taken off of the tax payroll.

He went on to say that when the federal government acquires land, it makes promises to generate revenue but then fails to utilize the resources; an example is timber, as logging is prohibited in most federal lands. Mr. Gohmert then showed a graph of how much money the federal government has spent to acquire more land over the last few years:

2008 $100 million
2009 $150 million
2010 $300 million

Gohmert was incredulous that the federal government intends to raise its purchasing allocations to $900 million a year for the next 30 years and questioned “how in the world does that make sense”?

It makes perfect sense when the objectives of the UN’s Agenda 21 are understood, as Agenda 21 is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control from the international level all the way down to the individual level, using the environment as the excuse. Most people are unaware that one of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development’s goals is to make 50% of America into ‘Wildlands’ that are off-limits to humans and to herd people into ‘Smart Growth’ cities. Almost all wealth is derived from land and its resources. The more land the federal government owns, the more control they have. Less than 6% of America is considered developed (with roads and buildings) but the federal government is devoted to reducing these developed areas.(2)

The federal government has expanded its expense account to purchase more private land following the burst of the housing and real estate bubble that they created, and at a time when property is cheap. When Bill Clinton was in the White House he authorized a study called the Gap Analysis which identified all privately owned land in America and this is the target for takeover by the federal government and UN Biosphere Reserves, per Dr. Michael Coffman.

The Constitution provides for the federal government to exercise authority over ten square miles in Washington, D.C. and places for needful buildings like forts, arsenals and dock yards. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government authority to regulate conservationism, forestry and wildlife.

Watch this short video introduction about the Wildlands Project by Dr. Michael Coffman:

Wayne Hage, author of “Storm Over Rangelands, Private Rights in Federal Lands” meticulously documented how the eastern financiers (bankers, railroad magnates and wealthy cattle ranchers), over 100 years ago, used federal lands in the western states to control resources that include minerals, timber and hydroelectric sites. In modern times, oil may also be included. There is an abundance of natural resources in the western states, but the resources are locked up, through conservation measures to prevent prosperity. And to prevent energy independence.

Congressman Gohmert said that the Obama Administration doesn’t like to lease land for drilling and gave an example of Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Department of Interior, rejecting bids and returning checks to oil companies for drilling in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, which could have prevented the need for deep water drilling. He also said that uranium mining is off-limits in America and that 90% of uranium used in nuclear energy plants is imported. Gohmert mentioned that Obama is advocating Spain’s ‘green’ energy model for wind and solar development that has proven to be an economic disaster.(3)

The CLEAR Act’s funding for private property purchase by the federal government is just one part of the machinery that is overtaking America’s private land. An example of another federal land grab method was in the news just a few months ago when Senator Jim DeMint exposed Obama’s plan to takeover 10 million acres of land in the west.(4) Because the western states’ federal lands are already heavily regulated and there are existing plans for federalizing more land through ‘conservationism’, it is likely that the federal government intends to purchase private land that is resource rich (especially with oil, gas and water) in the midwestern and eastern states. Dr. Michael Coffman’s thorough analysis, “Taking Liberty”, is a must-see for anyone who owns property, especially the region-by-region section that explains how the federal government plans to take land in each area of the U.S. in order to control the resources and transform the property into Wildlands.(5)

Dr. Michael Coffman’s website is www.epi-us.com.

For more analyses on Agenda 21, visit Cassandra Anderson’s website at www.MorphCity.com.

1. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNHR3534LandTrust.html
2. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNEPAlanduse5percnt.html
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
4. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/
5. http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html

man arrested for trespassing on his own land

WarOnYou — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:11:00 +0000

The latest chapter in a saga over an easement for a pipeline ended with Jeremy Engelking going to jail.

Source: duluth newstribune

Jeremy Engelking will appear in Douglas County court this afternoon to face a trespassing charge. But here’s the kicker: The Superior man allegedly trespassed on his own property.

Engelking, 27, aimed to hunt deer Wednesday morning when he noticed a pipeline crew on his land. He hopped on his ATV and told workers they had no right to be on his property because he had received no compensation from Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. for an easement.

Engelking said workers told him he was in an unsafe place and asked him to come to an equipment staging area, where he continued to argue his case.

But just as he was turning to leave, Engelking said an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department arrived on the scene and approached with a Taser drawn.

“He ordered me to ‘get down on the ground now!’ And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing,” Engelking said.

When Engelking protested, pointing out that he was on his own property, he said Sgt. Robert Smith told him: “It doesn’t matter. You’re going to jail. You can tell it to a judge tomorrow.”

Engelking offered no resistance, but Smith placed him in handcuffs then transported him to the Douglas County Jail. After posting a $200 bail bond, Engelking was released that afternoon. He also had to pay about another $100 to recover his impounded ATV.

The incident report says Engelking parked his ATV in front of pipeline equipment, stopping workers. Engelking said it wasn’t his intention to physically block work.

Lorraine Grymala, a community affairs manager for Enbridge, said access to work sites is restricted in the interest of safety.

“We can’t have people in the right of way without an escort and the proper gear,” she said. “People could get hurt.”

Engelking’s arrest Wednesday is the latest episode in a long disagreement he and his father, Jerry Engelking, have had with Enbridge, dating to the company’s last pipeline expansion in 2002.

Jerry Engelking, who owns 200 acres next to his son, said he refused to sign off on changes proposed to the original 1949 easement across his property because he felt the revisions put too many restrictions on how he could use his property. That original easement said future pipes laid along the same route would require payments in advance.

According to court documents, Enbridge sent a $15,000 check to Jerry Engelking and also tried to hand-deliver payments, but Engelking refused to accept them.

Engelking said that to claim the money he would have had to broaden the scope of the existing easement across his property, so he turned the checks down. When the latest pipeline project came along, the Engelkings again refused to modify the original 1949 right-of-way agreement.

The family sought a restraining order against Enbridge on Sept. 24, arguing the company intended to use the pipeline for transporting petroleum products other than those originally allowed, protesting that they had not been paid and citing damage to property.

Douglas County Circuit Court Judge George Glonek granted a temporary injunction but lifted it the following day, saying the company’s plans for the pipeline were appropriate and efforts had been made to pay the Engelkings.

Jerry Engelking said the fight’s not finished yet.

Officers reported no similar incidents along the path of the Enbridge pipeline construction in Douglas County, said Lt. Gerald Moe of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department.

Grymala said that Enbridge has worked with about 1,500 landowners as part of the pipeline project.

“We recognize construction is an inconvenience to people; people want access to their land,” she said. “We strive to be respectful of that, to have a good working relationship.”

Conn. land vacant 4 years after court OK’d seizure

WarOnYou — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:00:42 +0000

Conn. land vacant 4 years after court OK’d seizure

By KATIE NELSON
Associated Press Writer

NEW LONDON, Conn. (AP) – Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation’s most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne’s lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot’s towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.

Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a “poetic justice.”

“They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing,” said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. “I don’t think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision.”

Kelo’s iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut’s quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation’s best-known land rights catfight.

New London officials decided they needed Kelo’s land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would complement a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.

Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.

The decision was sharply criticized and created grassroots backlash. Forty states quickly passed new, protective rules and regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some protesters even tried to turn the tables on now-retired Justice David Souter, trying unsuccessfully in 2006 to take his New Hampshire home by eminent domain to build an inn.

In New London the city’s prized economic development plan has fallen apart as the economy crumbled.

The Corcoran Jennison Cos., a Boston-based developer, had originally locked in exclusive rights to develop nearly the entire northern half of the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

But those rights expired in June 2008, despite multiple extensions, because the firm was unable to secure financing, according to President Marty Jones.

In July, backers halted fundraising for the project’s crown jewel, a proposed $60 million, 60,000-square-foot Coast Guard museum.

The poor economy meant that donations weren’t “keeping pace with expenses,” said Coast Guard Foundation president Anne Brengle.

The group hopes to resume fundraising in the future, she said.

Overall, proponents say about two-thirds of the 90-acre site is developed, in part because of a 16-acre, $25 million state park. The other third of the land remains without the promised residential housing, office buildings, shops and hotel/conference center facility.

“If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now,” said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. “But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that.”

A new engineering tenant is moving into one of the office buildings at 1 Chelsea St., and a bio tech firm with as many as five employees is getting ready to move into an existing building on Howard Street, Brooks said.

Kelo, paid $442,000 by the state for her old property, now lives across the Thames River in Groton, in a white, two-bedroom 1950s bungalow. Her beloved pink house was sold for a dollar and moved less than two miles away, where a local preservationist has refurbished it.

Kelo can see her old neighborhood from her new home, but she finds the view too painful to bear.

“Everything is different, but everything is like still the same,” said Kelo, who works two jobs and has largely maintained a low profile since moving away. “You still have life to deal with every day of the week. I just don’t have eminent domain to deal with every day of the week, even after I ate, slept and breathed it for 10 years.”

Although her side lost, Kelo said she sees the wider ramifications of her property rights battle.

“In the end it was seven of us who fought like wild animals to save what we had,” she said. “I think that though we ultimately didn’t win for ourselves, it has brought attention to what they did to us, and if it can make it better for some other people so they don’t lose their homes to a Dunkin’ Donuts or a Wal-Mart, I think we did some good.”

Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued Kelo’s case before the Supreme Court. He calls “massive changes that have happened in the law and in the public consciousness” the “real legacy” of Kelo and the other plaintiffs.

The empty land means the city won a “hollow victory,” he said.

“What cities should take from this is to run fleeing from what New London did and do economic development that is market-driven and incorporate properties of folks who are truly committed to their neighborhood and simply want to be a part of what happens,” he said.

Feds Claim Right to Search Your Home Day or Night, without a Warrant

WarOnYou — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:09:18 +0000

If you live in the United States, you might have the naïve idea that police can’t enter your home without a search warrant. That’s generally true, but the federal agency responsible for regulating electronic communications claims that it can. If you own any electronic device that emits radio frequency (RF) energy, the Federal Communications Commission says it can enter your home any time to inspect it.

Most of us, of course, own multiple RF devices. Your cell phone, your wireless Internet connection, and even your garage door opener all transmit signals through the air. All are fair game for warrantless inspection, the FCC says.

The FCC claims it is only interested in RF devices that use “unlicensed” frequencies. For instance, if you operate a radio station out of your home, and didn’t bother to obtain a broadcasting license for it, the FCC may come calling. That’s particular true if the signal is powerful enough to interfere with the signal from a licensed station.

However, the FCC says that it can also inspect equipment using “licensed” frequencies. And that includes every household in the United States, with the possible exception of groups like the Amish, who eschew modern electronic devices.

The FCC doesn’t have the right to seize anything—only to inspect any broadcasting RF devices. However, if agents see anything in your home that’s “suspicious,” they can notify police, who may then be able to obtain a warrant for a more thorough search.

According to the FCC, its authority to search private homes comes from a 75-year old law authorizing warrantless administrative searches of radio transmitters. Back in 1934, of course, there were no wireless routers, cell phones, or RF-activated garage door openers. Today, almost everyone does, yet the FCC still claims the same powers.

The saving grace to this policy is that the FCC won’t simply barge into your home if it wants to inspect any of the RF devices you own. Instead, it will leave a note on your door announcing its intention to inspect whatever unlicensed (or licensed) RF devices in your home.

If such a notice appears on your door, don’t call the FCC to schedule an inspection. Call your lawyer. You have a right for your lawyer to be present for any warrantless inspection of your home.

Yet another steaming crock o’shite

WarOnYou — Sat, 23 May 2009 10:30:28 +0000

by Mark Yannone

This video is another one of those deceptive products of Congress intended to make you think that Congress has far more power than it does. Your brain would have to be flatlining under the influence of Splenda (sucralose) or punched full of holes by Equal (aspartame) to fall for this crap.

As we have reviewed several times before, there are only two ways to change the Constitution. Congress can’t do it. The president can’t do it, either, not even a real president.

And what do we know about legislative acts that violate the Constitution? Hang this on your gun belt:

“[a]n unconstitutional act is not a law; . . . it imposes no duties; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one.” Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97, 101-02 (1887).

“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376 (1880), quoted with approval in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 408 (1963).

Do we have to wait until a court issues a ruling on the constitutionality of a legislative act? No, we don’t. Each of us is the final arbiter of the Constitution. Dave Champion explains in this 12-minute segment of his show.

Blatant lies about private property rights

NAIS ~~~ And the Family

WarOnYou — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:31:55 +0000

From the National Assn. of Farm Animal Welfare, 4.22.09

Life is precious, even more so when a little life is hanging by a thread. Here at Dickinson Cattle Company Inc., near Barnesville, Ohio, USA, every life is priority, the people and the livestock. When every breath of oxygen and ounce of colostrum is life or death, tender love, and on the spot management is drastically important.

Herd health doesn’t come out of a bottle, or because of a federal law. It certainly is not about ear tags, or about Humane Society animal rights theory. It comes from devoted livestock management by the people who appreciate and respect livestock the most, the owners. Herd health is not a fourth of July rally. It goes all year long with generous amounts of clean hay, water and minerals during cold winter days.

Ranchers know their stock. Genetics are planned with special traits for many generations. Not only do producers know every herd animal, they often know their planned mating genealogies for 20 to 50 years deep back into historic pedigrees. The mind of a true stockman evaluates every trait of every animal. The herd sires receive multiple scrutiny. Frozen semen is a special tool for breed improvement. Check DCCI sires available at http://www.texaslonghorn.com/inventory/semen/index.cfm

Over 1000 livestock producing families per month go broke or terminate their businesses. This is caused by excessive enforcements, taxes, regulations of governments beyond reason, and the cost of labor having to compete against union salaries and the government’s high paying jobs. Each day Congress and the Senate pass more laws to increase cost of agriculture production. Look close at these American families and realize they are a vanishing species. They work day and night to excel. The elderly fear the future; youth innocently dream of the grandeur to come. As children prepare for the cattle shows of this coming Summer, Washington regulators prepare to force mandatory NAIS compliance to strap livestock owners with one more hard financial blow.

You may have called your elected federal officials hundreds of times and robotically treated like a borrowed mule, never receiving the dignity of a returned call. Try another hundred emails, letters, fax and phone calls. Call your state veterinarians who have all taken massive bribes (cooperative agreements) from the USDA to promote NAIS. As the elected and employed ones vote themselves increases of salary, insurance and retirements annually, thousands of food producers in the USA depart. Please try a few more times to contact your enforcers. Someday, one may listen to the people affected by their onerous legislations and do the right thing. Please say — NO to NAIS.

For more info www.naisSTINKS.com, or e-mail Ag.Ed@NAFAW.org

The Lieber Code. HJR192. Senate Doc 43

WarOnYou — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:09:44 +0000

The Lieber Code. HJR192. Senate Doc 43 From vterranova 3-1-9

Here’s the Coup de Gras on what is taking place right now, known as the Lieber Code.

Remember, I told you we’ve been under military rule for at least 75 years or more since HJR 192 was implimented and they move re honest money was reduced to mere military scrip / Federal Reserve Notes.

