This video is of interviews done at the conclusion of CAPR's first banquet.

The video contained in this blog post is of the keynote address by Attorney General Rob McKenna at CAPR's first annual banquet.

This video was produced for CAPR's first ever annual banquet. It was shown to the standing room only crowd of nearly 400 at Emerald Downs.

The Persecution of Jeremy Hill by William Norman Grigg.

By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

Far from damaging brains and killing seals, applying basic economics to the environment preserves it.The industrial revolution that began about 200 years ago has changed humanity’s relation to, and attitudes about, nature completely—and sometimes it has generated new views about God and nature, such as from the Transcendentalists of the 19th century.

Here are three easy questions for Libertarians, Socialists, and Economists to determine if a right is a monopoly or a property right. 1) Does the right arise because the person created something? Creation is the basis of all property rights.  The law is just recognizing the reality that the person is the creator and without that person the creation would not exist.  This is consistent with Locke’s Natural Rights and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. 2) If someone else was the creator would they have received the right in the creation? This ensures that the right does not arise from political favoritism.

It is sometimes suggested that the Founders did not consider property rights important because the term “property” was mentioned only once in the Constitution. The truth is that the Founders were concerned about a range of human values, but property rights were high on their list. Their Constitution and Bill of Rights protected property in many ways: * The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).

They claimed the city chose to let their homes flood instead of fix the problem. The city admits no wrongdoing in the settlement.The residents across a two block region of the neighborhood said they would get a gush of water pouring into their home every time a severe storm hit.For Grace Stewart, it's a hassle she's been dealing with for decades."I'm mad, I'm very mad," she said. via Residents win $2.5M settlement after blaming Seattle for floods.