Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
Come on… we all know that the coming administration is that of President Harris. Why pretend otherwise? In any event, this is what happens when you have a constitutional right to gun ownership – where only the government decides who can exercise that right:
Are Mexico’s stringent gun control laws aiding a rise in cartel violence?
The mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, has apologized to the occupiers of the “Red House on Mississippi”, a home in the Humboldt neighborhood of Portland, Oregon. He has also agreed not to remove the occupying family while they negotiate with the current owners of the home, who purchased it during a foreclosure sale.
The story behind the foreclosure of this home is much different than that being presented by the protestors/occupiers: the simple (alleged) truth is that the prior owners obtained a mortgage on the property to pay legal defense expenses for a relative, but failed to pay it back. It’s not a race issue; it’s not a gentrification issue; it’s not an indigenous peoples issue. They simply didn’t pay their mortgage, and – just as would happen to you or I under the same circumstances – the home was foreclosed.
Mayor Wheeler’s refusal to enforce a court-ordered eviction and protect the property rights of the new owner is contrary to establish law and the principles of our nation. His failure to enforce the law lends credence to lawlessness, and will only embolden those who are in foreclosure proceedings to establish their own “occupation” to prevent seizure of bank-owned properties.
I wonder how banks will alter their lending practices in Portland when they realize that the local government will no longer enforce court-ordered repossession of collateral property associated with secured loans. Will real estate or vehicle loans come with additional costs associated with the more difficult repossession process in Portland, or will banks simply refuse to make secured loans based on local law enforcement’s unwillingness to secure the property interests of the lender?
Below are additional articles that may shed some light on the motivation and true purpose regarding the occupation of the “Red House on Mississippi”:
Anti-fascist, sovereign citizen tactics combine at Red House
I ran across the following headline perusing Fox News tonight:
WSJ op-ed on ‘Dr.’ Jill Biden gets writer ‘canceled’ by Northwestern University
What the article alleges is that an essay in the Wall Street Journal by author Joseph Epstein disparaged Jill Biden, implying that her Ph.D. did not entitle her to use the title of “doctor” since she did not have a medical degree. The article insinuates that as a result the author was “cancelled” as a lecturer by Northwestern University. I disagree with Fox’s characterization of the circumstances and outcome.
As alleged by the Fox News story, the author’s essay claimed that Biden’s use of the prefix “Dr.” before her name “sounds and feels fraudulent”. When I read this I assumed that perhaps Jill Biden’s degree was honorary, but this is not the case; her degree is an earned doctorate in education.
Under the circumstances I would consider the author clearly wrong and side with Biden on this issue. However, while this is a rude and ignorant comment, the author is entitled to their own opinion of earned doctorate degrees. Unfortunately for the author, while they are free to make ignorant statements they must also live with the consequences. Others may choose not to associate with the author as a result of such comments – including employers.
In addition, while the article implies that the author was “cancelled” as a lecturer at Northwestern it also notes that the author has not been associated with university since 2002. Northwestern did issue a statement condemning the Epstein’s essay, and I’m sure they won’t be hiring him any time soon, but it’s really hard to swallow a claim of being “cancelled” under the circumstances.
Shame on you, Fox News, for using such a misleading headline for a story regarding the ignorance of – and the consequences to – this author.
Whether or not you agree with the pending lawsuits regarding the election outcome, supporting the use of the United States legal system to explore claims of election fraud is a perfectly valid opinion. Refusing to seat duly-elected representatives because you disagree with this opinion, however, is (or should be) criminal.
And just who is it here trying to circumvent the results of the election?
This is why the liberals want to enact their policies at a national level. High taxes, special fees, mandatory employee “rights” and other anti-business tactics on the state level can be avoided by simply moving. This is good since it requires states to compete for employers, just as employers compete for workers and customers. It assures that state governments operate efficiently and do not place undo financial or regulatory burdens on free-market enterprises. But when such liberal policies are enacted at a national level there is no need for the government to act in an efficient or restrained manner (until all our jobs move to China. Oh, wait…).
