Land Reform and Farm Murders in South Africa: The Untold Story of the Boers and the ANC
South African farm murders have long been a niche cause on the Internet, and the country has made headlines again due to a South African government plan to seize the land of white farmers under the guise of “South African land reform.”
News of these farm murders and land seizures have gained steam with the release of Lauren Southern’s documentary Farmlands. And United States President Donald Trump has brought even more attention to the plight of Afrikaners with his tweet that he would be looking into the South African land and farm seizure.
Most people don’t know much about the history of South Africa beyond the simplistic propaganda of the 1980s – white South Africans bad, ANC good. The history and current situation of South Africa, however, is much more complex.
Defining Terms: Who Are the Key Players?
Before going any further, terms should be defined and the key players identified:
ANC: The African National Congress, the leading party in South Africa since the end of apartheid.
Afrikaners: Dutch-, German- and French Huguenot-descended white South Africans who primarily speak a language called Afrikaans.
Bantu: A group of black South Africans including the Xhosa (of which Nelson Mandela was a member) who originally lived in the northeast of the country.
Boers: A subset of Afrikaners who still lead a rural and agricultural existence.
Democratic Alliance: Currently the second-largest party in the South African parliament, the Democratic Alliance is a broad-based centrist party that is comparatively economically liberal for South Africa. It enjoys broad, multiracial support, though it is most popular among all racial minorities – white, Coloured and Indian. Its black supporters are often derided as “clever blacks” by ANC supporters.
EFF: The Economic Freedom Fighters, a far-left political party in South Africa that has pushed the South African government to seize land from white farmers. Sometimes derisively called “Everything for Free,” the EFF is the third-largest party in South Africa, but is poised to become the second.
Khoisan: A popular name for the original inhabitants of most of the territory now known as South Africa. This is not an ethnic designation, but a linguistic one. These are who the Dutch settlers first encountered.
A Brief History of South Africa: From Early Settlement to the Boer War
To understand the current situation in South Africa, it is important to first understand the country before, during and after apartheid.
South Africa’s modern history begins with the Dutch East India Company, which established trading posts for sailors along the coast. Dutchmen soon started settling the area, with little, if any, conflict with the native Khoisan population. Dutch settlers, however, quickly came into conflict with the Dutch East India Company’s authoritarian rule.
Freedom-seeking Dutch settlers moved north starting in the 17th Century. In 1852, Boers founded the South African Republic (known as the “Transvaal Republic”) and then the Orange Free State in 1854.
These are called “Boer Republics” and they, in turn, came into conflict with both southward-expanding Bantu tribes (most notably the Zulu, who were in the process of conquering other nearby Bantu tribes) and the British Empire.
“White South Africans” are typically treated as a monolith, but there are two main, distinct groups: The Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners and the English-speaking British. Indeed, there were intense hostilities between these two groups, especially after the Second Boer War when the Boer Republics were reforged as British colonies.
Telling the Afrikaners to “go home” is a nonsensical statement. They are not Dutch. They do not hold Dutch passports, nor would they at any point have been welcomed back by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
In many regions of South Africa, the Afrikaners have been around longer than the Bantus and have a stronger claim on the land, having purchased it from Khoisans. On the other hand, traditionally Bantu land was conquered from other Bantu tribes or taken by the Bantus from the Khoisans.
A Brief History of South Africa: The Boer Wars
“The Boer Wars” refers to two wars between the Boer Republics and the British Empire, but mostly the second one. The first was a rout for the Boers and left the British Empire with egg on their face. They would not be embarrassed a second time. The first concentration camps were built for Boers. Not just any Boers, but primarily the wives and children of Boer Commandos (irregular guerilla troops) fighting the British Empire. The strategy was simple: Lock up their women and children, and they will lose their will to fight.
It worked. Adding insult to injury, the most publicized photo of the concentration camps, a picture of seven-year-old Lizzie van Zyl nearly starved to death, was touted in the British press as evidence of parental neglect by the Boers. There was great international outcry against the British during the Boer War, but it never amounted to much.
Boer Republics were reconstituted as British colonies. In 1910, three British colonies were unified as the Union of South Africa. After World War I, South West Africa, today known as Namibia, was administered effectively as a fifth province of South Africa, but for obscure reasons never integrated.
South Rhodesia voted on membership, nearly joining, but the argument that it would become “the Ulster of Africa” proved too powerful. The history of South Africa is largely that of a rebellious and unhappy British Dominion until 1948.
A Brief History of South Africa: Enter Apartheid
“Apartheid” is an Afrikaans word meaning “separateness.” It was a series of laws drafted beginning in 1948, after the success of the Afrikaner-heavy National Party in the national elections.
There was a split in the party between those who favored apartheid as it happened versus those who favored complete separation, including parallel governance. The former won out in no small part due to a thirst for cheap black labor.
Most people know the basics of apartheid, but they are worth going over briefly here: South Africans were classified into one of four racial categories: white, black, Coloured (a non-pejorative term in South Africa, meaning roughly “mixed race”) and Asian or Indian. In 1949, mixed marriages were outlawed with cross-racial intercourse outlawed the following year. In 1953, amenities were segregated by law.
Increasingly, the blacks of South Africa were segregated into townships and Bantustans, the latter being nominally independent “homelands” for Africans. This meant that as foreign nationals, in the eyes of the Union of South Africa, they were required to carry documentation to work in South Africa and needed to leave after they were done.
Coloureds, who had the vote, were slowly disenfranchised. Indians and other Asians were never allowed to vote.
Between the end of World War II and the declaration of a republic in 1961, internal politics were dominated by the division between conservative republican Afrikaners and liberal monarchist British whites.
Apartheid enjoyed greater support among Afrikaners and less among British South Africans. British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s “Wind of Change” speech increased support for apartheid among British South Africans because of a sense of abandonment by the homeland.
Many were upset at being forced by the British government to choose between South African and British citizenship and passports.
Still, none of this amounted to what the National Party hoped to achieve – a cohesive and united white South African identity. Support for apartheid was always tepid among British South Africans.
It is certainly true that notions of racial superiority were a prime motivator for apartheid, but there was another factor in play: Communism. The Suppression of Communism Act was passed by the first apartheid government, banning any Communist organization. The Act took a broad view of what constituted “Communism.”
However, given the infiltration of mass movements, particularly in the developing world at the beginning of the Cold War, this is perhaps less cynical than it is commonly made out to be. The Act was used to suppress the African National Congress, something we will talk about in detail later.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Afrikaner society is fundamentally and deeply conservative. Pornography and gambling were illegal in apartheid-era South Africa.
Most businesses could not open on Sundays. Abortion, homosexuality and reproductive education were tightly regulated.
There was no television until 1976, as this was believed to be immoral and a vehicle of Communism. English-language programming was seen as a threat to Afrikaans culture.
A Brief History of South Africa: The Rise of the ANC and Nelson Mandela
The Suppression of Communism Act was the instrument used to outlaw the African National Congress. While the ANC is typically thought of as a democratic-liberal organization, this is simply not true.
The ANC’s closest ally was the South African Communist Party. Indeed, Nelson Mandela, the face of anti-apartheid resistance, was not only a member of the SACP, he served on its Central Committee, something he denied for decades.
The SACP has never to this day contested its own candidates in South Africa, instead fielding their people on ANC slates.
What’s more, the SACP partnered with the ANC in forming Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”), the paramilitary wing of the anti-apartheid movement.
The average person on the street likely thinks that Nelson Mandela was imprisoned simply for being black or opposing apartheid.
In fact, he was imprisoned for a bombing campaign carried out by Umkhonto we Sizwe, of which he was the head. In fact, Nelson Mandela was convicted of 193 acts of terrorism.
He was offered his freedom multiple times on the simple condition that he condemn terrorist attacks against the apartheid regime. He refused every time.
The ANC was not the only organization in South Africa opposed to apartheid. Many white South Africans saw the system as unsustainable.
However, outside of South Africa, the situation was largely posed by the media as a question of “apartheid forever or the ANC.”
The ANC and its allies in the Communist Party and the trade union congress COSATU (known as the tripartite alliance) were not the only alternative to the ruling National Party and thus apartheid.
The Progressive Federal Party was the main parliamentary opposition to apartheid, which, as the name implies, was in favor of a federated South Africa. The New Republic Party was likewise in favor of power sharing and oriented toward reconciliation with the Commonwealth.
The New Republic Party and the Progressive Federal Party were also bitter enemies. The New Republic Party was a conservative party denounced as racists by the Progressive Federal Party.
The Progressive Federal Party was a liberal party derided by the NRP with the nickname “Packing for Perth,” due to the impression that their members were all emigrating to Australia.
Two-thirds of South African whites supported some sort of federalism or power sharing, but moderate elements never received any international support.
Nor was the ANC the sole representative of South African blacks. Zulu nationalists, currently represented by the Inkatha Freedom Party, were often bitter enemies of the ANC by the 1980s.
Many black South Africans served in the police force and other aspects of the government, leading to the rise of a barbaric form of retribution known as “necklacing.”
This is filling a tire with gasoline, hanging it around the neck of a suspected collaborator or political opponent, and lighting the tire on fire. Death can take several hours. Winnie Mandela, then-wife of Nelson Mandela, declared that “With our boxes of matches, and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country.” This caused the ANC to create some distance between itself and her, but ultimately she was given further positions in the movement and the ANC government.
A Brief History of South Africa: The ANC in the Saddle
In 1994, the African National Congress took power in South Africa.
At this time, its paramilitary organization was integrated into the country’s regular defense forces. Convicted bomber Robert McBride, praised by no less than IRA terrorist Martin McGuinness, is the Executive Director of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate.
Touted as the “Rainbow Nation,” the fall of apartheid in South Africa was part of an overall feeling of optimism throughout the world surrounding the Fall of Communism.
However, not everything was roses in the new Republic of South Africa. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was an attempt to lay bare the crimes of the apartheid regime.
The tribunal, which did not dispense with sentences, but merely sought to find the truth, has been criticized for not dispensing any justice. Neither former National Party government members nor ANC partisans were punished by the Commission.
The elephant in the room at all times was an overwhelming increase in the crime rate. The term “rape gate” entered popular parlance as South Africans installed panic room doors on their bedrooms.
Crime is the main reason for emigration from South Africa. The 2013 murder rate was seven times that of the United States, the 11th highest in the world. Between 2005 and 2015, over 200,000 South Africans were murdered – this in a country of about 50 million. There were over 17,000 murders in 2013 alone.
Compare this to just over 14,000 in the United States during the same year, despite the fact that South Africa’s population is approximately equivalent to two states – California and Texas.
This is only the official murder rate. Many suspect that the rate is higher, due to a disengagement from formal policing and a reliance upon private security firms.
Quality of public services has likewise deteriorated, with rolling blackouts being the norm in South Africa.
The ANC presides over what is potentially the largest welfare state in the world, according to economist Mike Schussler in 2010. Six percent (3.3 million South Africans) of the population pays 99 percent of the taxes, while 31 percent (16.4 million) receive social grants.
This means there are five South Africans receiving welfare for every one paying taxes. 71 percent of South African children live in houses where no adult is employed.
South Africa has a sweeping affirmative action quota program. Employee demographics must, under the South African Employment Equity Act, represent the racial demographics of South Africa as a whole.
This means that, for example, the national power company was pressured to fire a number of skilled white engineers, while the country was going through rolling blackouts. The country currently has a labor shortage of approximately 800,000 skilled workers.
The affirmative action program has not lead to a significant increase in the number of skilled black technical workers. In 1994, 15 percent of black South Africans held skilled technical positions.
In 2014, this percentage had increased to 18. Meanwhile, between 1992 and 1997, the number of skilled technical degrees dropped by 13 percent while the number of degrees in public administration and social services skyrocketed by 199 percent.
Finally, the specter of corruption has hung over the ANC regime. Scandals surrounding the ANC government have included bribery in arms deals, the abolition of a task force dedicated to organized crime and corruption, sexual misconduct including criminal charges, and using government and civil organizations to fight its political opponents, particularly those in the Democratic Alliance.
What Are the South African Farm Murders?
It is currently twice as dangerous to be a South African farmer than a South African police officer. The murder rate among South African farmers is three times that of the standard murder rate in South Africa, which is already one of the highest in the world.
The government claims the motives for the farm attacks are robbery. However, this does not pass muster. Farm attacks frequently include raping the female members of the household – including young children – while forcing the male members of the household to watch.
The victims are often then tortured to death in front of each other. Farmers claim police response to these attacks is sluggish at best and nonexistent at worse. The government stopped collecting statistics about farm murders in 2008.
What’s more, the attacks on white farmers in South Africa tend to have pitched levels of brutality about them. Without getting too lost in the weeds of the grizzly details, it’s worth mentioning some of the more grotesque attacks on farmers at least in passing:
In 2012, a 12-year-old boy was drowned in boiling water after watching both his parents murdered and his mother raped.
Bedridden Alice Lotter, 76, and her daughter Helen, 57 were tortured to death over several hours, including by being stabbed in the genitals with a broken glass bottle. One had one of her breasts removed while still alive. “Kill the Boer” was painted on the wall in their blood.
Knowledge Mandlazi went on a killing spree in 2014, murdering five whites and stating that “My hate for white people made me rob and kill.” He held up his middle finger to surviving victims in the courtroom.
Another common form of attack is the land invasion. In one example, 100 men began squatting land. The farmer did the sensible thing and left. Who could blame him in the kind of environment described above?
Far from being a “white nationalist conspiracy theory,” farm attacks have been reported on and denounced by Human Rights Watch and former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot. Afriforum, a wing of Christian trade union Solidarity, likewise reports on farm attacks regularly.
What Is Behind the South African Farm Attacks?
Anti-white racism is a popular current in mainstream South African politics. The song “Kill the Farmer, Kill the Boer” is still publicly sung, despite this being declared a hate crime.
The traditional means of protecting rural South Africans, the commando units, were disbanded in 2003, leaving many South African farmers with no protection.
Anti-white rhetoric in South Africa is very real and very mainstream. Here are a few examples:
Ekurhuleni EFF Leader Mampuru Mampuru posted on Facebook in 2018: “We need to unite as black People, there are less than 5 million whites in South Africa vs 45 million of us. We can kill all this white within two weeks.”
Major M.V Mohlala, a senior official in the South African National Defense Forces, said of the murder of a 76-year-old white professor: “It is your turn now, white people… [he] should have had his eyes and tongue cut out so that the faces of his attackers would be the last thing he sees.” He received a mere warning of future disciplinary action.
The South African Constitution has recently been amended to allow for Soviet-style expropriations of farms without compensation. Zulu lands are specifically exempted.
This is a bit nonsensical for two reasons. Many white South Africans have been in South Africa longer than most Americans have been in America.
Second, the dominant black ethnic group, the Bantus, doesn’t have a strong claim to most of the land in South Africa – the Khoisans would, but they sold it to the Boers or had it conquered by the British.
This is as if the U.S. government started seizing land from white families in upstate New York traditionally belonging to the Iroquois and giving it out to the Cherokee.
Still, despite the fact that farm seizures are precisely the means by which Zimbabwe ended up in such a failed state, there seems to be no stopping farm seizures in South Africa.
Perhaps worst of all, there are rumors that South Africa’s banks intend to collect mortgage payments even after properties have been confiscated.
In the final analysis, the farm seizures in South Africa aren’t just about dispossessing an unpopular, market dominant racial minority – though that would be disturbing enough. It’s also a threat to South Africa’s incredibly fragile democracy.
The ANC is a dominant party with little chance of losing elections and thus, little reason to behave accountably. Add to this the lack of a broad-based middle class with a vested interest in strong property rights, and you have a recipe for kleptocracy and starvation.
Fairfax, VA –-(Ammoland.com)- Gun control advocates often use some version of the phrase “if it saves one life” in order to justify their ineffective proposals.
This week, the anti-gun editorial page of the Chicago Sun-Times offered a different take.
Fearful that the Right-to-Carry was getting too much good publicity in the wake of an Illinois concealed carry permit holder’s heroic actions, the Sun-Times editorial board felt it necessary to lecture its readers, “One brave rescue of a Cicero cop doesn’t justify concealed guns.”
According to a news report from the Sun-Times, on September 13, Cicero Police Officer Luis Duarte and his partner were attempting to pull over a vehicle when the driver sped off. Officer Duarte and his partner gave chase and were able to immobilize the suspect’s car. Trapped, the driver retrieved a gun and fired at the officers, striking Officer Duarte four times.
As the officers and the suspect exchanged gunfire, a nearby motorist, and Right-to-Carry permit holder, exited his vehicle and came to the aid of the officers, firing at the gunman. The gunman was struck during the exchange and was later taken to the hospital in serious condition.
Following the incident, Cicero Police Superintendent Jerry Chlada praised the armed citizen, noting, “We were lucky enough to have a citizen on the street there who’s a concealed-carry holder, and he also engaged in gunfire.” Cicero town President Larry Dominick offered similar appreciation for the carry permit holder, stating, “He got out and started helping the police, which is something I’ve got to be proud of.” Illinois became a Right-to-Carry state in 2013, making it one of the more recent states to adopt a shall-issue permitting regime, and the last to adopt a system by which a citizen can be licensed to carry a gun for self-defense.
All of this commendation for the selfless act of an armed hero proved too much for the Sun-Times. Lamenting the support the incident might provide for the Right-to-Carry, the paper huffed, “Hang your argument on a single anecdote, and you can defend almost anything.” Going further, the editors argued that “one brave deed does not justify bad public policy.”
First, Right-to-Carry is not bad public policy. Right-to-Carry permit holders have proven themselves to be exceptionally law-abiding. Repeated examinations of Right-to-Carry permit holder revocation data in large states like Florida and Texas has shown that concealed carry permit holders are among the most law abidingdemographic in the country.
Second, instances of private individuals using firearms to defend themselves and others go well beyond the anecdotes that make the press. In his most recent analysis of the data on defensive gun uses, Florida State University Criminologist Gary Kleck determined that Americans use firearms for self-defense about 1 million times per year. Some of the Sun-Times’ ignorance on this matter might stem from the Center for Disease Control’s failure to report this information to the public.
To be sure, gun rights supporters enjoy individual stories of armed citizens confronting criminals – and there is no shortage of them. The Armed Citizen column, and before that Guns & Bandits, has been a staple of The American Rifleman since 1932. In 1996, NRA-ILA published a special compilation booklet of armed citizen stories where ordinary Americans had directly assisted law enforcement officers in their fight against crime.
The Sun-Times’s denigration of the Right-to-Carry and denial of defensive gun uses is nothing out of the ordinary. It’s the way they dismissed gun owners that is interesting.
Decades of anti-gun messaging has told the American public that if a gun control measure “saves just one life” any infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners is justified.
For example, in early 2013, President Barack Obama implored Congress to enact gun control by stating, “If there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if even one life we can save, we have an obligation to try it.” Vice-President Joe Biden reiterated the president’s sentiment, noting, “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”
A pair of older, Chicago-related examples occurred in the 1990s. In 1994, the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Upon passage, Commissioner John P. Daley told the Sun-Times, “If this legislation saves one life, so be it.” In 1998, Mayor Richard M. Daley touted the Windy City’s frivolous lawsuit against the gun industry and other gun control measures in an op-ed for the Sun-Times. Demanding action, the mercurial mayor wrote, “One life lost is one too many.”
Coupled with the messaging of their anti-gun allies, the Sun-Times appears intent on creating a can’t-lose scenario for gun control. This holds that if even one life may be saved by a particular gun control measure, it must be adopted. However, if a measure permitting access to firearms for self-defense may save one life, it is not adequate justification to condone such freedom. Gun rights supporters should give this latest evolution in gun control rhetoric the same consideration as its traditional iteration: none.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- People with impressive titles tell us all sorts of things. These experts are often wrong. They are either talking outside their area of competence, or they are lying to us. I keep seeing examples like this about gun control. The more I learn, the more I have to trust my own research to be sure I have the truth. Have you noticed this too?
No One Owns Guns Anymore?
There is a claim that gun ownership is declining and most of the guns in the US are owned by only a few gun owners. I tried to take that story seriously since the report was from the Washington Post rather than the National Enquirer.
It is true that we don’t have solid nationwide data to evaluate that assertion that gun ownership is delining. We do have solid data from some states, and we have inferential data from across the country, both of which strongly contradict that claim.
The federal government doesn’t keep a registry of gun owners. However, gun shops use the FBI national instant background check system to see if a potential gun buyer is allowed to buy a gun. The number of background checks has grown year after year. Gun manufacturers also reported growing cumulative sales to the US market.
NICS Checks Per Month in Millions
In contrast to national data, some states register each gun and each gun owner. Anti-rights states like California, Illinois, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts require mandatory permits before you can buy a gun. Some require a gun owner’s identification card as well.
These states have steadily increased the regulatory burden on gun owners, and that should have made gun ownership decline. If the existing gun owners in these states were the only people who buy guns, then the number of registered gun owners would have stayed the same or fallen. Instead, we saw the number of registered gun owners increase in these states.
We have other data as well. We saw the number of concealed carry license holders increase by about 6 percent to 17.25 million people. Deep in mind that 13 states allow citizens to carry without a permit.
Gun control advocates could argue the point. The growing number of registered gun owners in anti-gun states does not exactly follow the growth of gun ownership nationwide. It is true that each NICS background check does not conclusively document a gun sale. The extraordinary and undocumented claim by the Washington Post is that the number of gun owners declined even though all these other indicators went up.
Only white men living out in the country own guns?
We’ve been sold the story that gun owners are old white men. As I said before, we don’t know exactly who owns a gun. We have even less information about the sex and racial makeup of gun owners. As we dig deeper, we find out that even the NRA doesn’t know the racial mix of its members. However, the fundraising group Friends of the NRA does know the race of its members and guests. If there are a group of old, racist gun owners somewhere, then we should have found them here at Friends of the NRA..but we didn’t.
Instead, we found that 40 percent are women. 40 percent are minority members. The average age is between 40 to 45. That looks an awful lot like the rest of the USA.
The industry trade group for gun manufacturers gets reports from firearms retailers about their customers. 66 percent of new shooters are between 18 and 34 years old. 37 percent of new shooters are female. 47 percent of new shooters live in urban/suburban settings. That doesn’t fit the stereotype we were sold.
When you stop to think about it, it makes sense that older people own more guns than younger people. Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth and possessions. They own more houses and more cars as well. It makes sense that they would also own the most guns.. almost.
It turns out that the rate of gun ownership is almost the same between people under 35 years of age, and those 35 and above. What is surprising is that young people are almost twice as likely to carry concealed.
Some states collect information on the sex and race of those who apply for concealed carry permits. More of us are carrying concealed each year, but the rate at which women and minorities are applying for their permits is growing at twice the average rate.
We’re killing our school children with assault rifles?
California Senator Dianne Feinstein asked questions of Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. Senator Feinstein said there were hundreds of school shootings with assault weapons in recent history. I went back over 60 years and counted three mass murders in US schools where semi-automatic rifles were used. None of the attacks used an automatic weapon. Not one.
If they were not mass murders, then maybe Senator Feinstein was confused by less deadly attacks on our schools? The US Department of Education said that there were 235 incidents where a gun was used at a school last year. That number doesn’t match the databases I’ve seen. In fact, it looks so strange that even National Public Radio questioned the claim. NPR used an independent research service to contact all of the schools who listed a gunshot on or near campus. NPR was able to confirm 11 incidents. Keep in mind that is about a dozen incidents among 130 thousand schools. The rate of 1 in ten thousand schools is certainly not an epidemic..and that is a good thing.
The US leads the world in mass murder?
A professor from the University of Alabama released an unpublished report to the New York Times. The professor claimed that the US had 31 percent of the mass murders in the world from 1966 to 2012 even though the US only has 5 percent of the world’s population. No one was allowed to see the data.
Other researchers produced their own report and came up with very different answers. One report said the US had about 1.4 percent of the mass murders, again with a population of 5 percent. The US went from being the most dangerous, to one of the safer countries..and this data is available for review. What should we conclude when the headlines from the New York Times miss the target by a factor of 30 or more?
The more I learn, the more I have to trust my own research to be sure I have the truth.
Please let us know as you see more mistakes published by the press.
As an American & a property owner. Asset Forfeiture is one of the things that really tighten my colon! So here is some good news about this Government Hustle! From 357 Magnum Grumpy
PS Fat Chance that California will stop this as they are making some serious coin of of this!
Four years after Philadelphia police seized the home of Markela and Chris Sourovelis for a minor drug crime committed by their son, the city has agreed to almost completely dismantle its controversial civil asset forfeiture program and pay $3 million to its victims.
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, announced today that the city had agreed to a settlement in a federal civil rights class-action lawsuit challenging its forfeiture program.
The Constitution (that document that no one reads anymore) maintains that government can’t impose excessive fines, and it also can’t take private property without just compensation. The way asset forfeiture works in this country violates both of those restrictions.
A 2015 report by the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union found that almost a third of cash forfeiture cases in Philadelphia involved money owned by people who had not been found guilty of a crime.
The “court” in which you had to appear to contest this was run by prosecutors – no judges, and no “court-appointed attorneys.” And it sounds like very little justice. (Hat tip to Irons in the Fire.)
Stuff like this, is what happens. When otherwise unoffensive Folks are pushed too hard by an over bearing Government & their Servants.
Who by their ill considered actions, are threatening this man’s home & way of life.
Now I am NOT condoning this man’s actions. But I can understand why this deadly event came about. As shown here, is what happens when you tread on somebodies Sacred Soil. Grumpy
(By the way. My Dear Old Dad always told me to never mess with an Old Guy. As they will not fight you, But instead they will just try to kill you!)
Homeowner who shot dead a council official on live TV over heated planning row dies aged 77, just months after being released from 25-year jail term
Albert Dryden shot dead a council officer in front of media cameras in June 1991
Council had come to demolish his bungalow which had no planning permission
A BBC reporter and police officer were also wounded by Dryden’s WWI revolver
He was released from prison last year and put in a home after having a stroke
A friend of the pensioner said he had showed remorse in his final few days alive
A homeowner who shot dead a council officer on live television has died after being released from prison last October.
Albert Dryden gunned down Harry Collinson in front of journalists when his illegally-built bungalow was due to be demolished in Butsfield, County Durham in 1991.
Dryden served a life sentence until last year but was released and admitted to a care home after suffering a stroke behind bars.
The killer died at his care home aged 77 in County Durham on Saturday having finally shown remorse for the shooting – according to lifelong friend Alex Watson.
Scroll down for video
+7
Albert Dryden takes aim with his pistol before shooting dead planning officer Harry Collinson on the day his bungalow was set to be demolished in Butsfield, County Durham
+7
Harry Collinson was enforcing the demolition of Dryden’s illegally-built bungalow when Dryden drew a First World War gun and shot him dead
‘Roundabout of Death’ stunt leaves boy with G-force injuries
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:02
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:02
/
Duration Time0:19
Fullscreen
Need Text
SHARE THIS
MORE VIDEOS
Shocking moment cliff collapses on Zante’ beach i…
Masked gang throw rider off bike and repeatedly stomp …
Body cam footage shows murderer being detained by…
Island trailer shows four people experiencing their lif…
Watson, who was leader of the now defunct Derwentside District Council told the Chronicle: ‘I saw Albert a few weeks ago. he couldn’t talk. The man was dying, he had no life.
‘He could nod his head and shake his head. He was frustrated, and very remorseful.
‘Despite what people have said he was remorseful. It is just tragic all round. He never got a chance to say he was sorry, but you could see the remorse in his eyes.’
A former steelworker, Dryden had previously been refused parole, because he had shown had no remorse.
Harry Collinson was enforcing the demolition of Dryden’s illegally-built bungalow when Dryden drew a First World War gun and shot him dead in front of local media on June 20, 1991.
As well as shooting 46-year-old Mr Collinson, he also wounded police officer Stephen Campbell in the buttock and reporter Tony Belmont in the arm.
The showdown with planning officials of the former Derwentside District Council followed a dispute that had gone on for several years.
Dryden built his bungalow in a hollow, because he wrongly thought he would not need planning permission, which the council refused to grant.
Mr Collinson (right) just before he was shot. His last words were to the TV crew: ‘Can you get a shot of this gun?’
+7
People fleeing the scene in terror after Dryden opened fire with his First World War pistol
Albert Dryden ploughed his redundancy money into the one-acre plot of land, which he called Maryland Close, a few miles from the town of Consett.
He put up two greenhouses, a shed, parked a caravan on the land, and built an archway at the gated entrance.
He also hired a digger and scooped out more than 2,000 tonnes of earth from near the fence with the road and built a partly-sunken bungalow in the resulting hole, forming a screening mound around it.
But Dryden, who wanted to spend his time tinkering with American cars, growing vegetables and keeping livestock, did not have planning permission.
Derwentside District Council – abolished in County Durham’s local government shake-up two years ago – refused to approve the development in a rural area made up of conventional farms.
The council, which was keen to create an environment conducive to tourism, was also worried the bungalow represented a precedent that would unlock the door to other housing on land where it would not normally be permitted.
+7
Albert Dryden with his pistol after the 1991 killing. 27 years on, he died after being released on prison last October
Dryden lost his planning appeal to keep the bungalow, although the Government inspector who chaired the hearing said some of the other buildings could stay because of the time they had been there.
The wrangle dragged on for several months with the council attempting to reach a compromise that would avoid the need to bulldoze the bungalow.
‘If he dies slowly that’s good’: Harry Collinson’s brother on Dryden’s release from prison
Shortly after Dryden was released from prison in October last year, Harry Collinson’s older brother spoke of his disgust over the decision.
Roy Collinson slammed Dryden for refusing to show remorse for his actions.
‘Personally, I couldn’t bloody care less what happens to Albert Dryden,’ he said, ‘If he dies slowly that’s good. I’ll be very happy about that.’
Mr Collinson said he was shocked after two decades, Dryden was still trying to justify his reasons.
‘He never showed one bit of remorse in all the 26 years he has been in prison.
‘He still tried to justify his actions for some God-unknown reason.’
He added: ‘If the police had done their job properly, my brother wouldn’t have been killed and Albert Dryden wouldn’t have spent all this time in prison.’
The last suggestion was that Dryden modify the building and use it for keeping livestock, but he rejected this.
Finally, councillors decided there was no option but demolition, and the date was set for Thursday June 20 1991.
On the day media gathered with Dryden on the land with his friends and supporters.
Dryden had a letter from the Planning Inspectorate, which he had fixed to his gate, indicating no action could be taken until an appeal had been heard.
The letter had given Dryden the belief the council was breaking the law, even though there were no grounds for an appeal.
Harry Collinson came to the gate, looked at the letter and told him it contained nothing to prevent the demolition.
Dryden replied that ‘you might not be around to see the outcome of this disaster’.
Mr Collinson told Dryden he could have time to move things out of the building and he moved to a point in the fence where the bulldozer was to come through.
Dryden went to his caravan and picked up a First World War revolver, strode back to the fence and drew the weapon on Mr Collinson, whose last words were to the TV crew: ‘Can you get a shot of this gun?’
After initially shooting Collinson, Dryden then leapt the fence and shot him again before turning the weapon on the fleeing group.
He shot down the road at police and journalists hastily fleeing and caused the injuries of several others.
+7
An armed police officer and a bomb disposal officer at the home of Dryden in the aftermath of the 1991 incident
+7
Albert Dryden leaves Consett Magistrates Court the day after he shot dead Derwentside District Council planning officer Harry Collinson
Although he had been hoping to hit the council’s solicitor, Mike Dunstan, Dryden instead injured TV reporter Tony Belmont in the arm and PC Stephen Campbell in the backside.
He then returned to where Collinson was lying in a ditch by the perimeter fence and shot him again in the chest and face.
A subsequent search of the property uncovered a large arsenal of weapons including ten handguns, fifteen rifles, three shotguns, and two homemade mortars.
An investigation shortly after the murder revealed Collinson and Dryden had previously enjoyed a friendly relationship, with Collinson regularly visiting him to offer advice.
But Dryden’s increasingly threatening behaviour towards council employees was said to have brought the men into conflict.
Dryden had denied murder but was convicted after a trial and jailed for life at Newcastle Crown Court in 1992.
He was denied parole in 2001 after it was felt he showed little evidence of remorse.
Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson — known for his fight with the US government over 3D-printed guns — has been charged with sexually assaulting a minor, according toThe Austin American-Statesman.
The Statesman reports that police filed an arrest warrant for Wilson today in Travis County, Texas, alleging that a girl under 17 years old (the state’s age of consent) said Wilson paid her for sex after meeting on a site called SugarDaddyMeet.com.
The Statesman reports that jail records show Wilson had not been booked as of Wednesday morning, but police had corroborated the story with hotel records and surveillance footage. Wilson did not immediately respond to a phone call requesting comment.
According to the Statesman, Wilson began corresponding with the girl (whose identity has not been revealed) in August under the name “Sanjuro.”
He then revealed his name and described himself as a “big deal,” and the pair allegedly exchanged nude photos before meeting at an Austin coffee shop on August 15th, then returning to a hotel room.
The girl later told a counselor that she had been paid $500 for sex with a 30-year-old man, and the counselor reported the incident to police, who interviewed the girl in late August and identified Wilson from his account profile pictures.
The affidavit for the arrest warrant states that Wilson is charged with second-degree felony sexual assault.
A very detailed affidavit for arrest warrant in Travis County, Texas, alleges 3D printed gun blueprints maker Cody Wilson met a 17-year-old girl through http://SugarDaddyMeet.com, and they had sex in an Austin hotel.
In a press conference Wednesday afternoon, the Austin Police Department stated that Wilson’s last known whereabouts were in Taiwan, where he had skipped a flight back to the United States. “We don’t know why he went to Taiwan, but we do know that he was informed that he was being investigated,” said Commander Troy Officer, according to Ars Technica.
Officer also said that the victim was 16 years old, and that detectives who had interviewed the girl found it unlikely that Wilson would have mistaken her for someone over the age of consent. “If someone mistakes their age, it’d be because she’s younger not older,” he said.
Austin police are now cooperating with US Marshals and international partners to arrest Wilson.
Later on Wednesday evening, the US Marshals Service released a “wanted” posted for Wilson, detailing the charge against him and encouraging people to contact the Lone Star Fugitive Task Force with information about his whereabouts, according to reporter Tony Plohetski for the Austin American-Statesman:
NOW: U.S. Marshals release “wanted” poster for Cody Wilson, maker of so-called 3D guns.
Wilson, who describes himself as a crypto-anarchist, has fought a years-long battle to distribute blueprints for 3D-printed firearms in an attempt to make American gun regulations unenforceable.
His company Defense Distributed developed a working 3D-printed single-shot pistol called the Liberator in 2013, drawing the attention of the State Department, which ordered him to pull the blueprints offline.
Wilson later sued the government, and the case went to a settlement in mid-2018, granting him the right to distribute printable gun files, which he eventually started doing last month via flash drives.
Wilson has also worked on a cryptocurrency project called Dark Wallet and is the creator of Hatreon, a currently defunct crowdfunding platform that supported “alt-right” white nationalists who were kicked off more mainstream funding sites like Patreon.
Update 9/19 6:00PM ET: Updated with details from press conference.
Update 9/19 8:22PM ET: Updated with details about Wilson now considered a fugitive by the US Marshals Service
________________________________
Okay let me get this right. A Man makes something the Government really does not like. So it does its best to stop him. But the Man puts up one Hell of a fight over it. Right so far?
However the Man then does something really stupid. By letting his little head do his some of his thinking, With a 16 year old Hooker no less.
I am also willing to bet that if she was a 17+ “girl”. There would not be a problem here. I also hope that she gave him a hell of a good ride for his $500. But I kind of doubt it. However that is another story for another day.
So call me Cynical, But here is how I see it so far.
Because of this stupidity. The Feds then sees their chance to nail this Old Boy & make him a guest of the State.
But The man, who has been probably tipped off by somebody. Wisely flees the scene by going to Asia. Before they can introduce him to his cellmate called Bubba & tossing the salad.
(You really do not want to know what that means by the way!)
We also will soon find out how much cash the guy has & how quickly it disappears then the G Men are after you!
Bottom Line – This sounds and smells like a huge pile of brown sauce to this old fart.
Anyways, Your comments are welcome by the way! Grumpy
ATF data undercuts claims that criminals in gun-controlled cities are getting the majority of their guns from surrounding states.
The left has long claimed that the failures of gun control in cities like Baltimore or Chicago can be chalked up to lax gun laws in surrounding states. But the ATF’s latest data defeats such claims.
The Baltimore Sunreports that the ATF was asked to trace the origin of 8,600 guns from crime scenes last year. The federal agency was able “to determine where nearly 5,900 of the firearms were sold,” and nearly half of those firearms were purchased in Maryland.
The ATF found that 47 percent of the 5,900 firearms were purchased in Maryland, where “assault weapons” are banned, “high capacity” magazines are banned, and where would-be handgun purchasers are required to submit fingerprints to state police for a registration database.
And Gabby Giffords’ gun control group indicates Maryland has universal background checks for handgun purchases, too.
But even with these gun controls, nearly half the guns identified by the ATF were bought in Maryland.
The ATF also discovered “an average age of 38 for those in possession of the firearms” and they noted that “the firearms were bought an average of 12 years before the crime or reason for the trace.”
The Daily Wire reports that only 15 percent of the guns traced by the ATF originated in Virginia and seven percent originated in Pennsylvania. AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
The estimable New York Times – “all the news that’s fit to print” – receives a tip and the seriousness of the allegation requires them to trip over their ideological enthusiasm:
In the process they inadvertently reveal the secret of what makes “news” fit to print – it smears their enemies – and reveals the complete news cycle: evaluate stories and uncorroborated reports for ideological impact, print those that fit the narrative, evaluate the backlash, ignore it for the length of time required to circle the Internet, retract only when absolutely necessary, preferably on page 37, and repeat daily.
Oh, and don’t forget to attack Trump for complaining about all the fake news that’s fit to print.
“Apartheid” is an Afrikaans word meaning “separateness.” It was a series of laws drafted beginning in 1948, after the success of the Afrikaner-heavy National Party in the national elections.
The South African Constitution has recently been amended to allow for Soviet-style expropriations of farms without compensation. Zulu lands are specifically exempted.
Nightclub doorman, 49, is beaten to death in the street ‘in…
‘I should never have let the b*****d near my family’:…
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61463757/TNR_STILL_06.0.png)
Steve Dorsey
Tony Plohetski
