Tag Archives: eminent domain

The Obvious Answer about Donald Trump

Donald Trump is now threatening to sue Ted Cruz over the issue of his birthright citizenship following a series of campaign ads highlighting Trump’s progressive past.

I’m not in any way a supporter of Ted Cruz’s campaign, but I need to throw it out there. The guy is right about the most inconsistent person in the race: Donald Trump.

Whether it is his progressive views on abortion, guns, what have you, the idea that Trump had a gradual turn towards conservatism is a lie, because it wasn’t until he literally decided to run for president that he threw up the Republican banner and expected the GOP base to believe him. I know that many people have a lack of knowledge when it comes to history, but to claim you believe the guy that does a reverse on his stances on almost a daily basis is to slap logic in the face.

Here is the deal about Donald Trump— his past is open season. His past as a supporter for Democratic policies has been brought up over and over again. His favorability for eminent domain has shown constantly that the man has no respect for people’s private property whatsoever. It’s not just domestically though— his stance on going back to Iraq shows he is the living embodiment of the conquest ethic, where you invade, pillage, and take what you want. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but Trump is no constitutional conservative, and he is the farthest thing from a libertarian that there can be.

Glenn Beck over at the Blaze pointed out the terrible inconsistencies with Trump in his National Review column, the same one where the editorial staff and a range of conservatives and libertarians such as David Boaz, spoke out against him. Beck stated:

“Over the years, there have been endless fractures in the façade of individual freedom, but three policies provided the fuel that lit the tea-party fire: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, and the bank bailouts. Barack Obama supported all three. So did Donald Trump. While conservatives fought against the stimulus, Donald Trump said it was ‘what we need,’ praising Obama’s schemes of ‘building infrastructure, building great projects, putting people to work in that sense.’ While conservatives fought against the auto bailouts, Donald Trump claimed ‘the government should stand behind [the auto companies] 100 percent’ because ‘they make wonderful products.’ While conservatives fought against the bank bailouts, Donald Trump called them ‘something that has to get done.’ Let his reasoning sink in for a second: The government ‘can take over companies, and, frankly, take big chunks of companies.’ When conservatives desperately needed allies in the fight against big government, Donald Trump didn’t stand on the sidelines. He consistently advocated that your money be spent, that your government grow, and that your Constitution be ignored.”

Here is the thing folks: everyone can change their mind and is entitled to a degree of a benefit of doubt like all of us, but please, the next time someone says Trump is standing with you, just stop it. The jig is up and to continue saying Trump is anything but a progressive candidate is ridiculous.

TransCanada Seeks to Suspend Keystone XL Pipeline Proposal

The Canadian corporation responsible for the Keystone XL pipeline has asked the U.S. government to temporarily suspend the review process for the controversial project.

The Keystone XL pipeline was dealt a blow earlier this year when President Obama vetoed legislation that had been approved by Congress. The Senate later failed to override the veto in March. The pipeline would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to pipelines in refineries in Houston and other locations on the Gulf of Mexico.

[RELATED: Sioux Tribal Leader Calls Keystone XL Pipeline an Act of War]

On Monday, TransCanada Corp sent the US. Department of State a letter asking for a delayed review. TransCanada may have sought a delay rather than an outright rejection from the Obama administration. The State Department told Reuters it had received the letter from TransCanada but the review would continue for now.

Mark Cooper, a TransCanada spokesman, said that TransCanada was not interested in speculating on what decision might be made. If the Obama administration halts the review process, the next U.S. president would be responsible for the future of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The pipeline has been resisted by landowners in Nebraska, as well as indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada. Critics also say the pipeline’s purported increasing of jobs is false. There have also been disputes over official documents related to the permitting of the pipeline.

In early July, Truth In Media reported that Secretary of State John Kerry was issued a subpoena seeking the release of all “reports, recommendations, letters and comments received by the State Department from the advising agencies pursuant to Executive Order 13337 regarding the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.”

[Read more: Secretary of State John Kerry Subpoenaed Over Keystone Pipeline Documents]

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent letters February 24th and June 15th attempting to get the same documents, but the State Department has refused to release the reports.

In a statement accompanying the subpoena, Commitee Chairman Jason Chaffetz stated that the State Department has been “uncooperative” and “shown an unwillingness to recognize the Committee’s legitimate interest in obtaining information.”

Stay tuned to Truth In Media for updates on this developing situation.

Trump on Eminent Domain for Private Corporations: ‘I Think It’s a Wonderful Thing’

On Tuesday’s episode of Fox News’ Special Report, billionaire real estate tycoon and 2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump explicitly detailed his support of the use of eminent domain to transfer property owned by a citizen to a private corporation, saying, “Nobody knows this better than I do.

In the clip, which can be seen in the above-embedded video player, Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Donald Trump to explain his support for the controversial landmark Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London which interpreted the takings clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment as allowing the government to forcibly transfer a private citizen’s property to a private corporation if it is believed that the corporation’s intended use of it would result in economic development.

Well, I think eminent domain is wonderful, if you’re building a highway, and you need to build, as an example, a highway, and you’re going to be blocked by a hold-out, or, in some cases, it’s a hold-out, just so you understand, nobody knows this better than I do, because I built a lot of buildings in Manhattan, and you’ll have 12 sites and you’ll get 11 and you’ll have the one hold-out and you end up building around them and everything else, okay? So, I know it better than anybody. But when you’re building a road, when you’re building a highway, when you’re building something, you can’t have a hold out. You know? You have to make our country work. So eminent domain for that is good,” said Trump, commenting on the use of eminent domain for public works projects.

He continued, this time explaining his support for the use of eminent domain to transfer property between a private citizen who does not want to sell and a corporation, “I think eminent domain for massive projects, for instance, you’re going to create thousands of jobs, and you have somebody that’s in the way, and you pay that person far more — don’t forget, eminent domain, they get a lot of money, and you need a house in a certain location, because you’re going to build this massive development that’s going to employ thousands of people, or you’re going to build a factory, that without this little house, you can’t build the factory. I think eminent domain is fine.

Trump then claimed that the fiscally conservative group Club for Growth, which opposes eminent domain for private corporations, is running a television ad, seen below, attacking him on his position on the issue because he would not give them $1 million, which he referred to as “pretty much” extortion. “They’re not very smart people,” said Trump of the Club for Growth.


If you have a road or highway, you gotta do it. If you have a factory where you have thousands of jobs, and you need eminent domain, it’s called economic development,” said Trump. “The little guy [who does not want to give up the property] sometimes gets a lot of money. I mean sometimes they’ll get four or five times what their property is worth, and now you’re employing thousands of people and you’re able to build a factory, you’re able to build an Apple computer center where thousands of people will work. Now, you can do that or you can say, ‘Let the man have his house.’

[RELATED: Donald Trump Unveils Tax Plan: Here Are the Details]

Trump then told an anecdote about a time in the past when he had to cancel a hotel construction project because a court ruled against his intention to transfer a New Jersey woman’s home into his possession through eminent domain.

Responding to a statement by U.S. Senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in which he said that the result of the Kelo v. City of New London decision would be that “working families and poor people will see their property turned over to corporate interests and wealthy developers“, Trump replied, “It’s not right. It’s not right. Look, the way they talk, people would say, ‘oh, it’s turned over.’ It’s turned over for four, five, six, ten times sometimes what it’s worth. People pay them a fortune. But sometimes you have people that want to hold out just for the — most of the time, I will say, I’ve done a lot of outparcels, I call them outparcels. Most of the time, they just want money, okay? It’s very rarely that they say ‘I love my house. I love my house. It’s the greatest thing there.’ Because these people can go buy a house now that’s five times bigger, in a better location, so eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it’s a wonderful thing, I’ll be honest with you, and remember, you’re not taking property, you know, the way you asked the question, the way other people — you’re paying a fortune for that property. Those people can move two blocks away into a much nicer house.

The billionaire real estate mogul wrapped up the topic by suggesting that conservatives do not understand the issue. “I think it’s a great subject. It’s a very interesting subject. I fully understand the conservative approach. But I don’t think it was explained to most conservatives,” said Trump.

For more election coverage, click here.

Exclusive Video: Dairy Farmer Fights Eminent Domain And Warns Others

James Anderson owns and manages Greyrock Farm, the only remaining fully operational dairy farm in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. The farmland has been in his family since before the Revolutionary War and he is outraged that the state government has bullied him for years in order to take away his property.

In the video, Anderson warns others that property can easily be taken away from them as well.

“It can happen to anybody if it can happen to us.”


At the end of the video, Anderson claims that there was a better way for the state to build the road and he also claims that he should have at least been given just compensation.

Records show that the state paid $21,582.73 per an acre for a 1.946 acre lot that adjoins the land that was taken from James Anderson.  The state also paid $5,000 for a 0.127 acre lot that is currently unusable.

Patriotic Americans, especially those that fight United Nations Agenda 21 on a daily basis can understand the heartbreak that Anderson is going through. A top question amongst many Americans right now is whether or not the state should be able to use eminent domain to take property from American citizens.

Please take the survey below to let us know your thoughts on the story:

Agenda 21 Strikes Again: County Uses Eminent Domain to Preserve “Open Space”

The views from the deck of Andy and Ceil Barrie’s small, century-old cabin were breathtaking. Unfortunately, their dreams became a nightmare when they found out that their local county was trying to take their property using eminent domain.

Open space “is all it’s ever been,” said Andy Barrie to the Associated Press. “I feel like I can’t trust my government.”

The property in question is a 10-acre parcel surrounding the cabin in the midst of the White River National Forest.

Now the county government, alarmed that the couple drives their ATV up a 1.2-mile old mining road to the cabin, wants to take the Barrie’s land — and it’s doing so by claiming eminent domain. Rather than using the practice of government seizure of private property to promote economic development, the county is using it to preserve open space.

The move shocked the Barries. They have allowed hikers to travel through their property, had no plans to develop the land and were negotiating with the county at the time it moved to condemn the property.

Summit County Attorney Jeff Huntley said the county had to act after the Barries insisted on being able to use motorized transport to get to the cabin. “People in this community are very intent on preserving the back country,” he said.

Experts in eminent domain say it’s rare for governments to use that power to create parks or open space.

“It’s not that you can’t do it, but they don’t do it much,” said Dana Berliner, who was co-counsel in the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of eminent domain. “There’s typically other ways of doing open space than just taking land.”

The couple has spent $75,000 to fight this, and they continue to have to fight.

The devastating effects of Agenda 21 is happening everyday in the U.S. This blue print for globalist to confiscate private property in the U.S. is a huge threat to our Liberty. Watch Ben Swann talk about Agenda 21 here.