Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

SHOCKING TAKEOVER: DRIPA & Secret Agreements Are STEALING Private Property Homes RIGHT NOW!! A First Nation on British Columbia's central coast is asserting ownership over privately held lands, basing its legal challenge on a landmark ruling from last summer's B.C. Supreme Court decision that paved the way for Indigenous... show more

Dan Dicks

176,979 subscribers

14,874 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨We keep hearing claims that the Cowichan “don’t want” the affected Richmond PRIVATE PROPERTY. That misses the point entirely. The court has granted ABORIGINAL TITLE over the affected private property in RICHMOND. Whether the COWICHAN choose to exercise that right to that private property is irrelevant — the legal right now exists and may be accessed. This COWICHAN DECISION directly affects the families who own those affected private properties, and it should concern all British Columbians. With 95% of British Columbia exposed to Indigenous land claims, this ruling creates UNCERTAINTY that can be repeated in other communities across the province. The NDP government should have acted to protect PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS before this issue reached a court ruling.

🚨We keep hearing claims that the Cowichan “don’t want” the affected Richmond PRIVATE PROPERTY. That misses the point entirely. The court has granted ABORIGINAL TITLE over the affected private property in RICHMOND. Whether the COWICHAN choose to exercise that right to that private property is irrelevant — the legal right now exists and may be accessed. This COWICHAN DECISION directly affects the families who own those affected private properties, and it should concern all British Columbians. With 95% of British Columbia exposed to Indigenous land claims, this ruling creates UNCERTAINTY that can be repeated in other communities across the province. The NDP government should have acted to protect PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS before this issue reached a court ruling.

Steve Kooner MLA

10,167 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 🦅⚖️🇨🇦⏬ : Mark Carney openly admits private property rights are at risk in the Cowichan land title court ruling the Federal, Provincial & Civic governments lost. All three levels of government never argued for private property owners during the initial case. Which means private property rights can't be used as an argument during the appeal of the ruling. Mark Carney goes on to say the Liberal government appealed the decision immediately with other First Nation groups. What he didn't say is some of those First Nation groups have overlapping land title claims against the Cowichan claims. So not only are private property rights at risk, it could be decades for court cases to decide which FN bands own title over land.

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 🦅⚖️🇨🇦⏬ : Mark Carney openly admits private property rights are at risk in the Cowichan land title court ruling the Federal, Provincial & Civic governments lost. All three levels of government never argued for private property owners during the initial case. Which means private property rights can't be used as an argument during the appeal of the ruling. Mark Carney goes on to say the Liberal government appealed the decision immediately with other First Nation groups. What he didn't say is some of those First Nation groups have overlapping land title claims against the Cowichan claims. So not only are private property rights at risk, it could be decades for court cases to decide which FN bands own title over land.

Bruce McGonigal

21,508 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Must watch! BC real estate lawyer, Tom Isaac, on the Cowichan ruling "What people don't seem to understand is the private land ownership, whether you like it or not... It is a cornerstone of Western economic prosperity." "You don't have a Western economy if you don't have private property ownership." "That is indefeasible by a democratically elected public government." "So this is a big, big deal for anyone, whether you're an indigenous government or a non indigenous government trying to attract capital to your land." "You want the concept of private property ownership upheld." Breakthrough Nation with Karen Restoule Karen Restoule David Eby Cassels

Must watch! BC real estate lawyer, Tom Isaac, on the Cowichan ruling "What people don't seem to understand is the private land ownership, whether you like it or not... It is a cornerstone of Western economic prosperity." "You don't have a Western economy if you don't have private property ownership." "That is indefeasible by a democratically elected public government." "So this is a big, big deal for anyone, whether you're an indigenous government or a non indigenous government trying to attract capital to your land." "You want the concept of private property ownership upheld." Breakthrough Nation with Karen Restoule Karen Restoule David Eby Cassels

cbcwatcher

26,051 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🦅🏡⚖️ : 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.

🦅🏡⚖️ : 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 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚨YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY IS UNDER THREAT Most of British Columbia is covered in land claims. Private property is the foundation of our society, economy, and standard of living. Undermine it, and everything will collapse. Every available option must be on the table. If BC requires a Section 43 Constitutional Amendment to protect private property, then the Premier and Attorney General have a duty to do this NOW.

🚨YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY IS UNDER THREAT Most of British Columbia is covered in land claims. Private property is the foundation of our society, economy, and standard of living. Undermine it, and everything will collapse. Every available option must be on the table. If BC requires a Section 43 Constitutional Amendment to protect private property, then the Premier and Attorney General have a duty to do this NOW.

Steve Kooner MLA

20,223 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

For the second day in a row, alleged Communist and B.C. NDP Premier David Eby reiterates that private property owners "should be worried" about the Cowichan decision and that it is "serious." This issue is not partisan — and discussing its implications is not "fear mongering."

For the second day in a row, alleged Communist and B.C. NDP Premier David Eby reiterates that private property owners "should be worried" about the Cowichan decision and that it is "serious." This issue is not partisan — and discussing its implications is not "fear mongering."

Alex Zoltan

78,822 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

This latest court ruling should terrify every single property owner in British Columbia. Under David Eby’s watch, the NDP government has stood by while decades-old claims are used to overturn existing private land rights—1,800 acres gone overnight, with fee simple titles declared “defective.” And instead of defending the property rights of British Columbians, Eby’s government is already talking about “negotiating.” This ruling should be appealed immediately. If it’s allowed to stand, what’s next? Your family’s home? Your farm? Your business? No property in B.C. is safe when the Premier refuses to fight for it. We can acknowledge the importance of reconciliation without handing over people’s legally purchased land and undermining the very concept of ownership. British Columbians need certainty, not a government that sells them out.

This latest court ruling should terrify every single property owner in British Columbia. Under David Eby’s watch, the NDP government has stood by while decades-old claims are used to overturn existing private land rights—1,800 acres gone overnight, with fee simple titles declared “defective.” And instead of defending the property rights of British Columbians, Eby’s government is already talking about “negotiating.” This ruling should be appealed immediately. If it’s allowed to stand, what’s next? Your family’s home? Your farm? Your business? No property in B.C. is safe when the Premier refuses to fight for it. We can acknowledge the importance of reconciliation without handing over people’s legally purchased land and undermining the very concept of ownership. British Columbians need certainty, not a government that sells them out.

Harman Bhangu

102,721 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🇨🇦🦅🏡 : BC Premier David Eby implies the BC Supreme Court lied to him about ensuring private property would not be on the table in the Cowichan land treaty decision and admits it’s causing great uncertainty. Eby then says people are still able to sell their property but admits the court decision has likely impacted their property value. David also says he doesn’t know if people are having difficulty getting loans for their property, since the decision. How does he not know? Isn't the answer a simple phone call away?

🇨🇦🦅🏡 : BC Premier David Eby implies the BC Supreme Court lied to him about ensuring private property would not be on the table in the Cowichan land treaty decision and admits it’s causing great uncertainty. Eby then says people are still able to sell their property but admits the court decision has likely impacted their property value. David also says he doesn’t know if people are having difficulty getting loans for their property, since the decision. How does he not know? Isn't the answer a simple phone call away?

Bruce McGonigal

326,287 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🇨🇦🐮🦅🌊 : Private property owners in British Columbia are being told they must go to court if they're upset their rights are being eliminated by agreements the BC NDP & First Nations come up with, behind closed doors. 🏡 To defend your rights, you need hundreds of thousands of dollars & be prepared to wait years, to legally fight for your basic rights. 💰 If you lose, you could end up paying all the legal costs for both sides. 🛶 Under this new agreement, Shishalh First Nation will co-manage once private docks. ⛔️ This is the beginning of the end of private property rights in BC.

🇨🇦🐮🦅🌊 : Private property owners in British Columbia are being told they must go to court if they're upset their rights are being eliminated by agreements the BC NDP & First Nations come up with, behind closed doors. 🏡 To defend your rights, you need hundreds of thousands of dollars & be prepared to wait years, to legally fight for your basic rights. 💰 If you lose, you could end up paying all the legal costs for both sides. 🛶 Under this new agreement, Shishalh First Nation will co-manage once private docks. ⛔️ This is the beginning of the end of private property rights in BC.

Bruce McGonigal

11,232 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨Indigenous law expert, Tom Isaac, says it plainly: reconciliation needs a BOOMING economy. Yet Premier Eby’s NDP is killing PIPELINES, FORESTRY, and MINING — the very industries that pay the bills. Now add this: 95% of BC is under land claims, and the NDP is ACCELERATING them — and the uncertainty hitting PRIVATE PROPERTY— with NO fiscal plan.

🚨Indigenous law expert, Tom Isaac, says it plainly: reconciliation needs a BOOMING economy. Yet Premier Eby’s NDP is killing PIPELINES, FORESTRY, and MINING — the very industries that pay the bills. Now add this: 95% of BC is under land claims, and the NDP is ACCELERATING them — and the uncertainty hitting PRIVATE PROPERTY— with NO fiscal plan.

Steve Kooner MLA

21,085 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Homeowners Strike Back: CLASS ACTION Claims Feds LIED TO STEAL YOUR PROPERTY In Cowichan Land Grab!! A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the governments of BC and Canada over their handling of the Cowichan title case. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how officials flat-out lied to these homeowners during a controversial treaty negotiation with the Cowichan Tribes in an effort to eventually steal their private property and how this isn't about “reconciliation”, but instead it's robbery by bureaucracy.

Homeowners Strike Back: CLASS ACTION Claims Feds LIED TO STEAL YOUR PROPERTY In Cowichan Land Grab!! A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the governments of BC and Canada over their handling of the Cowichan title case. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how officials flat-out lied to these homeowners during a controversial treaty negotiation with the Cowichan Tribes in an effort to eventually steal their private property and how this isn't about “reconciliation”, but instead it's robbery by bureaucracy.

Dan Dicks

23,311 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Courts Just KILLED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS In Canada!! Cowichan Aboriginal Title Ruling EXPLAINED!! Private property rights in Canada are under a full-scale assault and the courts just slammed the door on the victims. In a shocking ruling, a B.C. Supreme Court judge refused to reopen the explosive Cowichan Aboriginal title case, shutting out private landowners who were never properly notified or given a voice during a 513-day marathon trial. Their industrial lands in Richmond, home to major businesses like Coca-Cola plants and Canadian Tire depots, have now been thrown into legal chaos under a declaration of Aboriginal title. Justice Barbara Young dismissed their application as an "abuse of process," prioritizing "finality" over the fundamental rights of fee-simple owners. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth explains why this sets a dangerous precedent where your deed could be overridden without you ever having a seat at the table. This isn’t reconciliation, it’s a direct threat to every homeowner, business owner, and investor in Canada. Property rights, the foundation of freedom and prosperity, are being treated as optional. Will your land be next? Share this video like your property depends on it….because one day it might!

Courts Just KILLED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS In Canada!! Cowichan Aboriginal Title Ruling EXPLAINED!! Private property rights in Canada are under a full-scale assault and the courts just slammed the door on the victims. In a shocking ruling, a B.C. Supreme Court judge refused to reopen the explosive Cowichan Aboriginal title case, shutting out private landowners who were never properly notified or given a voice during a 513-day marathon trial. Their industrial lands in Richmond, home to major businesses like Coca-Cola plants and Canadian Tire depots, have now been thrown into legal chaos under a declaration of Aboriginal title. Justice Barbara Young dismissed their application as an "abuse of process," prioritizing "finality" over the fundamental rights of fee-simple owners. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth explains why this sets a dangerous precedent where your deed could be overridden without you ever having a seat at the table. This isn’t reconciliation, it’s a direct threat to every homeowner, business owner, and investor in Canada. Property rights, the foundation of freedom and prosperity, are being treated as optional. Will your land be next? Share this video like your property depends on it….because one day it might!

Dan Dicks

29,835 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Poilievre is asked "Could you go farther and talk about fee simple being enshrined in the Constitution?" Poilievre "That's a good question. I think that it's regrettable that it's not there right now" "Property rights are human rights. You need property right protection to have a thriving property owning democracy." On relief for the people in Richmond " I think there are four steps that need to happen immediately." "One, we need the federal government and Mark Carney to change his mind and reverse the directive making it clear that the federal government's position is that fee simple property takes priority over all other claims." "Two, we need to ensure that all future agreements that the government signs with first nations clearly and explicitly lay out that fee simple private property is protected and has seniority over all other title." "Three, the Prime Minister must announce a full and comprehensive plan to protect private property rights across British Columbia. It's been almost a year since this ruling." "And four, we need to convene a parliamentary committee that will immediately begin study on how we can take political, legal and constitutional steps necessary to protect people's homes and lands" Pierre Poilievre

Poilievre is asked "Could you go farther and talk about fee simple being enshrined in the Constitution?" Poilievre "That's a good question. I think that it's regrettable that it's not there right now" "Property rights are human rights. You need property right protection to have a thriving property owning democracy." On relief for the people in Richmond " I think there are four steps that need to happen immediately." "One, we need the federal government and Mark Carney to change his mind and reverse the directive making it clear that the federal government's position is that fee simple property takes priority over all other claims." "Two, we need to ensure that all future agreements that the government signs with first nations clearly and explicitly lay out that fee simple private property is protected and has seniority over all other title." "Three, the Prime Minister must announce a full and comprehensive plan to protect private property rights across British Columbia. It's been almost a year since this ruling." "And four, we need to convene a parliamentary committee that will immediately begin study on how we can take political, legal and constitutional steps necessary to protect people's homes and lands" Pierre Poilievre

cbcwatcher

30,670 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

David Eby and the NDP are feeling the anger from British Columbians over this government’s absolute disregard for property rights. Many of my constituents were thrown under the bus by the NDP decision not to argue extinguishment. David Eby is now in damage control mode, secretly sending a high-paid political staffer to engage with my constituents behind my back. The NDP secrecy and backroom deals must stop. Homeowners deserve respect, transparency and guaranteed property rights.

David Eby and the NDP are feeling the anger from British Columbians over this government’s absolute disregard for property rights. Many of my constituents were thrown under the bus by the NDP decision not to argue extinguishment. David Eby is now in damage control mode, secretly sending a high-paid political staffer to engage with my constituents behind my back. The NDP secrecy and backroom deals must stop. Homeowners deserve respect, transparency and guaranteed property rights.

Steve Kooner MLA

38,328 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Dave Eby is asked "You were Attorney General when the Interpretation act was brought in. Your government closed debate on that amendment. "A lot of critics say you're personally responsible for a lot of the crisis with property rights and aboriginal issues in this province. How do you respond to those criticisms?" Eby blames "the courts" "What is true is that our government has really tried to get away from courts and to focus on agreements because when you go to court you get unpredictable outcomes." "The issues that private property owners face in Richmond, for example, came because we weren't able to get resolution outside of the court process with Cowichan First nations." Who did he invite to the table? Accepts no personal responsibility. No contrition. David Eby

Dave Eby is asked "You were Attorney General when the Interpretation act was brought in. Your government closed debate on that amendment. "A lot of critics say you're personally responsible for a lot of the crisis with property rights and aboriginal issues in this province. How do you respond to those criticisms?" Eby blames "the courts" "What is true is that our government has really tried to get away from courts and to focus on agreements because when you go to court you get unpredictable outcomes." "The issues that private property owners face in Richmond, for example, came because we weren't able to get resolution outside of the court process with Cowichan First nations." Who did he invite to the table? Accepts no personal responsibility. No contrition. David Eby

cbcwatcher

77,115 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🇨🇦🦅🏡 : British Columbia First Nations make it clear, they want to have title claim over all the property they're challenging for in court, across British Columbia and Canada. 🛑David Eby must resign at this point. David Eby tried to claim minutes earlier the Courts lied about private property rights being part of the court case. See the video I made earlier today on his statement. If the Province had no authority to sell you the land, then you could be forced to renegotiate terms of a lease with 1st Nations, for property you used to own.

🇨🇦🦅🏡 : British Columbia First Nations make it clear, they want to have title claim over all the property they're challenging for in court, across British Columbia and Canada. 🛑David Eby must resign at this point. David Eby tried to claim minutes earlier the Courts lied about private property rights being part of the court case. See the video I made earlier today on his statement. If the Province had no authority to sell you the land, then you could be forced to renegotiate terms of a lease with 1st Nations, for property you used to own.

Bruce McGonigal

288,737 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

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.”

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

180,413 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

When DRIPA was debated in 2019, this NDP government said the legislation would not create new rights for First Nations. But the NDP's proposed changes to legislation brought in as part of the DRIPA action plan (Heritage Conservation Act) would give First Nations decision making rights on public & even on private property. The NDP continues to negotiate behind the backs of British Columbians, giving control of our lands & waters to governing bodies who are not accountable to the electorate.

When DRIPA was debated in 2019, this NDP government said the legislation would not create new rights for First Nations. But the NDP's proposed changes to legislation brought in as part of the DRIPA action plan (Heritage Conservation Act) would give First Nations decision making rights on public & even on private property. The NDP continues to negotiate behind the backs of British Columbians, giving control of our lands & waters to governing bodies who are not accountable to the electorate.

Elenore Sturko

11,026 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

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

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten