Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements


No announcement yet.

The DC hell hole gets more dangerous and despicable by the minute!

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The DC hell hole gets more dangerous and despicable by the minute!

    Apparently, the alleged "need" to generate tax revenue is FAR more
    important than our most precious founding principles. The day when
    violent resistance becomes our ONLY remaining option is fast
    approaching. Decent people everywhere pray that they are long gone
    before that day arrives.

    ALL political parties share blame for this diabolical development .

    "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
    the system, but too early to shoot the *******s. On the road to
    tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about
    as useless as a miniskirt in a convent." [or a politician with a
    conscience] - Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_

    ================================================== ========

    Americans who want to keep government out of the bedroom, beware. Last
    week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that makes it too easy
    for the government to seize your bedroom -- and kitchen, parlor and
    dining room -- then hand your precious home over to a corporation.

    The Fifth Amendment stipulates, "... nor shall private property be
    taken for public use, without just compensation." Lawyers call it the
    Takings Clause.

    In its decision, the Supreme Court expanded the concept of "public
    use" to apply it not to a highway, or school, or railroad, but to
    economic development sanctioned by a government entity.

    The city of New London, Conn., found itself in economic doldrums.
    Redevelopment was supposed to be the bromide. State and local
    officials created the New London Development Corp. That unelected
    entity decided to increase tax revenues by pushing middle-class
    families out of their waterfront homes and using eminent domain -- the
    other E.D. -- to make way for a revitalization project, anchored
    around a Pfizer Inc. research facility.

    Some families in the redevelopment area agreed to be bought out.
    Susette Kelo and Wilhelmina Dery, who was born in her home in 1918,
    were among those New Londoners who balked.

    The city didn't contend there was any blight in the neighborhood to
    warrant government action. Why should they move out because Pfizer
    wanted in? In a 5-4 ruling on Kelo written by Justice John Paul
    Stevens, the Big Bench answered the why question: Because the
    government says so.

    Connecticut law says economic development constitutes "public use."
    And that's that. If states want to write laws that stipulate
    otherwise, they can do so. But don't expect America's top court to
    hold land-use commissions to the same standards they save for police.

    As Justice Clarence Thomas quipped in a sharply worded dissent,
    "Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the
    homes themselves are not."

    Another dissenter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, noted that if
    governments can kick people out of their homes under the banner of
    economic development, "the specter of condemnation hangs over all
    property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6
    with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a

    Thomas noted that when governments seize homes to enrich their own
    coffers, the poor and the black are likely to lose their homes.

    "It's desperately hard to believe that in this country you can lose
    your home to private developers," New London homeowner Bill Von Winkle
    told The New York Times after the ruling. "It's basically corporate
    theft." But it's corporate theft that will enrich New London, so Von
    Winkle's home could become Pfizer's castle.

    The libertarian-learning Institute of Justice, which represented
    Kelo, Von Winkle and their neighbors, held a press conference
    Wednesday to announce a new effort to fight back, as it champions the
    thousands of homeowners it believes are the targets of overreaching
    eminent domain. The campaign's name: Hands Off My Home.

    Another victim of this government-run-amok trend, Denise Hoagland,
    who owns a home on the Jersey shore, told reporters: "Our homes are
    not blighted. This can happen to you." Institute for Justice spokesman
    John Kramer noted governments' appetite for seizing waterfront homes
    and figured their philosophy must be, "The poor don't deserve a view."

    The Institute for Justice is well aware of the fact that both
    liberals and conservatives are appalled at the Kelo v. New London
    ruling. San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi told me he was
    "fearful of" the ruling, as it may adversely affect "people who are
    not able to defend themselves." Meanwhile, Thomas' dissenting opinion
    addresses the inequities of a policy that falls hardest on "the least
    politically powerful'' -- that is, owners of lower-end homes.

    Institute for Justice attorney Dana Berliner argued that New London
    could have had its development project and still accommodated the

    New London, she noted, "doesn't need these homes." But the New
    London Development Corp. didn't want these older homes in its Tony
    project. So the homes must go.

    On July 5, protesters will ask the New London City Council to spare
    the homes of Kelo, Dery and their co-litigants. New London should
    comply. Why? The New London Development Corp. wants to seize these
    homes for the worst reason of all: because it can.

    Posted with permission. Following the example set by other posters
    in this and other groups, the creator of this post has withheld
    the author of the article it contains because the author is not
    relevant to the merit of the article's content -- except to whining
    liberals and big State collaborators who have no intellectual,
    emotional or moral capacity to HONESTLY deal with the points asserted
    by the article!
The forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.