Greetings.
It goes without saying that this past week has been a wild one in the world of sports, thanks in no small part to the fervor that has gripped the World Cup soccer tournament. For days now, televisions, computer screens, and iPhones have been tuned in to the din of loud-mouthed announcers and even louder-mouthed crowds in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Monopolizing most of the headlines have been countless updates on standings, statistics, and even an occasional instance where players attempt to bite each other.
However, while successive matches have followed each other and while news about the tournament continues to dominate the sporting world, a less thrilling and far more abysmal story has been quietly unfolding in the shadow of that immaculate stadium. It is a story that, while geographically limited to Rio de Janeiro and Brazil, should concern us all and remind us why liberty and, specifically, private property rights matter.
I'm referring to the fact that many impoverished Brazilians have lost their homes to make room for the World Cup and the thousands of people travelling to Rio de Janeiro to see the tournament.
Thanks to an an insightful article written by Anthony Ling from the Daily Caller, we learn that many residents of the "favelas" (or slums) around Rio, ahead of the World Cup, have been forced out of their places of residence for one reason or another; be it to make room for the actual stadium, or for upgraded infrastructure, or for any other economic or public necessity in preparation for the tournament. Many are living on the street with only a make-shift mattress and the clothes on their back as their only remaining possessions.
In all fairness to the Brazilian government, Ling does explain that some of the evictions taking place have been against Brazilians living on PUBLIC land. This fact is significant as it exempts these residents from claiming any homesteading right to the land itself. At the same time, however, Ling is also very clear about the fact that MOST of the evictions are occurring in actual, privately-owned neighborhoods that should have been recognized and given title a long time ago. Because they never were, however, the result has been the Brazilian government claiming the right to seize the land, bulldoze the homes, and do so often with little to no prior notice given to the residents themselves. Consequently, residents have been treated to the sight of bulldozers suddenly showing up one day to destroy their homes and leave them to deal with the armed police whose job it was to ensure that the peasants left peacefully. If they did not, the consequences were brutal.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/10/brazil-is-using-the-world-cup-to-destroy-communities/
Adding insult to injury, these Brazilians were given "reparations" to compensate for the loss of their home. While, on the surface, this may seem like a just measure, the reality is much more stark. On average, the amount of money given out per household was roughly 10,000 real (about $4,566). The average price of these homes: about 100,000 real ($45,662).
Some observations:
-This is nothing new. There have been many examples throughout recent history of governments running roughshod over the private property rights of individuals in pursuit of the revenue stream that a major sporting event brings.
-Brazil, to hear its own citizens talk, is worse than most when it comes to property rights violations. This is only the latest example.
-Most importantly: governments, however well-intentioned, are often the enemy of the very basic, fundamental right to own property that they are ideally created to protect. And it is our job as citizens to stand up against them when they do so; regardless of how futile our efforts may turn out to be. As long as we are unwilling to confront them when they perpetrate evil of this magnitude, we are complicit in their violation of our liberty and rights. We must stand up to them.
My intention here is not to bash the World Cup, or sports, or even the fans who blithely cheer on their teams from their stadium seats and remain oblivious to the grim reality that resides just beyond those majestically-constructed walls. Rather, my intention is to call YOU, the reader, to vigilance and remind you that what is happening to the poor people of Rio de Janeiro who have lost their homes due to infrastructure upgrades and remodeling can happen to anyone. While this particular instance seems mostly confined to Brazil, let's not kid ourselves or make any mistake: our property rights are only as secure as we're willing to make them.
Until next week: stay vigilant.
Praesant Libero!
-Warren Brisbane
Friday, June 27, 2014
Friday, June 13, 2014
Dangerous Times
Greetings, Patriots.
At a White House event on Wednesday, President Obama took questions from "Tumblr" users. These questions ranged from his plans post-White House to what he would say to graduates completing their studies. Among the many presidential sound bytes offered up during the event was the following:
"if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been."
(bold lettering, mine).
On Tuesday, the day before these remarks were made, the President spoke following yet another tragic school shooting (this time in the state of Oregon) and had this to say:
"My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this."
Wow! Talk about a quantum leap from peril to peace! Let's make sure we have this straight: on Tuesday, the world (particularly the U.S.) is in grave danger because of guns being in the hands of people who do damage with them. But on Wednesday, miraculously, the world is suddenly "less violent than it has ever been." How on earth are we to explain such a paradigm shift?
Could it be that the President was simply using a horrific tragedy in order to play politics with our God-granted, Constitutionally-protected liberties once again? Naaaah! Just ask the countless devotees to Obama who mindlessly and smirkingly assure us time and time again that NO ONE (least of all our beloved President) is out to take our firearms. And if we dare to believe or question otherwise, well, then, we're just paranoid, or hateful, or...wait for it...racist!
In all fairness, there may actually be some merit to what Obama's supporters are saying; specifically with regard to the government not wanting to directly confiscate our firearms at THIS time. However, lovers of liberty would be remiss in ignoring for a moment the reality that the Obama administration is not about to let a crisis go to waste; particularly not the recent spate of shootings that have once again rocked this nation to its core.
President Obama has made no bones about the fact that his inability to get tighter restrictions on privately-owned firearms passed is one of the major disappointments he's had during his two terms in office. And make no mistake, he and his cohorts simply will NOT stop until they've done SOMETHING to stop guns from being used in violent crime.
And therein lies the rub. Violent crime, whether we like it or not, is a part of our fallen and at times, downright evil, human condition. It will never stop. Bad / crazy / violent people will ALWAYS commit violent acts against their fellow man, and guess what? They'll ALWAYS find a weapon of some kind with which to carry it out. On top of that, they'll also find a way around any law that government imposes upon society in order to stop them, whether the law be increased background checks, more "gun-free zones" or even technology that facilitates tracing firearms from the scene of a crime.
Peaceful citizens, on the other hand, always find themselves, as a result of anti-second amendment legislation, increasingly unable to acquire firearms with which to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property. Their endgame is simply disarmament and victimization as a result of simply wanting to defend themselves from the very violent and insane people against whom gun laws are intended to protect them in the first place.
Anti-gun statists might very well bring our nation to a point where private firearm ownership no longer exists. At that point, however, what they plan to do about other weapons that could be used in violent crime (blunt objects, sharp objects, even gravity [i.e. - throwing people off of a roof]) remains unclear.
For now, the battle against firearms and freedom rages on. One can only hope that the victories won and strides made by liberty loving citizens will persist and that we will continue to not only hold our ground, but advance toward freedom and against the insidious specter of oppression.
In the meantime, may we stay ever vigilant and ever ready to defend liberty by any means necessary.
Praesant Libero!
-Warren Brisbane
At a White House event on Wednesday, President Obama took questions from "Tumblr" users. These questions ranged from his plans post-White House to what he would say to graduates completing their studies. Among the many presidential sound bytes offered up during the event was the following:
"if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been."
(bold lettering, mine).
On Tuesday, the day before these remarks were made, the President spoke following yet another tragic school shooting (this time in the state of Oregon) and had this to say:
"My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this."
Wow! Talk about a quantum leap from peril to peace! Let's make sure we have this straight: on Tuesday, the world (particularly the U.S.) is in grave danger because of guns being in the hands of people who do damage with them. But on Wednesday, miraculously, the world is suddenly "less violent than it has ever been." How on earth are we to explain such a paradigm shift?
Could it be that the President was simply using a horrific tragedy in order to play politics with our God-granted, Constitutionally-protected liberties once again? Naaaah! Just ask the countless devotees to Obama who mindlessly and smirkingly assure us time and time again that NO ONE (least of all our beloved President) is out to take our firearms. And if we dare to believe or question otherwise, well, then, we're just paranoid, or hateful, or...wait for it...racist!
In all fairness, there may actually be some merit to what Obama's supporters are saying; specifically with regard to the government not wanting to directly confiscate our firearms at THIS time. However, lovers of liberty would be remiss in ignoring for a moment the reality that the Obama administration is not about to let a crisis go to waste; particularly not the recent spate of shootings that have once again rocked this nation to its core.
President Obama has made no bones about the fact that his inability to get tighter restrictions on privately-owned firearms passed is one of the major disappointments he's had during his two terms in office. And make no mistake, he and his cohorts simply will NOT stop until they've done SOMETHING to stop guns from being used in violent crime.
And therein lies the rub. Violent crime, whether we like it or not, is a part of our fallen and at times, downright evil, human condition. It will never stop. Bad / crazy / violent people will ALWAYS commit violent acts against their fellow man, and guess what? They'll ALWAYS find a weapon of some kind with which to carry it out. On top of that, they'll also find a way around any law that government imposes upon society in order to stop them, whether the law be increased background checks, more "gun-free zones" or even technology that facilitates tracing firearms from the scene of a crime.
Peaceful citizens, on the other hand, always find themselves, as a result of anti-second amendment legislation, increasingly unable to acquire firearms with which to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property. Their endgame is simply disarmament and victimization as a result of simply wanting to defend themselves from the very violent and insane people against whom gun laws are intended to protect them in the first place.
Anti-gun statists might very well bring our nation to a point where private firearm ownership no longer exists. At that point, however, what they plan to do about other weapons that could be used in violent crime (blunt objects, sharp objects, even gravity [i.e. - throwing people off of a roof]) remains unclear.
For now, the battle against firearms and freedom rages on. One can only hope that the victories won and strides made by liberty loving citizens will persist and that we will continue to not only hold our ground, but advance toward freedom and against the insidious specter of oppression.
In the meantime, may we stay ever vigilant and ever ready to defend liberty by any means necessary.
Praesant Libero!
-Warren Brisbane
Friday, June 6, 2014
Unchecked Power: Bowe Bergdahl, Prisoner Exchange, and the Rule of Law
Good afternoon, Patriots.
It's almost old news now, but the saga surrounding Army service member Bowe Bergdahl and his release from Taliban captivity is still ongoing and is likely to remain so for some time. At this point, there figures to be plenty more media coverage and no small amount of speculation regarding every aspect of the entire ordeal. Topics ranging from the timeline between Bergdahl's disappearance to when he was released, whether or not he actually was a deserter, why he did so if he did, and the release of five previously incarcerated Taliban members have already been covered ad nauseum and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
I've often complained in the past that when a major scandal or other news story breaks, the media (and hence, many of the American people) tend to ignore what I believe should be front and center concerning the news story. For example, on the minimum wage debate, few people talk about inflation. In my estimation, however, inflation is the main driver of higher costs and the subsequent need for higher wages in the first place. Concerning Benghazi, the focus has usually been on what the President knew and when he knew it, or what he did or did not do. My argument, in contrast, has been that our presence and meddling in that region of the world in the first place is the root cause of atrocities like Benghazi.
You get the idea. There is a disturbing tendency to ignore what matters most in many news stories that break every day across America and the world.
Thankfully, however, that doesn't appear to be entirely the case concerning the Bergdahl story. Recently, it came to light that President Obama and his cabinet failed to properly and lawfully notify Congress ahead of his brokering the deal with the Taliban for Bergdahl's release. This was a direct violation of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, specifically with regard to Section 1033 concerning Counterterrorism. This section specifically mandates that the Secretary of Defense notify Congress at least thirty (30) days ahead of any prisoner transfer from Guantanomo Bay, Cuba; where the prisoners were being kept. The President's cabinet did not do that.
Once the story broke, I was pleasantly surprised to see not only the media shining a bright light on the entire sordid subject, but also plenty of outrage on both sides of the political aisle from several key members of Congress; most notably from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Sen. Graham has even gone so far to threaten impeachment proceedings if the President repeats his actions in this manner again.
Once again, the story here is not Bergdahl, his dereliction of duty, his beliefs, his family, or even the five Taliban prisoners who were released from captivity. The issue here is the rule of law and the fact that the President clearly broke it in pursuit of his own unilateral agenda. President Obama and his Secretary of Defense are bound by the rules found in Section 1033 of NDAA, yet when it came time to pose as a hero for the cameras, all of that went out the window. The President broke the law to which he was bound, and in doing so, put the nation's security at risk.
Of course, if we really want to broaden this topic, we could frame the question like this: why do we, the American people, keep putting up with it? Why don't we take a stand against tyranny by either 1) voting OUT of office the very tyrants who keep pursuing actions like this, and/or 2) resisting with an armed response if necessary? Why are we often all too happy to go right along with whatever unconstitutional action or law the government takes or imposes upon us minus any effort to say "hell no!" on our part? Where is our breaking point?
Bowe Bergdahl will soon be yesterday's news, but the propensity for wealthy politicians in the highest offices of power to basically thumb their nose at the very laws meant to constrain them and their power will likely never be.
It is our duty to resist such tyranny at every turn.
Praesent Libero!
-Warren Brisbane
It's almost old news now, but the saga surrounding Army service member Bowe Bergdahl and his release from Taliban captivity is still ongoing and is likely to remain so for some time. At this point, there figures to be plenty more media coverage and no small amount of speculation regarding every aspect of the entire ordeal. Topics ranging from the timeline between Bergdahl's disappearance to when he was released, whether or not he actually was a deserter, why he did so if he did, and the release of five previously incarcerated Taliban members have already been covered ad nauseum and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
I've often complained in the past that when a major scandal or other news story breaks, the media (and hence, many of the American people) tend to ignore what I believe should be front and center concerning the news story. For example, on the minimum wage debate, few people talk about inflation. In my estimation, however, inflation is the main driver of higher costs and the subsequent need for higher wages in the first place. Concerning Benghazi, the focus has usually been on what the President knew and when he knew it, or what he did or did not do. My argument, in contrast, has been that our presence and meddling in that region of the world in the first place is the root cause of atrocities like Benghazi.
You get the idea. There is a disturbing tendency to ignore what matters most in many news stories that break every day across America and the world.
Thankfully, however, that doesn't appear to be entirely the case concerning the Bergdahl story. Recently, it came to light that President Obama and his cabinet failed to properly and lawfully notify Congress ahead of his brokering the deal with the Taliban for Bergdahl's release. This was a direct violation of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, specifically with regard to Section 1033 concerning Counterterrorism. This section specifically mandates that the Secretary of Defense notify Congress at least thirty (30) days ahead of any prisoner transfer from Guantanomo Bay, Cuba; where the prisoners were being kept. The President's cabinet did not do that.
Once the story broke, I was pleasantly surprised to see not only the media shining a bright light on the entire sordid subject, but also plenty of outrage on both sides of the political aisle from several key members of Congress; most notably from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Sen. Graham has even gone so far to threaten impeachment proceedings if the President repeats his actions in this manner again.
Once again, the story here is not Bergdahl, his dereliction of duty, his beliefs, his family, or even the five Taliban prisoners who were released from captivity. The issue here is the rule of law and the fact that the President clearly broke it in pursuit of his own unilateral agenda. President Obama and his Secretary of Defense are bound by the rules found in Section 1033 of NDAA, yet when it came time to pose as a hero for the cameras, all of that went out the window. The President broke the law to which he was bound, and in doing so, put the nation's security at risk.
Of course, if we really want to broaden this topic, we could frame the question like this: why do we, the American people, keep putting up with it? Why don't we take a stand against tyranny by either 1) voting OUT of office the very tyrants who keep pursuing actions like this, and/or 2) resisting with an armed response if necessary? Why are we often all too happy to go right along with whatever unconstitutional action or law the government takes or imposes upon us minus any effort to say "hell no!" on our part? Where is our breaking point?
Bowe Bergdahl will soon be yesterday's news, but the propensity for wealthy politicians in the highest offices of power to basically thumb their nose at the very laws meant to constrain them and their power will likely never be.
It is our duty to resist such tyranny at every turn.
Praesent Libero!
-Warren Brisbane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)