Don't Be Fooled by the Latest Coverup of Legalized Governmental Theft

The government is absolutely brilliant when it comes to making dramatic and life-altering laws sound so boring you'd rather get a root canal than figure out what they really mean. So it's no surprise people's eyes glaze over at the mention of "civil asset forfeiture." Call it something else --- legalized governmental theft --- and they just might perk up.

Don't think it exists? Just ask Lyndon McClellan, whose bank account of more than $107,000 was seized by the IRS in 2014. As the owner of a convenience store in Fairmont, North Carolina for over a decade, the IRS deemed McClellan's frequent cash deposits evidence of criminal activity, and a good enough reason to take his money --- even though he was never charged with a crime.

If it could happen to McClellan, it could happen to anyone.

Here are some facts you should know about how the government lawfully takes property from innocent citizens.

What Is It?

According to the Institute for Justice, civil asset forfeiture is the process by which the government takes and sells someone's property without ever convicting them with a crime, and "one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today."

They go on to describe how these cases proceed under the "legal fiction" that cash, cars or homes can be "guilty," leading to some bizarre case names such as, "United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass." Because these cases are technically civil actions, property owners are not considered eligible to receive standard protections merited to criminal defendants, such as an attorney and a trial.

How Did It Start?

The roots of civil asset forfeiture laws date back to the 1600s in England, eventually making their way into colonial law, which earns them one of the longest running legal legacies on record. Popularized during the prohibition era and used sparingly in the 20's and 30's, these laws temporarily fell out of favor until the drug wars of the 1980s.

What's the Argument for Keeping It?

Some people --- particularly in law enforcement --- love the program and will fight tooth and nail to not only keep it but expand its use even further. Those in favor see it as a way to stop drug cartels and limit the ability of drug dealers and "bad hombres" to engage in illicit business.

The Federalist Society makes these points in favor of the law:

The government also uses forfeiture to take the profit out of crime, and to return property to victims. No one has the right to retain the money gained from bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing. With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal from his profits --- and any property traceable to it --- thus removing the incentive others may have to commit similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that has victims --- like carjacking or fraud --- we can use the forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it to the owners far more effectively than the restitution statutes permit.

Does the President Support It?

While addressing a group of sheriffs earlier this month, President Donald Trump appeared to fully endorse civil asset forfeiture. After one sheriff opined about a troublesome bill seeking to abolish the practice in Texas, Trump demanded the name of the person introducing the bill and said, "We'll destroy his career."

In all fairness to President Trump, he did not appear to have prior knowledge about the program. If you watch this video, Trump seemed to ask plenty of questions with the intent gaining a greater understanding, but he only got the law enforcement's version.

What's the Argument for Abolishing It?

This argument seems simple --- the government should have to prove wrongdoing before being able to seize someone's money, car, home or any other asset. The Foundation for Economic Education made this point:

In poor nations, a corrupt cop will stop motorists to shake them down for pocket change. In the United States, we’ve legalized a bigger version of that sleazy behavior.

Who Is Opposing It?

Some politicians, including Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), have taken a strong stance against civil asset forfeiture. After Trump's statements, Amash came out with the following response:

President Trump today endorsed stealing property from law-abiding Americans who haven't been charged with --- let alone convicted of --- any crime. He also said, "We'll destroy his career," about a conservative Texas state senator who opposes this unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture.

My staff and I will work to introduce a bill to end civil asset forfeiture. I always will stand up for limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty. And I always will keep my oath to support and defend the Constitution.

What Is Glenn's Point of View?

Glenn shared his thoughts on the civil asset forfeiture on his February 13, 2017 radio program, in light of news coverage of President Trump's meeting with sheriffs. Below are excerpts from his monologue:

Civil asset forfeiture --- we talked about that last week. But we didn't talk about what that was about. We've been very concerned. And if you are a conservative and you're suddenly not concerned about this, ask yourself why.

Because we were all very concerned when this was happening under Barack Obama. And no matter what anybody tells you, it is not good. If we don't put a fence around this and make sure that it is only used for what it was meant to be used for.

And, quite honestly, I have a problem with it, even the way it was meant to be used.

It means that you don't even have to be charged with a crime, let alone found guilty. Charged with a crime. And the police can come in and take your stuff, seize it, claim it to be theirs, sell it, use the money any way they want, and you have no recourse.

Unfortunately, it's happening to regular people.

If it happens to one person, it needs to be guarded against. And it's happened to several people. I'm going to give you some examples coming up in a second. But it's happened to several people. And it has to be guarded against and stopped.

Listen to more from Glenn's radio program here.

TRUMP: The twilight hour of socialism has arrived

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The other day, at Florida International University in Miami, facing large American and Venezuelan flags, President Trump gave a rousing speech in Miami, including this line, the "twilight hour of socialism has arrived."

Trump went on to say:

Socialism is about one thing only—power for the ruling class. They want the power to decide who wins and who loses, who's up and who's down…and even who lives and who dies.

He then repeated a phrase that helped define his State of the Union address this year:

America will never be a socialist country.

Fittingly, Fox News posted an article yesterday exposing the overlooked evils of Che dangers of socialism that all too often disappear behind a flashy design on a t-shirt.

  1. Guevara said he killed people without regard to guilt or innocence. In an interview, Guevara said, "in times of excessive tension we cannot proceed weakly. At the Sierra Maestra, we executed many people by firing squad without knowing if they were fully guilty. At times, the Revolution cannot stop to conduct much investigation; it has the obligation to triumph."
  2. Humberto Fontova, author of "Exposing the Real Che Guevara," told Fox that Guevara created system that put gay people in labor camps. "The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in modern history in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps."
  3. Guevara opposed a free press: "In 1959, leftist journalist José Pardo Llada reported that Guevara told him: 'We must eliminate all newspapers; we cannot make a revolution with free press. Newspapers are instruments of the oligarchy.'"
  4. Guevara made racist statements: Guevara went on to write: "the black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving."

These are just some of the many historical examples of the failure of socialism. President Trump is right. If the frivolities of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Saunders catch on and spread, we could have an unbelievable problem on our hands.

Poor Jussie: His narrative is falling apart completely

Tasia Wells/Getty Images for Espolòn

Here's how the media works now: Find a story that confirms their narrative, run it constantly and relentlessly. When the real story comes out, minimize exposure of the correction. Repeat.

We're seeing this pattern play out over and over again.

RELATED: John Ziegler isn't buying what Jussie Smollett's selling either

Here are some of the knee-jerk reactions that the media had to this Jessie Smollett hoax, from Insider Edition, CNN, E! News, Headline News, CNBC, TMZ, to name a few:


Montage: Watch the Media Uncritically Accept Another Outlandish 'Hate Crime' youtu.be


And those are just the reactions on TV. It was just as bad, at times worse, in print and online. I'll give you one special example, however. Because, you know the situation is bad when TMZ is connecting the dots and seeing through this guy's story:

The sources say there were red flags from the get go. Cops were extremely suspicious when Jussie took them out to the area where he said he was attacked and pointed to an obscure camera saying how happy he was that the attack was on video. Turns out the camera was pointing in the wrong direction. Cops thought it was weird he knew the location of that camera. And there's this. We're told investigators didn't believe the 2 alleged attackers screamed 'This is MAGA country' because 'Not a single Trump supporter watches 'Empire.''

Here's the man himself, in an interview just days after the alleged beating…I'm sorry, the alleged "modern day lynching." Here he is in an interview with ABC News, complaining about people making up stuff:



Strong words, spoken by a man who, allegedly, created the whole narrative to begin with.

This compromise is an abomination

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Three decades ago, "The Art of the Deal" made Donald Trump a household name. A lot has happened since then. But you can trace many of Trump's actions back to that book.

Art of the Deal:

In the end, you're measured not by how much you undertake but by what you finally accomplish.

People laughed when he announced that he was running for President. And I mean that literally. Remember the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner when Obama roasted Trump, viciously, mocking the very idea that Trump could ever be President. Now, he's President.

You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.

This empire-building is a mark of Trump.

RELATED: 'Arrogant fool' Jim Acosta exposed MSM's dishonest border agenda — again.

The most recent example is the border wall. Yesterday, congress reached a compromise on funding for the border wall. Weeks of tense back-and-forth built up to that moment. At times, it seemed like neither side would budge. Trump stuck to his guns, the government shut down, Trump refused to budge, then, miraculously, the lights came back on again. The result was a compromise. Or at least that's how it appeared.

But really, Trump got what he wanted -- exactly what he wanted. He used the techniques he wrote about in The Art of the Deal:

My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after.

From the start, he demanded $5.7 billion for construction of a border wall. It was a months' long tug-of-war that eventually resulted in yesterday's legislation, which would dedicate $1.4 billion. It would appear that that was what he was after all along. Moments before the vote, he did some last-minute pushing. A national emergency declaration, and suddenly the number is $8 billion.

Art of the Deal:

People think I'm a gambler. I've never gambled in my life. To me, a gambler is someone who plays slot machines. I prefer to own slot machines. It's a very good business being the house.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Senate passed the legislation 83-16, and the House followed with 300-128. Today, Trump will sign the bill.

It's not even fair to call that a deal, really. A deal is what happens when you go to a car dealership, fully ready to buy a car, and the salesman says the right things. What Trump did is more like a car dealer selling an entire row of cars to someone who doesn't even have a licence. When Trump started, Democrats wouldn't even consider a wall, let alone pay for it.

Art of the Deal:

The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.

He started the wall on a chant, "Build the wall!" until he got what he wanted. He maneuvered like Don Draper, selling people something that they didn't even know they wanted, and convincing them that it is exactly what they've always needed.