Oracle moving from California to Texas, joins Tesla, Hewlett Packard
The exodus continues.
Maybe you’ve heard about outspoken (but recently silent) CA representative Eric Swalwell and his brush with a Chinese “honey pot”. Somehow he’s managed to point a finger at Trump for exposing his misadventure.
In any event, sometimes you’ve just got to laugh at the world (or at least at Eric Swalwell…):
Here we go again:
Fiery blasts outside Portland occupation protest raise safety concerns, as blockade enters third day
This seems like a combination of Seattle’s CHAZ/CHOP and the occupation takeover of an Oakland, CA home last year. Both, however, were an affront to public and private property rights. This new occupation should be resolved quickly; police should remove the trespassers and restore law and order to this besieged neighborhood.
Just because someone owns or carries a gun should not be legal justification to shoot them! The story coming out about this fatal police shooting of a man who held a current concealed carry permit is frightening – and the stench of a cover-up is overwhelming:
Casey Goodson Jr.’s Family Calls For Murder Charges Against Sheriff’s Deputy
The state of Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) was asked to weigh in on the investigation, but has refused due to an unexplained three day delay in the request. I’m with the Ohio BCI on this one; a delay such as that could very easily have been used to alter or destroy evidence. Preliminary information released by the local police agency has been minimal and does not fully explain the reason for the shooting. But I’ll bet the officer, who was working with a federal task force, will end up requesting qualified immunity – just like this officer in Austin, TX.
I’ll follow up on this case as it proceeds.
China has rebounded quickly from the coronavirus, using a totalitarian grip on its population to control the spread of the virus and return their economy to full operation. As a result, China is in the position to seize market share from foreign competitors who are still reeling from the effects of the coronavirus – or so says this news article:
How China stands to profit from the coronavirus pandemic
So, to clarify: the country responsible for the coronavirus, either through their poorly-controlled “wet markets” or a mismanaged research laboratory, is as a result advancing rapidly on their goal of replacing the U.S. as the seat of worldwide commerce. Surprised? Not me.
But here’s the scary part: since the coronavirus has worked so well in destroying other economies while boosting China’s, what’s the likelihood that China will weaponize other moderate-risk diseases to aid their quest for world domination? After all, it seems like the perfect weapon. No one is penalizing China for the “accidental” release of the coronavirus – even though it is now alleged that the Chinese government downplayed its severity while ramping up their own medical defenses. Some have noted instead that many countries have turned to China for medical and financial support, further boosting China’s economy and global interests. Sounds like the coronavirus pandemic is all good for China; think they’ve noticed?
So what can we do? Well, if your neighbor accidentally (or intentionally) burned down your house, what would you do? You’d hire a reputable firm to rebuild your home and sue the shorts off of your neighbor. We could take the same tact with China, applying a tariff on China-sourced products to penalize them and recoup our losses. Unfortunately, this would likely be met with similar tariffs on our own goods selling in China, negating any impact. Fortunately, in our country (and many others) the true power remains with the people.
Instead of government action, I propose that we as a people take direct action. We should do this by refusing to purchase Chinese-produced goods until such time that their government acts responsibly and shows that it can be a trusted trading partner. In addition, China must take action to prevent such outbreaks in the future and make fair and timely notification when an outbreak does occurs.
This is not a racist attack on the people of China, but instead it is a punishment levied against the communist dictatorship that runs their country. I admit that this will have a collateral negative impact on the people of China, but it is up to them (the people of China) to change their government. If they fail or refuse, then they will have to suffer for the actions and failures of their leaders.
I find it interesting when what is rejected by the voters is implemented by politicians, anyway.
For instance, the new District Attorney for Los Angeles, George Gascon, has decided to end cash bail – even though California voters resoundingly rejected Proposition 25, which would have done the same.
So much for a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.