Lieber Code, General Orders No. 100 by Abraham Lincoln (04/24/1863) (Section II, Article 31: A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or that of its government all revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.); http://www.ncrepublic.org/lieber.html

Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. ”The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership”is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” (Emphasis added)

The final move is taking place right now and the ultimate crash of the dollar (within weeks or months) with be consider the conquest as complete re the capture of America by the global banking elite and then America goes up for sale to the highest bidder, or simply turned over to those holding U.S. Treasury Bonds.

Pass this one out right now.

Using Eminent Domain To Acquire Mortgages Would Be Reckless And Dangerous

WarOnYou — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:52:30 +0000

Just when I think that the bailout plans couldn’t get any wackier, along comes this gem proposed by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition to the House Financial Services yesterday- they propose using eminent domain to buy loans to modify them. Here’s a summary from Diana Olick of CNBC:

We all know that the biggest roadblock to mortgage modification is and has been the loan servicer and that servicer’s responsibility to its investors. So many loans during the housing boom were pooled and sold off to investors that it became close to impossible for the servicers of those pools to get permission across the board to change the terms of individual loans.

Taylor and the NCRC are proposing a new government program, using TARP money, whereby the government would “use its power of eminent domain to take troubled properties/loans from mortgage servicers and lenders, so large numbers of loans could be modified, writing down principal and interest rates. The loans would then be re-sold to the private market.”

The government would buy these loans at a “steep discount.” Eminent domain allows the government to take an asset where a public purpose is served, and it requires that they pay the investor the “fair market value” for it. NCRC claims the fair market value would be about 30-50 percent of the current loan value.

NCRC argues, “Discounting the purchase of these loans would strike a balance between assisting homeowners and ensuring that lenders, servicers and securitizers are not rewarded for financing and servicing predatory and price-inflated loans.” That discounted price would then “be sufficient to write down the loan balance of millions of loans such that they can be permanently refinanced or modified to ensure long-term sustainability.”

This strikes me as a REALLY BAD IDEA for several reasons. Olick touched on one of the problems briefly:

The sticky part is proving that a mortgage is in fact a piece of real estate, but I’ll leave that to the scholars out there. Essentially it’s a way to force lenders/servicers into submission.

The NCRC laid out their case for the use of eminent domain by John Taylor, their president, in testimony yesterday:

A number of legal scholars have suggested that there are legal impediments regarding the complexity of selling loans held in securitized pools. Therefore, NCRC recommends the alternative approach of using eminent domain with the HELP Now proposal to purchase loans from investors and servicers. The current economic crisis would justify the government’s use of eminent domain laws for a compelling public purpose. In addition, eminent domain would overcome several barriers. Through compulsory purchases of troubled loans, reluctant servicers, investors, and lenders would not need to be persuaded to participate.

Utilizing the federal government’s power of eminent domain avoids lawsuits from disgruntled investors. As Harvard Law Professor Howell Jackson points out, eminent domain can solve the barriers related to first and second liens by directly purchasing all mortgages on targeted properties.

The use of eminent domain could also alleviate pricing uncertainties to unfreeze the credit market, and it could establish fair prices for mortgages through existing judicial mechanisms. The government should ensure that renters receive protections under its program. A sizable number of distressed loans involve investors who do not live in the property they purchase but
have rented the properties to tenants.

Once fair prices are established, a secondary market can then be re-established and voluntary efforts to refinance mortgages will most likely accelerate.

My concerns are as follows:

That rather than re-establishing a secondary market, this would kill it. Would investors really believe “Hey, we know that former purchasers of mortgages were turned into fish bait, but now it’s safe to go back in the water?” As long as the government keeps changing the rules and putting investors at a disadvantage, there will be no stability in mortgage markets.
The moral hazard issue is huge here. Why buy a house you can afford when you can buy a home beyond your means and have the price adjusted to your budget? This punishes those who were more conservative in their purchases or chose to rent. This rewards the wrong people.
Investors as well as homeowners would benefit from this plan on the pretext that this helps renters. Should flippers and speculators be bailed out in the name of “helping” their renters? Just how much irresponsible behavior should be financed at the expense of the responsible?
Lastly, I am concerned about the fact that this would be seizing mortgages, not real property, and that this is stretching the definition of “public use”.

I am not an expert in constitutional law, but I am aware the eminent domain need not be real property. According to Wickipedia:

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Governments may also condemn personal property, such as supplies for the military in wartime, franchises; this includes intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights.

In spite of that, typically eminent domain has been restricted to real property. To expand this use on such an excuse is to start down a slippery slope. It is one thing to have eminent domain used to obtain vital supplies in a military campaign, it is another to confiscate the assets of one group of people in order to benefit another group. The potential for abuse is huge.

Wickipedia also states:

The legal doctrine of eminent domain, like the doctrine of seizure of contraband, allows expropriation of property within the existing system of law. Otherwise, expropriation may imply either a criminal or a revolutionary act.

We need to consider whether this really falls under the existing system- the alternative is frightening.

Fortunately, so far the NCRC’s proposal is just that- a proposal. Here’s hoping that the House Financial Services Committee members nodded off during Taylor’s presentation.

Trans Texas Corridor renamed, not dead

WarOnYou — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:10:15 +0000

Trans Texas Corridor renamed, not dead

TURF supporters demand ACTION, not rhetoric

TURF reaction to TxDOT announcement:

The announcement by TxDOT Executive Director Amadeo Saenz at the Texas Transportation Forum that the “Trans Texas Corridor, as it was originally envisioned, is no more,” is just another in a series of comments to lead opponents into believing the Trans Texas Corridor is indeed dead. TURF believes this is a deliberate move to dupe opponents into complacency, and we expect iron-clad action before we begin celebrating victory.

It’s clear from the TxDOT Director’s speech, that it’s only a name change and the Trans Texas Corridor is, in reality, going underground.

This fact is evident in just about every news source across the state:

“‘Amadeo told folks at the forum that the Trans-Texas Corridor, as it was originally envisioned, is no more,’ Amacker (Saenz spokesperson) said. ‘Instead, what we’ve got is a series of smaller projects.’

Those ‘smaller projects’ will apparently include the 300-plus miles of what has been called TTC-35 from San Antonio to the Oklahoma border and the I-69 project from the Rio Grande Valley to Texarkana. But they will not be called the Trans-Texas Corridor.” — Austin American Statesman

________________________________________________________

“Other than backpedaling from the Trans-Texas Corridor brand, and the goals and priorities set over the years, the Trans-Texas Corridor remains intact.

TxDOT still plans to partner with private corporations to build and lease projects. Toll roads, truck-only lanes and rail lanes are also still on the table.

Environmental studies for the I-35 and East Texas corridor segments still chug through the pipeline. And a development contract with Cintra of Spain and Zachry Construction Co. of San Antonio, for projects paralleling I-35, is still valid.” — San Antonio Express-News

_________________________________________________________

“The renewed effort now will operate under the name ‘Innovative Connectivity Plan.’” – Houston Chronicle
_________________________________________________________

No law has been changed, no minute order rescinded, no environmental document re-done (as is required by federal law), and there are still two contracts signed giving two Spanish companies the right of first refusal on segments of the corridor previously known as TTC-35 & TTC-69. So by every real measure, the Trans Texas Corridor goes on full steam ahead. What today’s hype was about is a political ploy to make the public go back to sleep while it gets built under a different name. While we welcome genuine responsiveness from TxDOT and a true repeal of the Trans Texas Corridor, this hardly qualifies.

Lets just say, we agree with Senator Robert Nichols’ statement in the Dallas Morning News:

“If it is just a name change, and nothing more, I don’t think that is going to do much to appease lawmakers,” said Nichols, R-Jacksonville.

###

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 07 January 2009 )

Judge hears evidence in TURF lawsuit against City of San Antonio

Written by Terri Hall
Tuesday, 06 January 2009
IMMEDIATE RELEASE Judge hears evidence in TURF lawsuit against City of San Antonio City denied TURF permits to hang banners above roadways San Antonio, TX, January 6, 2009 – Monday, United States District Judge Xavier Rodriguez heard TURF’s motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction against the City of San Antonio for denying TURF permits to hang two banners in the public right of way, which TURF believes is a blatant violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. After hearing more than 3 hours of evidence and testimony, Judge Rodriguez did not rule but said he intends to rule by the end of this week. Rodriguez repeatedly and openly struggled with the fact that the City at one point approved the banners only to later deny them with no legal basis other than the arbitrary interpretation of City employees. He also stated he’s wrestling with the City’s discrimination based on viewpoint and other key legal arguments noted by TURF attorney David Van Os. One City employee, Arturo Elizondo, who initially granted permission for the banners only to later deny them, contradicted the testimony of his supervisor, David Simpson, which, by his own admission, baffled the Judge. The explanation for their denial changed stories several times and morphed into what amounts to legislating on the fly in order divine some excuse to deny approval of the banners.
Read more…

TURF sues City of San Antonio over free speech

Written by Terri Hall

Friday, 02 January 2009

PRESS ADVISORY

TURF sues City of

San Antonio for infringing on Free Speech

City denied TURF permits to hang banners
above roadways

San Antonio, TX – On Monday, January 5 at 2:30 PM, United States District Judge Xavier Rodriguez will hear TURF’s motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction against the City of San Antonio for denying TURF permits to hang two banners in the public right of way, which TURF believes is a blatant violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution..

Through TURF’s efforts to inform the public about the gas tax original plan for 281 and the recall of pro-toll, flip-flopper District 8 Councilwoman Diane Cibrian, it applied for permits from the City of San Antonio to place banners above the roadways at key locations. TURF was originally granted permission only to have that permission later rescinded once the higher-ups at the City caught wind of TURF’s banner messages: one directing people to the www.281OverpassesNow.com web site and the other to the www.RecallDiane.com web site. One of the banners had already been made at a cost of nearly $700!

WHO: The concerned citizens of TURF

WHAT: Hearing for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the City of San Antonio for violation of citizens’ Free Speech

WHERE/WHEN: Judge Xavier Rodriguez’ courtroom on Monday, January 5 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 3 on the first floor of the John Wood United States Courthouse at 655 E. Durango Blvd.

“Clearly, the City of San Antonio has no respect for Free Speech nor fair treatment of ALL groups, regardless of their make-up or message. The City denied our banners simply because it disagrees with the message of toll opponents. We the people own the public right of way, and the First Amendment protects the citizens from government gag orders on speech. We hope the court will right this wrong and allow our banners to be hung,” states TURF Founder, Terri Hall.

The City claims the speech/message of the banners is “controversial” and therefore the legal basis for its denial; however, the statute gives the City no such authority to deny permits based on content, which violates of the citizens’ First Amendment rights in the U.S. Constitution.

The Time Is Now ! Rise Up For Freedom

WarOnYou — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:37:52 +0000

There are so many things that We The People need to protest. It is clear that changes will not be made until we take a stand. We need protests like that of Martin Luther King Jr. in the 60’s. Like the issues of those days, changes were not made until the American people united in protest. This is that time for us, now. No matter your issue, this is the time to take a stand for what you believe in. If the founders of this nation knew that 200 years down the road the American People would not take a stand to correct the problems that our corrupted, greedy politicians have created they would be ashamed. Don’t let them down!
There are many people with differing viewpoints on certain issues but it vitally important to put aside our differences and keep the peace and unite under the banner of Freedom. We need to have a date that we all will connect on the same day against our city halls,court houses,Govt facilities,financial institutions and yes even the Church s who refuse to take a stand and finally last but not least the homes of those elected employees who are Raping America of its’ Freedom and selling it out to the Global elite. Our rally cry should be ” Not No But Hell No”

We will neither be silent nor submit,we will resist,we will dissent,we will fight we will win.

United Nation Flag Destroyed At NWO/NAU Protest
By Jim & Dave of Freedom Fighter Radio

No Related Posts

President Bush signs bill to create cabinet-level intellectual property czar

WarOnYou — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:40:45 +0000

President Bush on Monday signed into law an intellectual-property enforcement bill that would consolidate federal efforts to combat copyright infringement under a new White House cabinet position.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act establishes within the executive branch the position of intellectual property enforcement coordinator, who will be appointed b More..y the president.

The law also steepens penalties for intellectual-property infringement, and increases resources for the Department of Justice to coordinate for federal and state efforts against counterfeiting and piracy. The so-called Pro-IP Act passed unanimously in the Senate last month and received strong bipartisan support in the House.

The Bush administration initially expressed its opposition to the legislation, but one of its more contentious provisions, which would have allowed the Justice Department to pursue civil litigation against copyright infringers, was removed.

The law has received wide-ranging support from within the business community, including from the Recording Industry Association of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and copyright holders such as NBC Universal. Labor groups such as the AFL-CIO have also expressed their support for the new law. Business and labor groups have said strong intellectual-property enforcement is critical for the development of the U.S. economy.

“What the Congress recognized and the president has ratified is the critical importance of innovation, technical invention, and creativity to the U.S. economy,” said Rick Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel of NBC Universal. “This law will dramatically move the priority of IP enforcement up the agenda in critical ways.”

Intellectual property in the U.S. is worth more than $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and accounts for more than half of all U.S. exports.

“By becoming law, the Pro-IP Act sends the message to IP criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation,” said Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The legislation saw opposition from some public-advocacy groups, including the American Library Association, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“It would’ve been nice to have something to benefit the public and artists instead of big media companies,” Public Knowledge Communications Director Art Brodsky said, noting that Congress and the president could give more consideration to the public on matters of intellectual property, with further action on the issue of “orphan works,” copyrighted material for which the owner cannot be found.

The Senate in September passed a bill limiting civil actions in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.

War On You: Breaking Alternative News » Property Rights

The ‘Fake’ Cities of Syria’s Unrest

The ‘Fake’ Cities of Syria’s Unrest

Related Posts:

World Bank Policies “enabling” African Land Grab

World Bank Policies “enabling” African Land Grab

Related Posts:

Supreme Court Okays Police Search Based on Pot Odor, Noises

Related Posts:

The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations

Related Posts:

The CLEAR Act of Another Federal Land Grab

The CLEAR Act of Another Federal Land Grab

Related Posts:

man arrested for trespassing on his own land

Related Posts:

Conn. land vacant 4 years after court OK’d seizure

Related Posts:

Feds Claim Right to Search Your Home Day or Night, without a Warrant

Related Posts:

Yet another steaming crock o’shite

Related Posts:

NAIS ~~~ And the Family

From the National Assn. of Farm Animal Welfare, 4.22.09

Related Posts:

The Lieber Code. HJR192. Senate Doc 43

Related Posts:

Using Eminent Domain To Acquire Mortgages Would Be Reckless And Dangerous

Related Posts:

Trans Texas Corridor renamed, not dead

Trans Texas Corridor renamed, not dead

Judge hears evidence in TURF lawsuit against City of San Antonio

TURF sues City of

San Antonio for infringing on Free Speech

Related Posts:

The Time Is Now ! Rise Up For Freedom

Related Posts:

President Bush signs bill to create cabinet-level intellectual property czar

President Bush on Monday signed into law an intellectual-property enforcement bill that would consolidate federal efforts to combat copyright infringement under a new White House cabinet position.

Related Posts: