Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

In America there is something called ‘Adverse possession’ Someone can legally take the property rights of your home or property in as little as 5 years in some states “The day that I learned somebody can gain property rights or ownership of a property through a process called adverse...

WallStreetApes's profile picture

Wall Street Apes

1,373,452 subscribers

88,264 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаОбразование
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Most of the women in this country still believe that they have a right over the husband’s and in-laws’ house. This is the biggest MYTH. The matrimonial house is either the husband’s property or the in-laws’ property, and the wife has ABSOLUTELY ZERO ownership rights over that property merely because she got married. Yes, if she is residing there, it may be considered a shared household for the purpose of living and shelter. But that does not make her the owner of the property. Women in our country cry for the husband’s & in-laws’ property but rarely talk about respecting those relationships enough to deserve any voluntary share or ownership. Rather, when asked why they are not equally vocal about claiming their father’s or brother’s property, they suddenly become silent. Rights over someone else’s property cannot be claimed selectively. The law is based on ownership, not entitlement.
1:17

Most of the women in this country still believe that they have a right over the husband’s and in-laws’ house. This is the biggest MYTH. The matrimonial house is either the husband’s property or the in-laws’ property, and the wife has ABSOLUTELY ZERO ownership rights over that property merely because she got married. Yes, if she is residing there, it may be considered a shared household for the purpose of living and shelter. But that does not make her the owner of the property. Women in our country cry for the husband’s & in-laws’ property but rarely talk about respecting those relationships enough to deserve any voluntary share or ownership. Rather, when asked why they are not equally vocal about claiming their father’s or brother’s property, they suddenly become silent. Rights over someone else’s property cannot be claimed selectively. The law is based on ownership, not entitlement.

The Forgotten ‘Man’ 👨‍⚖️

15,619 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

What another AMAZING “coincidence” California had just passed new tax laws, if your home burns down and you don’t rebuild within 2 years (impossible in California) you lose your tax basis. Your property taxes SKYROCKET to the new values of the property “Think about a home that was purchased many years ago for $5 million. Let's say they were paying $65,000 a year in property taxes. Property goes up a lot over time, especially in these areas. Maybe the value today is $30 million. They go to rebuild it. If it was not, if they couldn't transfer the tax basis, you're looking at like $400,000 a year that they would have to pay” “In 2020, California voters approved a bill that basically said that if your house burns down in a fire, you can transfer the tax basis of that property to something that you buy or something that you build. But you only have two years to do it.” So some of the most expensive homes and properties the entire world now will get reassessed to pay maximum property tax values….
0:59

What another AMAZING “coincidence” California had just passed new tax laws, if your home burns down and you don’t rebuild within 2 years (impossible in California) you lose your tax basis. Your property taxes SKYROCKET to the new values of the property “Think about a home that was purchased many years ago for $5 million. Let's say they were paying $65,000 a year in property taxes. Property goes up a lot over time, especially in these areas. Maybe the value today is $30 million. They go to rebuild it. If it was not, if they couldn't transfer the tax basis, you're looking at like $400,000 a year that they would have to pay” “In 2020, California voters approved a bill that basically said that if your house burns down in a fire, you can transfer the tax basis of that property to something that you buy or something that you build. But you only have two years to do it.” So some of the most expensive homes and properties the entire world now will get reassessed to pay maximum property tax values….

Wall Street Apes

3,035,819 просмотров • 1 год назад

David Friedberg cites John Quincy Adams on property rights as the foundation of liberty "The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." "Fundamental to the foundation of the USA was this idea of private property rights, because if you think about where everybody was coming from, they were these tyrannical governments, monarchies, where some overlord or some cabal could decide at any point to take what you have. You had no property rights as an individual." "That stasis drove so many to come to the USA and say, we want a place where individuals can say, I own something and no one can take it from me." "Private property rights are the foundation of liberty." david friedberg The All-In Podcast
1:28

David Friedberg cites John Quincy Adams on property rights as the foundation of liberty "The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." "Fundamental to the foundation of the USA was this idea of private property rights, because if you think about where everybody was coming from, they were these tyrannical governments, monarchies, where some overlord or some cabal could decide at any point to take what you have. You had no property rights as an individual." "That stasis drove so many to come to the USA and say, we want a place where individuals can say, I own something and no one can take it from me." "Private property rights are the foundation of liberty." david friedberg The All-In Podcast

KanekoaTheGreat

55,161 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

David Friedberg: The Socialists Are Coming for Your Private Property Rights At a recent hearing held by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a speaker equated evictions with violence. david friedberg says this demonization of landlords and the good/evil moralistic framing are signals that socialists are trying to erode private property rights in America. “In 1787, John Quincy Adams had a comment, ‘The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.’ Private property rights are the foundations of liberty in America. Because if you think about where everyone that came to America was coming from, there were these tyrannical governments where some overlord or some cabal could decide at any point to take the things that you have. You had no private property rights as an individual. And it was that stasis that drove so many to come to the United States and say, ‘We want a place where individuals, one person, can say, I own something, and no one can take it from me.’ This idea that you can then claim acts of violence, that you can then claim circumstances of extraordinary extravagant wealth, and say to that individual, ‘I now have a right, the government now has a right to take your private property,’ ultimately leads to this tyrannical form. And it starts out as being anarchic, and remember, anarchy is a temporary state. It's always in between one state and another. All anarchies end up in tyranny, so anarchy and tyranny are one in the same. And fundamentally, what's going on with these socialist principles is that, ‘We are taking your private property, and you no longer have rights on your private property. We now will have the right to come in and take your property and control it and take it from you.’ And it always starts with this framing of moralistic intent. ‘We are good, you are bad for the following reasons. You have committed violence against the people that live in your building.’ So the first framing is that the private property owner is evil, and that the private property owner has committed an act of injustice against those who don't have the private property. And that is the justification for taking away their private property rights. And it is the beginning of this transition towards a tyrannical system, which will ultimately be what I call this kind of Great American Politburo or whatever socialist framework gets set up by the cabal of the socialists and what they're trying to put together. So all of these little acts, while seeming ridiculous, and insane, and inappropriate, in aggregate are the same thing: They're a transition away from private property rights, which is the foundation of the United States of America. That's why I think we should all be so shocked. And to John Quincy Adams' point, we need to vehemently defend those rights. As soon as those rights start to slip away, even in the tiniest way, it is a cascading effect, and everything will become tyrannical, and it will be very ugly in the United States of America.”
2:33

David Friedberg: The Socialists Are Coming for Your Private Property Rights At a recent hearing held by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a speaker equated evictions with violence. david friedberg says this demonization of landlords and the good/evil moralistic framing are signals that socialists are trying to erode private property rights in America. “In 1787, John Quincy Adams had a comment, ‘The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.’ Private property rights are the foundations of liberty in America. Because if you think about where everyone that came to America was coming from, there were these tyrannical governments where some overlord or some cabal could decide at any point to take the things that you have. You had no private property rights as an individual. And it was that stasis that drove so many to come to the United States and say, ‘We want a place where individuals, one person, can say, I own something, and no one can take it from me.’ This idea that you can then claim acts of violence, that you can then claim circumstances of extraordinary extravagant wealth, and say to that individual, ‘I now have a right, the government now has a right to take your private property,’ ultimately leads to this tyrannical form. And it starts out as being anarchic, and remember, anarchy is a temporary state. It's always in between one state and another. All anarchies end up in tyranny, so anarchy and tyranny are one in the same. And fundamentally, what's going on with these socialist principles is that, ‘We are taking your private property, and you no longer have rights on your private property. We now will have the right to come in and take your property and control it and take it from you.’ And it always starts with this framing of moralistic intent. ‘We are good, you are bad for the following reasons. You have committed violence against the people that live in your building.’ So the first framing is that the private property owner is evil, and that the private property owner has committed an act of injustice against those who don't have the private property. And that is the justification for taking away their private property rights. And it is the beginning of this transition towards a tyrannical system, which will ultimately be what I call this kind of Great American Politburo or whatever socialist framework gets set up by the cabal of the socialists and what they're trying to put together. So all of these little acts, while seeming ridiculous, and insane, and inappropriate, in aggregate are the same thing: They're a transition away from private property rights, which is the foundation of the United States of America. That's why I think we should all be so shocked. And to John Quincy Adams' point, we need to vehemently defend those rights. As soon as those rights start to slip away, even in the tiniest way, it is a cascading effect, and everything will become tyrannical, and it will be very ugly in the United States of America.”

The All-In Podcast

180,505 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

He buys a house with a little bit of land and a peaceful creek running through it. One afternoon he’s walking the property line, taking it all in, when he stumbles across a picnic setup — grills, tables, even a little cleared area that looks like it’s been loved for years. Before he can even admire it, the neighbor from up the hill storms down and demands, “What are you doing?” He replies calmly, “Just walking my property.” The neighbor snaps back, “That’s my property. I’ve been mowing it for 23 years.” Twenty-three years of mowing… but not owning. So now the question isn’t about grass or picnic tables. It’s about boundaries, paperwork, and a whole lot of emotion tied to a piece of land both men feel connected to. What would you do in this situation? Whose Property is it? This may or may not represent true events; it may or may not be AI
3:04

He buys a house with a little bit of land and a peaceful creek running through it. One afternoon he’s walking the property line, taking it all in, when he stumbles across a picnic setup — grills, tables, even a little cleared area that looks like it’s been loved for years. Before he can even admire it, the neighbor from up the hill storms down and demands, “What are you doing?” He replies calmly, “Just walking my property.” The neighbor snaps back, “That’s my property. I’ve been mowing it for 23 years.” Twenty-three years of mowing… but not owning. So now the question isn’t about grass or picnic tables. It’s about boundaries, paperwork, and a whole lot of emotion tied to a piece of land both men feel connected to. What would you do in this situation? Whose Property is it? This may or may not represent true events; it may or may not be AI

TheRealCherokeeOwl 🦉

1,839,091 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

YOUR STRAWMAN IDENTITY Believe it or not, you have been slave property of a corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The UNITED STATES has been a private corporation since 1871 as defined in Black’s Law dictionary, Act of 1871, and 28 U.S.C. §3002/15 (A) (B) (C)
9:32

YOUR STRAWMAN IDENTITY Believe it or not, you have been slave property of a corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The UNITED STATES has been a private corporation since 1871 as defined in Black’s Law dictionary, Act of 1871, and 28 U.S.C. §3002/15 (A) (B) (C)

Redpill Drifter

218,038 просмотров • 1 год назад

YOUR STRAWMAN IDENTITY Like it or not, you are slave property of a corporation called the United States of America. The UNITED STATES has been a private corporation since 1881 as defined in Black’s Law dictionary, Act of 1881, and 28 U.S.C. §3002/15 (A) (B) (C)
9:32

YOUR STRAWMAN IDENTITY Like it or not, you are slave property of a corporation called the United States of America. The UNITED STATES has been a private corporation since 1881 as defined in Black’s Law dictionary, Act of 1881, and 28 U.S.C. §3002/15 (A) (B) (C)

Redpill Drifter

53,800 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Only in Canada can you: Work your whole life. Own your home for 25 years. Pay property taxes, every year. Only for the government to say: it ain’t yours, cause 125+ years ago, First Nations used to hunt and dump there. At some point, every piece of land on earth belonged to someone else. This will upend the very fabric of land ownership in Canada. Ridiculous
1:41

Only in Canada can you: Work your whole life. Own your home for 25 years. Pay property taxes, every year. Only for the government to say: it ain’t yours, cause 125+ years ago, First Nations used to hunt and dump there. At some point, every piece of land on earth belonged to someone else. This will upend the very fabric of land ownership in Canada. Ridiculous

Mario Zelaya

445,930 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

🚨BREAKING: Sinai Law, the leading eviction firm in Los Angeles County, is now providing pro bono services to the Tongva Tribe to remove Billie Eilish from her $14 million LA home, claiming that her admission of living on stolen land gives the tribe a legal right to the property. “Eilish's admission that she lives on stolen land gives the tribe a rightful action for possession as the true owner of the property. The 30-day notice is already written and ready to be served.”
0:38

🚨BREAKING: Sinai Law, the leading eviction firm in Los Angeles County, is now providing pro bono services to the Tongva Tribe to remove Billie Eilish from her $14 million LA home, claiming that her admission of living on stolen land gives the tribe a legal right to the property. “Eilish's admission that she lives on stolen land gives the tribe a rightful action for possession as the true owner of the property. The 30-day notice is already written and ready to be served.”

I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

3,335,392 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

🦅🏡⚖️ : David Eby lied to everyone 11 days ago about the BC Supreme Court ruling on Cowichan land title claims against private property owners, in Richmond British Columbia. 🧐Watch the full brief video as there are several clips added to provide full context. In the last clip hereditary Chief of Lyackson, Huy’wu’qw Shana Thomas, makes it clear, she wants Aboriginal title to apply to all the properties in the same way the Crown had title, when the Crown sold the property to the current land owners. Giving Aboriginal title would nullify the current land owners title and force them to make an agreement with whichever tribe regains land title, through the courts. Remember folks, some properties have multiple land title claims against the property, from multiple 1st Nation tribes. The major question is, why has David Eby not resigned? How many times can a Premier lie to taxpayers on critical issues? David Eby knew for years he could inform private property owners who have a land title claim against their property and he chose to keep them out of the process. This was an intentional act, ensuring the BC Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cowichan land title claim, Eby is now pretending to partially oppose. How can Eby, the Federal government or the City of Richmond be counted on to fight for land title rights for current property owners, when they all conspired to omit those very property owners, from the court case? 95% of British Columbia could be impacted by the precedence the Cowichan land title ruling presents in Richmond BC. The entire city of Kamloops has a land title claim against it. So it's impossible to ignore the devastating impact this could have on almost everyone in British Columbia who owns property or who has a mortgage / reverse mortgage on their property. This is especially true if lenders begin to refuse to provide loans to people who currently have loan agreements because the risks of lenders losing their loan investments, are too great.
2:32

🦅🏡⚖️ : David Eby lied to everyone 11 days ago about the BC Supreme Court ruling on Cowichan land title claims against private property owners, in Richmond British Columbia. 🧐Watch the full brief video as there are several clips added to provide full context. In the last clip hereditary Chief of Lyackson, Huy’wu’qw Shana Thomas, makes it clear, she wants Aboriginal title to apply to all the properties in the same way the Crown had title, when the Crown sold the property to the current land owners. Giving Aboriginal title would nullify the current land owners title and force them to make an agreement with whichever tribe regains land title, through the courts. Remember folks, some properties have multiple land title claims against the property, from multiple 1st Nation tribes. The major question is, why has David Eby not resigned? How many times can a Premier lie to taxpayers on critical issues? David Eby knew for years he could inform private property owners who have a land title claim against their property and he chose to keep them out of the process. This was an intentional act, ensuring the BC Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cowichan land title claim, Eby is now pretending to partially oppose. How can Eby, the Federal government or the City of Richmond be counted on to fight for land title rights for current property owners, when they all conspired to omit those very property owners, from the court case? 95% of British Columbia could be impacted by the precedence the Cowichan land title ruling presents in Richmond BC. The entire city of Kamloops has a land title claim against it. So it's impossible to ignore the devastating impact this could have on almost everyone in British Columbia who owns property or who has a mortgage / reverse mortgage on their property. This is especially true if lenders begin to refuse to provide loans to people who currently have loan agreements because the risks of lenders losing their loan investments, are too great.

Bruce McGonigal

40,507 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

The State is not God. In the compulsory income and property tax, the State claims ownership over the first fruits of people’s work and property, thereby making them wards in custody of the State. Meaning: Before people support their own life and their family, they must make a forced contribution to the State. Man is not a dependent of the State. Man is not created by the State. Man is not sustained by the State. Man does not have his salvation or rights from the State. God has not given government the rights over innocent people’s life, liberty, or property. Therefore, no institution or person shall violate these rights over-against an innocent person. Property and income belong first to individuals, not to the State.
1:39

The State is not God. In the compulsory income and property tax, the State claims ownership over the first fruits of people’s work and property, thereby making them wards in custody of the State. Meaning: Before people support their own life and their family, they must make a forced contribution to the State. Man is not a dependent of the State. Man is not created by the State. Man is not sustained by the State. Man does not have his salvation or rights from the State. God has not given government the rights over innocent people’s life, liberty, or property. Therefore, no institution or person shall violate these rights over-against an innocent person. Property and income belong first to individuals, not to the State.

Dusty Deevers

119,234 просмотров • 1 год назад

David Friedberg warns that Mamdani and fellow socialists frame their assaults on private property as moral justice against “evil” landlords and the wealthy. This is one of the best breakdowns on Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists I've seen. Must watch! Friedberg: “This idea that you can then claim acts of violence—that you can then claim circumstances of extraordinary, extravagant wealth and say to that individual, ‘I now have a right—the government has a right—to take your private property’ ultimately leads to this tyrannical form. And it starts out as being anarchic because, remember, anarchy is a temporary state—it’s always between one state and another. All anarchies end up in tyranny. Groups of people fighting each other. They’re all stealing **** from each other. Everyone just goes and takes and gets what they want, and eventually people coalesce. They form groups, and those groups become the more powerful groups. And the powerful groups end up winning. And they become the tyranny over the mass. And that is why all anarchies eventually evolve into tyranny. So anarchy and tyranny are one and the same. And fundamentally what’s going on with these socialist principles is that we are taking your private property, and you no longer have rights to your private property—whether you are a landlord or whether you are a wealthy person that we’ve deemed to have too much wealth. We now have the rights to come in and take your property and control it and take it from you. And it always starts with this framing of moralistic intent: ‘We are good and you are bad for the following reason. You have committed violence against the people; in your building you have taken too much wealth. And none of us have wealth. We have a right to go and take your wealth from you.’ It has always started from this point of view that you are bad. So the first framing is that the private property owner is evil and that the private property owner has committed an act of injustice against those who don’t have the private property, and that is the justification for taking away their private property rights. And it is the beginning of this transition towards a tyrannical system which will ultimately be what I call this kind of great American Politburo or whatever socialist framework gets set up by the cabal of the socialists and what they’re trying to put together. So all of these little acts, while seeming ridiculous and insane and inappropriate, in aggregate are the same thing. They are the transitioning away from private property rights, which is the foundation of the United States of America. That’s why I think we should all be so shocked. And to the point of John Quincy Adams’s point, we need to vehemently defend those rights. As soon as those rights start to slip away, even in the tiniest way, it is a cascading effect and everything will become tyrannical. And it will be very ugly in the United States of America.”
2:21

David Friedberg warns that Mamdani and fellow socialists frame their assaults on private property as moral justice against “evil” landlords and the wealthy. This is one of the best breakdowns on Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists I've seen. Must watch! Friedberg: “This idea that you can then claim acts of violence—that you can then claim circumstances of extraordinary, extravagant wealth and say to that individual, ‘I now have a right—the government has a right—to take your private property’ ultimately leads to this tyrannical form. And it starts out as being anarchic because, remember, anarchy is a temporary state—it’s always between one state and another. All anarchies end up in tyranny. Groups of people fighting each other. They’re all stealing **** from each other. Everyone just goes and takes and gets what they want, and eventually people coalesce. They form groups, and those groups become the more powerful groups. And the powerful groups end up winning. And they become the tyranny over the mass. And that is why all anarchies eventually evolve into tyranny. So anarchy and tyranny are one and the same. And fundamentally what’s going on with these socialist principles is that we are taking your private property, and you no longer have rights to your private property—whether you are a landlord or whether you are a wealthy person that we’ve deemed to have too much wealth. We now have the rights to come in and take your property and control it and take it from you. And it always starts with this framing of moralistic intent: ‘We are good and you are bad for the following reason. You have committed violence against the people; in your building you have taken too much wealth. And none of us have wealth. We have a right to go and take your wealth from you.’ It has always started from this point of view that you are bad. So the first framing is that the private property owner is evil and that the private property owner has committed an act of injustice against those who don’t have the private property, and that is the justification for taking away their private property rights. And it is the beginning of this transition towards a tyrannical system which will ultimately be what I call this kind of great American Politburo or whatever socialist framework gets set up by the cabal of the socialists and what they’re trying to put together. So all of these little acts, while seeming ridiculous and insane and inappropriate, in aggregate are the same thing. They are the transitioning away from private property rights, which is the foundation of the United States of America. That’s why I think we should all be so shocked. And to the point of John Quincy Adams’s point, we need to vehemently defend those rights. As soon as those rights start to slip away, even in the tiniest way, it is a cascading effect and everything will become tyrannical. And it will be very ugly in the United States of America.”

American Debunk

15,403 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

You do not own anything. YOU are the product❗️ How to take back your birth rights and stop being a product for the European dynasty. Law and banking are both practices of the Druids. “The land patent, not a deed, is the only true evidence of absolute land ownership that cannot be seized for debt or taxes. Modern mortgage systems like MERS have broken chains of title by trading mortgages like stocks without recording transfers, making it impossible for banks to prove ownership. Land patents bypass electronic records entirely by tracing ownership to sovereign grants, removing property from government jurisdiction and preventing it from being used as financial collateral.”
25:13

You do not own anything. YOU are the product❗️ How to take back your birth rights and stop being a product for the European dynasty. Law and banking are both practices of the Druids. “The land patent, not a deed, is the only true evidence of absolute land ownership that cannot be seized for debt or taxes. Modern mortgage systems like MERS have broken chains of title by trading mortgages like stocks without recording transfers, making it impossible for banks to prove ownership. Land patents bypass electronic records entirely by tracing ownership to sovereign grants, removing property from government jurisdiction and preventing it from being used as financial collateral.”

🜌🜈🜓

19,019 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

.david friedberg: “We are now at a moment where we are saying there is no longer private property in the United States. This is one of the foundational rights that the founders of the United States tried to create: a distinction between these other nations that everyone flees from, where a monarchy or a totalitarian government or some communist system says everyone owns everything together, or some small number of people own and control everything. And that’s what this always comes down to. Whether it’s a socialist state or a communist state or a monarchy or some other totalitarian regime, there’s a small number of people that own and control everything. And that is the brink that we’re on. Because they are trying to say, for the first time ever, there is no longer private property in the United States. That if the government can say everything that you’ve already paid your income tax on, and then you’ve bought and you now own, the government can take a piece of it every year based on the vote and the budgetary needs of an irresponsible fiscal legislature. We’ve lost it all. And that’s where we are. And we see this just passed in Illinois. People think it’s just crypto, just like they think that billionaire tax is just billionaires. But anytime the government can take your private property after you’ve paid your taxes, bought something, and put it in your garage, we are done for. That is when the politburo has unlimited capacity to tax and take and do what they want. That’s the moment we’re at.”
1:32

.david friedberg: “We are now at a moment where we are saying there is no longer private property in the United States. This is one of the foundational rights that the founders of the United States tried to create: a distinction between these other nations that everyone flees from, where a monarchy or a totalitarian government or some communist system says everyone owns everything together, or some small number of people own and control everything. And that’s what this always comes down to. Whether it’s a socialist state or a communist state or a monarchy or some other totalitarian regime, there’s a small number of people that own and control everything. And that is the brink that we’re on. Because they are trying to say, for the first time ever, there is no longer private property in the United States. That if the government can say everything that you’ve already paid your income tax on, and then you’ve bought and you now own, the government can take a piece of it every year based on the vote and the budgetary needs of an irresponsible fiscal legislature. We’ve lost it all. And that’s where we are. And we see this just passed in Illinois. People think it’s just crypto, just like they think that billionaire tax is just billionaires. But anytime the government can take your private property after you’ve paid your taxes, bought something, and put it in your garage, we are done for. That is when the politburo has unlimited capacity to tax and take and do what they want. That’s the moment we’re at.”

Arjun Khemani

72,169 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

CONFIRMED: Unelected bureaucracies, with an RCMP paramilitary protection force, can seize ANY property if it "encroaches" on a warranted property. This means they can seize YOUR house to execute a warrant on your NEIGHBOURS property and keep it seized for the duration of their operations. They seized the Garlic Farm for 7 weeks! While it was seized, they harassed and terrorized the family and destroyed much of the property. Your property rights are not secure in Canada! ___ Follow Alyson Turnbull of Facebook: Support the Garlic Farm here:
0:53

CONFIRMED: Unelected bureaucracies, with an RCMP paramilitary protection force, can seize ANY property if it "encroaches" on a warranted property. This means they can seize YOUR house to execute a warrant on your NEIGHBOURS property and keep it seized for the duration of their operations. They seized the Garlic Farm for 7 weeks! While it was seized, they harassed and terrorized the family and destroyed much of the property. Your property rights are not secure in Canada! ___ Follow Alyson Turnbull of Facebook: Support the Garlic Farm here:

Dacey Media

97,111 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

The situation in Shimla where a Hindu family’s shop was locked and taken over is very serious. It is completely wrong to harass anyone or forcibly take their property, especially when they have been running it since 1947. When people from the Mu£lim community or any other group involve themselves in such illegal possession and bullying, it creates a lot of fear and tension. This kind of behavior is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated in any society. The authorities must take immediate and strict action against those who are causing this trouble. It is the responsibility of the police and administration to ensure that no one is bullied out of their own shop or home. The law should be the same for everyone, and those trying to grab property by force must be dealt with firmly so that families can feel safe again.
2:58

The situation in Shimla where a Hindu family’s shop was locked and taken over is very serious. It is completely wrong to harass anyone or forcibly take their property, especially when they have been running it since 1947. When people from the Mu£lim community or any other group involve themselves in such illegal possession and bullying, it creates a lot of fear and tension. This kind of behavior is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated in any society. The authorities must take immediate and strict action against those who are causing this trouble. It is the responsibility of the police and administration to ensure that no one is bullied out of their own shop or home. The law should be the same for everyone, and those trying to grab property by force must be dealt with firmly so that families can feel safe again.

Arpit

43,642 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

A family that had lived in their home for 300 years was told they were living on WAQF property, and these goons snatched their land. The family went into depression and one of them died!
4:09

A family that had lived in their home for 300 years was told they were living on WAQF property, and these goons snatched their land. The family went into depression and one of them died!

Maxtern

359,069 просмотров • 2 лет назад