Donald Trump: Doing You a Favor, by Violating Your Rights

So, here we have Donald Thump, again, showing his true colors.  I’ll just drop this, right here.

So, once again, Thump opens his mouth, and, in spite of himself, the truth dribbles out.

This is a man that loves to brag about how rich he is, and how much he likes his hair, as well as brag about how he’s such an “ardent philanthropist”.  At http://www.alternet.org/21-questions-donald-trump, they had a good question for him, regarding that statement:

You call yourself an “ardent philanthropist,” but have not donated a dollar to The Donald J. Trump Foundation since 2006. You’re not even the biggest donor to the foundation, having given about $3.7 million in the previous two decades while businesses associated with Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Entertainment gave the Trump Foundation $5 million. All the money since 2006 has come from those doing business with you.

How does giving away other people’s money, in what could be seen as a kickback scheme, make you a philanthropist?

This seems doesn’t seem too out of character for a person that believes he’s doing you a favor, when he has courts usurp powers they don’t have granted to them by the United States Constitution to seize your home, destroy your life and compensate you with whatever amount of money he says is ‘a lot’, as opposed to you selling your own home for “peanuts”.

Conservative Michelle Malkin tried warning us about this scumbag, quite a while ago:

Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government’s ability to commandeer private property for purported “public use.” Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clause, real-estate moguls, parking-garage builders, mall developers, and sports-palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theft in the name of reducing “blight.” Under eminent domain, the definition of “public purpose” has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums, and casinos. While casting himself as America’s new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private-property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump’s manifest land development. The real-estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limousine parking lot — Coking’s private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking’s home, explained the confiscatory scheme: Unlike most developers, Donald Trump doesn’t have to negotiate with a private owner when he wants to buy a piece of property, because a governmental agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority or CRDA — will get it for him at a fraction of the market value, even if the current owner refuses to sell. Here is how the process works.

After a developer identifies the parcels of land he wants to acquire and a city planning board approves a casino project, CRDA attempts to confiscate these properties using a process called “eminent domain,” which allows the government to condemn properties “for public use.” Increasingly, though, CRDA and other government entities exercise the power of eminent domain to take property from one private person and give it to another. At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property and also ignore the personal loss to the individuals being evicted.

Trump has attempted to use the same tactics in Connecticut and has championed the reviled Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court ruling upholding expansive use of eminent domain. He told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he agreed with the ruling “100 percent” and defended the chilling power of government to kick people out of their homes and businesses based on arbitrary determinations:

The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it’s local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make [an] area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place — now, I know it might not be their choice — but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.

Like most statist promises of bountiful job creation, government-engineered redevelopment math rarely adds up. Trump’s corporations have backed casino-industry bailouts and wealth-redistributing “tax-increment financing” schemes — the very kind of taxpayer-subsidized interventions we’ve seen on a grand scale under the Obama administration.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265450/trumps-eminent-domain-empire-michelle-malkin

Trump’s reaction to being revealed for what he really is?  Yet another of his stupid attacks and tantrums:

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/22/you-were-born-stupid-trump-goes-after-michelle-malkin-gets-throttled/

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/25/call-the-waahmbulance-thin-skinned-conservafraud-donald-trump-attacks-malkin-as-a-dummy/

It’s funny how he always runs to the same, tired defense that nobody else is intelligent or has any facts, but he – in his own mind – always has facts (even if he chooses, for whatever reason, not to state them).  Well, here are some more facts about Donald Trump, and his un-American love of eminent domain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-WJPXADvVA

What was this ad that’s got Mr “I have a thick skin” so up in arms?  This:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=26&v=DZeKdfxI_RA

Now, another avenue of defense Trump has come up with is accusing the Club for Growth of extortion:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald-Trump-club-for-growth-rejected-donation/2015/09/06/id/673881/

Do I believe this letter could be genuine, and that they did ask Trump for a massive donation, that he ultimately claims he rejected? Yes, I do.  In fact, I definitely believe it’s true.  However, nothing invalidates what they said about him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=_OEijvTi0NE

Let me make it clear, though, that Trump isn’t threatening to sue them over attempted extortion/blackmail, but for telling the world about something that is already a documented truth, and insuring that more people hear more of Trump’s own words.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-club-for-growth-legal_56019906e4b0fde8b0cffea2

That, right there, says a lot.  Trump claims he’s a Conservative:

Donald Trump’s increasingly emboldened campaign on Thursday shot back at criticism that he isn’t a conservative, as it notched the coverage of another magazine cover story.

“I am a conservative person. I am by nature a conservative person,” the outspoken billionaire said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I never looked at putting a label on myself, I wasn’t in politics.”

“But if you look at my general attitudes in life I would certainly have the more conservative label put on me,” he added.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-insists-conservative-article-1.2332241

However, while his mouth is running and yelling “Conservative”, his actions are shouting something completely different. Just looking at his love of eminent domain should tell a great deal of where his ideological loyalties really lie.  First, let’s take a very brief look at the roots of eminent domain:

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

As for the so-called “takings clause”:

Takings clause[edit]

Eminent domain[edit]

Main article: Eminent domain

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has the power of eminent domain—the power to take private property for “public use“. The Takings Clause, the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring that “just compensation” be paid if private property is taken for public use. The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not originally apply directly to the states, but since Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Chicago (1897), federal courts have held that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the effects of that provision to the states. The federal courts, however, have shown much deference to the determinations of Congress, and even more so to the determinations of the state legislatures, of what constitutes “public use”. The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. One exception that restrains the federal government is that the property must be used in exercise of a government’s enumerated powers.

The owner of the property that is taken by the government must be justly compensated. When determining the amount that must be paid, the government does not need to take into account any speculative schemes in which the owner claims the property was intended to be used. Normally, the fair market value of the property determines “just compensation”. If the property is taken before the payment is made, interest accrues (though the courts have refrained from using the term “interest”).

The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. This 5–4 decision remains controversial. The majority opinion, by Justice Stevens, found that it was appropriate to defer to the city’s decision that the development plan had a public purpose, saying that “the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue.” Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not “of primary benefit to … the developer” and that if that was the case the plan might have been impermissible. In the dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” She argued that the decision eliminates “any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment”. A number of states, in response to Kelo, have passed laws and/or state constitutional amendments which make it more difficult for state governments to seize private land. Takings that are not “for public use” are not directly covered by the doctrine,[83] however such a taking might violate due process rights under the Fourteenth amendment, or other applicable law.

The exercise of the police power of the state resulting in a taking of private property was long held to be an exception to the requirement of government paying just compensation. However the growing trend under the various state constitution’s taking clauses is to compensate innocent third parties whose property was destroyed or “taken” as a result of police action.[84]

“Just compensation”[edit]

The last two words of the amendment promise “just compensation” for takings by the government. In United States v. 50 Acres of Land (1984), the Supreme Court wrote that “The Court has repeatedly held that just compensation normally is to be measured by “the market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money.” Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246 (1934) … Deviation from this measure of just compensation has been required only “when market value has been too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public.” United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U.S. 121, 123 (1950).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Takings_clause

And, now, the actual text of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Amendment V

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings.  In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to agrand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.  

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

Nowhere in that law does it state that if a person is unwilling to give up their property can a corporation or government just take it away from them, and give them what they consider to be ‘just compensation’.  The Founding Fathers were made their feelings about private property well known (unless you’re a liberal, and the only books you read are “Rules for Radicals” and GQ Magazine):

Why Property Matters

The Founding Fathers knew well the importance of private property in “securing the blessings of liberty.” The Declaration of Independence asserts our unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which was derived from John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689), in which Locke describes our reasons for forming government in the first place: man “is willing to join in society with others . . . for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”

Earlier in the same essay, Locke explains the importance of property even more starkly:

Man being born . . . with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man . . . hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others.

James Madison, the fourth President of the United States and “Father of the Constitution,” similarly maintained in 1792:

A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Notice that Locke and Madison include among “property” people’s very lives, their property in their own existence and the right to preserve that existence. Other forms of property are no less important, for they are necessary to sustain our lives. If we are to live, we must also provide for food, clothing, shelter, and other needs and luxuries. We can obtain these things only through the fruits of our labor or through charity (leaving aside the possibility of violating others’ rights through theft, either directly or by using the government as our agent to take from another and give to us).

In other words, you can talk all you want about the freedom of speech, but what good is it if you are unable to own a printing press or the paper (or computer) on which to write your ideas? You can pay lip service to the freedom of association, the freedom to peaceably assemble, and the freedom to practice any religion you want (or none at all), but what good is it if you are not permitted the opportunity to own the land on which to exercise these rights? You can have the right to keep and bear arms, but what good is it if you are not allowed to own any place to keep them?

http://reason.org/news/show/master-of-your-domain-the-impa

As for the so-called “takings clause”:

The Takings Clause Revisited

Perhaps the Founding Fathers erred in allowing government the power to take someone’s property for any reason, regardless of “just compensation.” If someone has obtained his property legally and poses no threat to others through his use of the property, why should government be able to forcibly evict him at all?

In fact, there were some among the American revolutionaries that did feel government should be prohibited from taking private property for any reason. The Declaration of Rights of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 affirms: “no part of a man’s property can be justly taken from him or applied to public uses without his own consent or that of his legal representatives.” This language is repeated in the Delaware Declaration of Rights (1776) and the Vermont Constitution of 1777.

Put another way, what difference does it make if the government takes one’s property for “public use” or “private use”? After all, the public might get more “use” out of a new Wal-Mart than a fancy new government building, and the jobs and low-priced goods Wal-Mart offers would be available to anyone, as opposed to, say, a school, which serves only a certain segment of the population (those with school-aged children). Moreover, governments routinely take property in the form of taxes and redistribute it to other private parties. Even in cases where money is purportedly spent in the interest of the taxpayer, many would question whether such acts constitute “just compensation.” Why should one’s “money property” not enjoy the same protection as his “land property” against government takings and redistribution to private parties?

http://reason.org/news/show/master-of-your-domain-the-impa

And, again, I say that the so-called “takings clause” does not give the government the right to take away peoples’ lands and property, if they refuse.  What else did the Founders, Framers and other luminaries have to say about property?:

All men have equal rights to liberty, to their property, and to the protection of the laws.

— Voltaire, Essay on Manners, 1756

The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.

— Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1944

If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.

— Friedrich August von Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 1960

Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.

— John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law, 1765

Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.

— John Adams, A Balanced Government (1790) in Discourses on Davila (1805), reprinted in 6 Works of John Adams (1851 ed.)

Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?

— Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, November 20, 1772

You cannot have a free society without private property.

— Milton Friedman

Man is born into the universe with a personality that is his own. He has a right that is founded upon the constitution of the universe to have property that is his own. Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing. The one cannot be preserved if the other be violated.

— Calvin Coolidge, “Have faith in Massachusetts,” Massachusetts Senate President Acceptance Speech, January 7, 1914

The right of liberty means man’s right to individual action, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

— Ayn Rand, “The Only Path to Tomorrow,” 1944

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

— Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights” in The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964

The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth, a “personal” right, whether the “property” in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.

— Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972)

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

— Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

— John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1690, Book II, Chapter IX, Sec. 124

The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. . . . Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that no body hath a right to take their substance or any part of it from them, without their own consent: without this they have no property at all; for I have truly no property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think, that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth, can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure.

— John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Book II, Chapter XI, Sec. 138

There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust.

First, the legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavor to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

— John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1690, Book II, Chapter XIX, Sec. 221

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.

— John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1690, Book II, Chapter XIX, Sec. 222

All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.

— George Mason, First Draft, Virginia Declaration of Rights, May 1776

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

— George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, Article 1, 1776

All men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected.

— George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, Article 6, 1776

No part of a man’s property can be justly taken from him or applied to public uses without his own consent or that of his legal representatives.

— This language is included in several early state constitutions, including the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, Article XIII; Delaware Declaration of Rights, Section 10, 1776; and Vermont Constitution of 1777, Chapter 1, Article IX.

No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.

— John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and co-author of The Federalist Papers, “Address to the People of Great Britain,” October 1774

So great, moreover, is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men, to do this without consent of the owner of the land. In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no. Besides, the public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual�s private rights, as modeled by the municipal law.

— Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

http://reason.org/news/show/master-of-your-domain-the-impa

Somehow, I don’t think Trump would be as loving of this unlawful, un-American practice, if it was his property that was going up on the block.  If his beloved “Trump Towers” came under attack by a rival corporation in cahoots with the courts under the premise that they could better utilize it, than Trump, simply because their ideas for how the land should be used would be ‘better [i.e.:  more fiscally profitable] for the community’, than how Trump’ is using it, Trump would spare no expense to hire every attorney he could find under the nearest rocks to fight this.  If a corporation had the courts in their pockets, and decided that Trump’s golf courses and hotels are better used for something else, I’m sure Trump would be screaming from the rooftops for help, and claiming that he’s being done wrong.

Bottom line, Trump is a left-wing, hypocritical robber-baron, and he doesn’t like being called out on it.  If you’re foolish enough to vote this man into the presidency, no one’s homes or property will be safe from the man that openly brags about being able to buy people off (https://theintercept.com/2015/08/07/donald-trump-buy/) and giving some of the worst-of-the-worst people his money to sustain political power and give him reach-arounds (http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/03/donald-trump-donated-heavily-to-democrats-especially-during-election-which-put-reid-and-pelosi-in-power/), including his buddies (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2015/07/13/is_donald_trump_a_clinton_plant_361032.html), the CLINTONS (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-donations-democrats-hillary-clinton-119071) (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/clinton-foundation-keeps-donations-from-donald-trump-119883).  Trump is no better than any other liberal that claims to be a law-and-order type, but when the law can be broken to their advantage, they’re all for it, just like leftists were when the “Supreme” Courts magically (and unconstitutionally) made law, and declared all states have to give up their 10 Amendment Rights for federally mandated gay marriage, remember that (https://virusx.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/why-the-gay-marriage-ruling-should-not-be-accepted-by-the-states/).  This law is a clear perversion of the Constitution’s more than apparent intent (which was never stated to give the government the power to seize lands and properties in direct contravention to the property holder’s will), and another clear case of leftists re-interpreting the Constitution the way they see fit, depending on what day of the week it is.

I am Virus-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.

Don’t like it?

TOUGH.

Advertisements

~ by virusx on October 10, 2015.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: