SOCIAL JUSTICE LAWFARE: THEY HAVE GOTTEN PASSED TRUMP AND THEY COME FOR YOU

 

SOCIAL JUSTICE LAWFARE: THEY HAVE GOTTEN PASSED TRUMP AND THEY COME FOR YOU

Rochanne Douglas learned what is like to be a Real Estate Maven in a Democrat Socialist World. Your race, your sex, your sexual orientation doesn't matter. What matter is your private property! Public records indicate that the owner of the property, Douglas Investment Group LLC (of which Douglas is the principal), lists a mailing address in Bowie, Maryland. Sandra Rose in "‘With Love Dija’ Owner Accused of Squatting in Airbnb for 10 Months" reports, "Shadija Romero, the owner of nonprofit clothing line “With Love Dija,” is accused of squatting in an Airbnb without paying rent for 10 months." Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America (hereinafter “MDCDSA”) is a local chapter of the national organization Democratic Socialists of America. MDCDSA believes, "Housing is a human right and every DC resident has the right to a safe, clean and stable place to live. After leaving the District’s housing crisis solely to private developers for decades, working families have been pushed out of DC or faced higher housing costs so developers and private investors can make more profits." The people she probably votes for and supports doesn't want her to be a real estate maven. D.C. tenants have strong rights, including safe housing, privacy, and protection from discrimination (race, source of income, disability, etc.), with key protections in the DC Tenant Bill of Rights, managed by the Office of the Tenant Advocate (OTA). Key rights involve receiving proper notice for rent hikes, challenging unfair increases (especially under rent control), demanding code-compliant repairs (heat, pests, etc.), and legal recourse against harassment or illegal evictions. Tenants must also meet responsibilities like paying rent and keeping the unit in good shape, while the law provides ways to document issues and seek legal help. 

In Washington, D.C., "squatter's rights" (adverse possession) allow someone to claim property ownership by possessing it openly, exclusively, continuously, and hostilely for 15 years, but claims are difficult and rare, requiring the squatter to act as the true owner. While D.C. laws heavily favor tenants, squatters aren't tenants; they're trespassers who must prove these strict conditions to gain rights, with owners needing to follow formal eviction processes, often involving the US Marshals, to remove them. D.C. attorney Aaron Sokolow notes that while squatting is not legal, the problem lies in the logistical challenges of obtaining a remedy. Legal expert Bianco points out that the longer someone stays without paying, the fewer options the landlord has due to the lengthy legal process. Sokolow adds that D.C.'s pro-tenant stance often leads judges to err on the side of caution, prolonging cases for months. A woman involved in a notable case, Romero, emphasizes that the court must determine if an individual has achieved tenancy status before proceeding. Sokolow advises property owners to be present and quickly address the issue to prevent a squatter from claiming tenancy. To legally remove a squatter in D.C., property owners must follow proper court procedures, as "D.C. does not allow landlords to use 'self-help' tactics such as changing the locks, removing belongings, or shutting off utilities". Under D.C. law, individuals must occupy a property openly and continuously for 15 years to even be considered for adverse possession (the legal term related to "squatters rights"). Property owners must always go through a formal 30-day notice and court process to legally remove an unauthorized occupant. Mayor Muriel Bowser's stance on D.C.'s Airbnb regulations in 2019 focused on finding a "better balance," arguing the Council's bill was too restrictive, limited resident income, potentially unconstitutional (data sharing), and hurt tax revenue, though she let it become law without signing, preferring to support homeowners needing extra income while balancing neighborhood concerns. Better to bloviate than veto. Bowser allowed the bill to become law without her signature, signaling concern but not vetoing, as she wanted to avoid disrupting homeowners' ability to earn income. Time now for a strongly worded letter!

In Andrew Giambrone's "D.C. mayor declines to sign unanimously approved bill regulating Airbnb activity", he reports, "But in a memo to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson this week, Bowser says the measure “could have struck a better balance” between residents being allowed to use Airbnb and its ilk to generate income and concerns that short-term rentals disrupt neighborhoods, including by constraining the supply of long-term housing and attracting transient visitors.

Citing advice from D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine’s office and pointing to a “similar bill enacted by New York City” that a federal judge has temporarily blocked from taking effect, Bowser also says the District’s legislation “is unlikely to survive a potential legal challenge.” “The mandatory [data] reporting requirements in [the] bill mirror those in the New York City bill and would likely fail to pass constitutional muster on the same grounds,” writes Bowser." Giambrone continues, "But supporters of the regulatory effort say the legislation will help D.C. officials crack down on illegal hotels in residential neighborhoods and keep housing prices in check." Cowardice always creates confusion.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." The Founding Fathers like James Madison and John Adams stressed that private property is crucial for liberty and a just government, viewing it as essential for independence and prosperity, with Madison stating, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses," while Adams warned, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence". They saw property as including not just physical possessions but also rights, labor, and conscience, fundamental to a free society. While a direct "worst property rights" ranking for states is complex, New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland consistently appear at the bottom of various indices, often due to high taxes (especially property taxes), restrictive regulations (like California's housing/rental laws), and non-neutral tax systems, with the District of Columbia also noted for high tax burdens. 

I know you are worried about Romero. She has a natural right to other peoples, hard earned investment. Eh, I mean property! We use to call it "theft" but the Marxists call it a natural right. Per AI: "Marxists don't generally call taking existing property "theft" as a "natural right," but rather view private ownership of the means of production as inherently exploitative and a form of theft from the working class who create value, advocating for its abolition in favor of communal ownership**. Early Marx, in analyzing traditional forest laws, saw the poor's right to gather dead wood as natural, but capitalist restrictions on these commons, which dispossessed the poor, were unjust appropriation, leading to his critique of "property is theft" as a simplistic slogan. " Anarchist Library writer Iain McKey in "Property is Theft!: A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology", writes, "Proudhon's critique rested on two key concepts. Firstly, property allowed the owner to exploit its user (“property is theft”). Secondly, that property created authoritarian and oppressive social relationships between the two (“property is despotism”). These are interrelated, as it is the relations of oppression that property creates which allows exploitation to happen and the appropriation of our common heritage by the few gives the rest little alternative but to agree to such domination and let the owner appropriate the fruits of their labour." 

Gateway Pundit reports, “I never gave her any tenancy,” said Douglas. “I never gave her a lease.”

Gateway Pundit continues, "Shockingly, police allowed Romero to hire a locksmith and re-enter the home, without presenting a lease, documentation, or court order."

A legal system must be developed to host and spur "property is theft" in the Nation, which disposes the Republic from the citizen and yields a Marxist harvest for revolution.

Gateway Pundit reports: "In yet another stunning example of the nation’s upside-down justice system, a DC court is allowing a squatter to remain inside a woman’s home for nearly a year after overstaying an Airbnb reservation, despite having no lease, no tenancy agreement, and no legal right to occupy the property."

Inserting Marxism into the U.S. legal system involves applying its core critique: that law serves the ruling capitalist class, perpetuates inequality, and masks power dynamics, focusing on how legal structures uphold private property, maintain class divisions (bourgeoisie vs. proletariat), and function as tools of state oppression rather than justice, influencing critical legal studies and movements analyzing race and law. While Marx didn't build a complete legal theory, his ideas influence critiques of property rights, labor laws, and the perceived ideological nature of American constitutionalism, seeing laws as tools to manage capitalism and control the working class. Amherst College ,in it's "Marxism and Law" , teaches, "By exposing structures of domination and coercion and undermining the beliefs and values which sustain them, Marxists seek to pave the way towards radical social transformation. Tensions arise between revolutionary politics and the “rule of law"; liberals revere and authoritarians impose. The Marxist critique of capitalism necessarily involves inquiry into law, since legal relations are mutually constitutive with other social relations and law is a crucial component in the totality of capitalist social relations. While Karl Marx never produced a comprehensive theory of law, state, and rights, there is much in his work and in the broader Marxist tradition that can help us understand the nature and role of law in contemporary capitalism. In this course, we will explore how movements for fundamental social change can effectively engage with marxist legal theories. What does Marx’s famous phrase “Between equal rights, force decides” really mean? What is the nature of the relationship between the coercive power of law and class struggle? How can Marxist thought help to demystify legal mainstays like property and contract rights, labor relations, and state police powers? How have Marxism-inspired liberation and resistance movements situated themselves in relation to law over time? In addition to Marx’s own writings, we will draw from the works of important Marxist political theorists like Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser and key Marxist legal scholars like Evgeny Pashukanis, Karl Renner, Alan Hunt, China Mieville, Brenna Bhandar, Aziz Rana, and, as well as the Critical Legal Studies movement, Critical Race Theory, and the emergent Law and Political Economy movement."

The Rule of Revolution over The Rule of Law is fostered by The Critical Legal Studies Movement. The Critical Legal Studies Movement is a book by the philosopher and politician Roberto Mangabeira Unger. First published in 1983 as an article in the Harvard Law Review, published in book form in 1986, and reissued with a new introduction in 2015, The Critical Legal Studies Movement is a principal document of the American critical legal studies movement that supplied the book with its title. In the book, Unger argues that law and legal thought offers unrealized possibilities for the self-construction of a more democratic society, and that many lawyers and legal theorists have uncritically surrendered to constraints that undermine their ability to make use of law's transformative potential. Unger explains how the critical legal studies movement has refined and reformulated the major themes of leftist and progressive legal theorists, namely the critique of formalism and objectivism in legal doctrine, and the purely instrumental use of legal practice and doctrine to advance leftist aims, and in doing so, has identified elements of a constructive program for the reconstruction of society.

Critical Legal Studies (CLS) is the broader movement critiquing law as maintaining power structures, while Critical Race Theory (CRT) emerged from CLS in the 1970s/80s as a specific focus, arguing that racism is systemic and embedded in legal systems, not just individual bias, challenging colorblindness and formal equality to reveal how law perpetuates racial inequality for people of color. In essence, CRT is an offshoot that applies critical theory specifically to race, using storytelling and intersectionality to expose how seemingly neutral laws create racial disparities. Angela Onwuachi-Willig of the Boston University School of Law in "THE CRT OF BLACK LIVES MATTER" concluded, "Boston University alumnus Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once proclaimed,"A social movement that only moves people is merely a revolt. A movement that changes both people and institutions is a revolution." If the Black Lives Matter Movement is any proof, the intellectual and scholarly movement of Critical Race Theory is a revolution. Not only has it helped to transform the thinking of generations of learners who have been exposed to its insights, it has helped to form and create the very groups and institutions that are transforming our society in hopes of making it more racially just and equitable for all." The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement, and Critical Race Theory (CRT) are distinct entities, but they share overlapping intellectual and political roots, specifically a critique of liberalism and the role of power in society.  Karl Klare, the George J. & Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor at Northeastern University School of Law., in "On Socialism and Critical Legal Theory" writes,"First, formalism, liberal legalism, rights-fundamentalism, and similar approaches that treat law as an unproblematic working out of first principles greatly understate the complexity of legal practices, thereby depriving us of access to transformative opportunities and possibilities in legal work. Second, we must equally avoid political and philosophical formalism.  Our ideals give us direction and moral intuitions, but in fighting for a better world, there is no escape from endless, thickly contextualized conflicts, choices, tradeoffs, and uncertainties." 

The truth of the matter is that the weaponed turned on President Donald Trump is now being applied to the Radical Left. "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy". This statement is widely associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its founder, Klaus Schwab, but it originated as a prediction in an article written by a Danish politician, not a direct quote from Schwab himself. The phrase comes from an essay written in 2016 by Danish MP Ida Auken, titled "Welcome to 2030: I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better". The article was a thought experiment envisioning a potential future scenario of a shared, circular economy. Richard Stewart, Michael Charles, and John Page in "A future with no individual ownership is not a happy one: Property theory shows why" write, "No human society has ever existed without property and nor is it likely to do so in the future. Humans appear always to have related to things, and engaged in human-thing behaviours, that can be identified as property-like, and we have used the personhood theory of property to show why. Property emerged as a socio-legal construct that wraps around the human-thing relationship and the behaviours through which it is expressed. Property mediates not just the relations between people upon which society is based, but between people and things. Ownership is the form of property that best assures the latter relationship and by so doing it supports the emergence, development and expression of personhood, which is a threshold requirement for happiness. A future with no individual ownership is therefore not a happy one, because it will undermine personhood. The WEF prediction should thus not be understood as envisioning any such future." But the Marxists are convinced. They are determined to implement their law and their constitution for the sake of society and the future.

Social justice lawfare combines using the law (litigation, legislation, policy) to achieve social equity (equal rights, opportunities) with a strategic, often adversarial, approach to challenge systemic injustice, but the term "lawfare" can also imply using law as a weapon, which can be debated, with proponents seeing it as empowering marginalized groups (e.g., for civil rights, environment, equality) while critics might view aggressive legal tactics as disruptive or weaponized by any side. It involves lawyers working with communities to reform laws, fight discrimination, and advocate for policy changes on issues like racial justice, voting rights, and healthcare access, using courts as a battleground for change. 

Joseph Humire was a Visiting Fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He wrote, "There is an old saying by the former Peruvian President Oscar Benavides: “To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law.” Until and unless this weaponization of the legal system against political enemies in our country ends, that old saying might become the new reality here in America."

You are now the political enemy if you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no matter the party, race, sex, or orientation. Individual achievement is the enemy of the collective. The Collective does not fear for they know you will continue to vote for them until you succumb. By vote or force, you will.

Worried about Romero. Don't! There will be more until they or the law run out of other people's property.

"The world is rapidly being divided into two camps, the comradeship of anti-Christ and the brotherhood of Christ.".