Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Ron Paul: Half-A-Cheer For Supremes’ Civil Asset Forfeiture Ruling

Ron Paul Liberty Report, Released on 2/21/19

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on civil asset forfeiture – that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment – may be a step in the right direction, but it’s only a baby step. Police are still free to steal from individuals not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted of a crime. They are just now told to not steal too much.

Dr. Ron Paul is a physician and former twelve-term congressman from Texas who ran for president in 2008. He is the author of eight books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Revolution: A Manifesto and End The Fed. An unwavering defender of the US Constitution, Paul has been an advocate of sound money, personal liberty, free markets, and international peace throughout his political career and beyond. He is chairman of the FREE Foundation, founder of the Campaign for Liberty, and distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Dr. Paul recently started the Ron Paul Channel, an online broadcast alternative to the mainstream media. Ron’s most recent novel is Swords into Plowshares.

One Response to Ron Paul: Half-A-Cheer For Supremes’ Civil Asset Forfeiture Ruling

  1. shelly Reply

    02/21/2019 at 5:46 pm

    The Civil Asset Forfeiture is a problem. I read an article some time ago … well, two that I’ll mention … that deeply concerned me:
    1) It had been shown that the son of a woman who owned a house had been accused of smoking marijuana. I don’t believe it was in the house, but I’m not sure. The woman’s house was seized.
    2) A man who was stopped while driving his car had his car searched by the police (I believe this was in California). The police discovered $100K in cash and seized it, saying it was drug money. The man said it was not – that it was money he had been saving at home to start a restaurant with his friend and he had been on his way to him.
    I do not know how these two cases turned out, but they both seem highly unjust. Can a person who doesn’t trust banks not travel with their own money in the U.S. now? That thought is a bit nerve wracking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.