Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

Why Your Home Isn’t Safe From Government Seizure

house seized -- radioTen years after the Supreme Court opened the door for government seizure of your home, cities and counties across the country are getting bolder.

In fact, in one small Indiana town, the mayor even proposed seizing an entire neighborhood – in order to construct private businesses.

On today’s edition of Off The Grid Radio, we take a close look at what is known as eminent domain and what you can do to keep your home if the government comes knocking on your door. It’s a subject that impacts all of us – on- or off-grid.

Phil Applebaum of the Institute for Justice tells us:

  • Whether there are legitimate, legal reasons for the seizure of your home.
  • How some towns are violating their own state laws in an effort to seize homes.
  • What the Constitution (surprisingly) says about eminent domain.
  • How some states have fought back against the Supreme Court’s infamous pro-eminent domain case known as Kelo.

No doubt, our Founding Fathers would be shocked at the current state of private property rights in America. Listen as Phil tells us what we can do!

© Copyright Off The Grid News


  1. “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States

    James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution, said about property: “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandise, or money is called his property.
    In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
    In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions…
    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. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
    … That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called.
    A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
    If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
    If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.”

  2. anither way the govt can try to take money is from Senior Citizens who have worked their entire lives to have a home and enough to retire on. Once they get too old to live at home, if they need nursing home care the govt can take all their assets (cash/home etc). THEN they can go back 7 years and see how they spent THEIR OWN MONEY! We recently put my mom in a private pay home, and she keeps saying “after I sell the house, I want to pay off your mortgage”. I tell her she can’t do that because the govt. won’t let her spend her money that way. She says all the time “it’s MY money” I worked for it! No one else worked 20 hr days for it!

    To make it worse my sister and I are legally her nieces but she raised us from the time I was 5 and my sister was 4. We want to be adopted b/c the new tax laws will completely wipe out any inheritance that may possibly be left over. I told my mom I’d rather see her die penniless than to give everything she worked so hard for to the government!

Leave a Reply

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