United States Supreme Court, Men And Women In Black, Activist Judges RIPOFF * Openly declares war on American citizens. Removed the right for anyone except the Government to own property. YOU own nothing and never will!* Nationwide Nationwide

Think about this!! My wife and I have recently purchased undeveloped land in a very rural area. Shortly after our purchase we began being hammered with calls from companies wanting to lease mineral rights from us. We have rejected every offer because the costs of what these companies will do to our land in hopes of finding something greatly outweigh the benefits. How is this pertinent to the arguement? Well, considering our current lack of supply of fossil fuels, what if said company believed that your land was a potential resource for crude oil? Unlessyou reside in one of the fortunate eight, which I happen to, my interpretation of the ruling is that said company can claim your land for the "public good". So, in short, urban areas in disrepair are not the only potential targets. Our Forefathers viewed land ownership as true measure of status. Has the land that we have fought so hard to obtain and protect from our enemies become so despensable that we now have to protect it from ourselves?

This one goes out to Carol Ann in Las Vegas. You never did trust Clarence Thomas? Uh, did you notice that he was one of the 4 dissenting justice in this Supreme Court decision of which you complaint about so bitterly?

This one goes out to Carol Ann in Las Vegas. You never did trust Clarence Thomas? Uh, did you notice that he was one of the 4 dissenting justice in this Supreme Court decision of which you complaint about so bitterly?

This one goes out to Carol Ann in Las Vegas. You never did trust Clarence Thomas? Uh, did you notice that he was one of the 4 dissenting justice in this Supreme Court decision of which you complaint about so bitterly?

This one goes out to Carol Ann in Las Vegas. You never did trust Clarence Thomas? Uh, did you notice that he was one of the 4 dissenting justice in this Supreme Court decision of which you complaint about so bitterly?

Everybody should be mad as Hell with this decision. This decision also affects every not for profit organization, to include churches that do not generate taxes.

We should also making them live under their own rules and see how they like it. As Americans, let's chip in, become developers ourselves and open Hotels, Brothels and casinos on their home sites and country clubs. I don't think they will like being pushed around from place to place and never be able to own anything and violate their 4th Amendment rights in violation of the United States Constitution, since we can't vote them out!

These renegade judges are nothing more than a bunch of pimps, Social Hookers and hustlers out for themselves and their agenda.

I agree with others of you, since the only right that I do have left is to run my mouth, I WILL USE MY 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER I PLEASE>> I hope they get Virulent SOCIAL DISEASES AND FIND HAIR IN EVERYTHING THEY DRINK. I NEVER DID LIKE OR TRUST Clarence Thomas.

Thank, Robin.

Concerned? d**n, I am mad as hell. How dare the politician try to veil theft of our land and paint it as community upgrade programs.

I don't think those of you who said write your Senators to stop this understand what is going on. The Senators get a benefit by taking your land, probably even kickbacks.

We are talking about the legal challenges to the property of US citizens, who have been getting their land stolen so the government can turn around and sell the land to Walmart.

That is what has been in the news over the past two years, if you have been watching.

I really never expected this. What is this... 1865? But instead of taking land for the railroads it is for the money grubbing, back stabbing corporate bean counters who are more concerned about whether or not you have a receipt for your return than the land they are purchasing from a government that has stolen it from you.

Walmart's official policy is that they have nothing to do with public policy. Meanwhile, in Louisiana, charges have been leveled at public officials for taking bribes from Walmart for doing this very thing. Instead of getting mad at the politicians, get mad at the money that perverts the system.

What we need are modern-day Jesse James, who will take down the supply train and force Walmart and Target to their knees, and capitulate. We wouldn't need to have the silly Supreme Court ruling on these matters if people weren't being taken advantage of. Who would blame those who take action to protect their property.

I think it's about time for another revolution.

By the way...Kennedy MAY have been conservative when he was appointed, but his decisions over the past 10 years have shown he is not. He is the one Justice who actually wrote that our Supreme Court's legal opinions should reflect what the laws are in other countries. Great idea Judge. Some countries say someone given a death sentence should be whacked within 48 hours. Let's start with that one. Others have NO criminal code forbidding child molestation(good for Michael Jackson) or killing women(better for Ted Kennedy). Maybe we should adopt those too. What an a*s. I'll give him his choice...are you, Justice Kennedy, afflicted with dementia, or just another dumbass liberal intent on destroying this country. There is good news though. A group of investors are currently attempting to get David Souter thrown out of his home in favor of "The Lost Liberty Hotel" and "Just Desserts Cafe'". They only need 3 out of the 5 city council votes to do it. I love rich people...they can do what we wish we could, and have style doing it. As for eliminating women from voting...YAY!!!! Men generally vote for liberty, women vote for security. I'll take the former and provide the latter for myself. Liberty takes no money from one person and gives it to another, security robs everyone. Our leaders are the exact same people we have chosen. Too many people vote incorrectly. Try voting for the public good, and not for the individual good. If someone promises to give you everything you want, try thinking about where he's getting it from.

When they married as teen-agers fifty years ago, they began saving money together for their dream home.

When they were finally able to purchase it, they spent many years making it into a place where they would be able to spend the rest of their lives.

They have a lifetime of memories together there. They raised a family in that home.

Now, they are both retired. Elderly. They don't see so well anymore.

Their home is really all they have left in this life.

And, now, some piece of s**t wants to send in a bulldozer and destroy all that.

For a wal-mart. Or, a mini-mall.

Business as usual for the Supreme Court as the quoted case from 1875 deifies. It seems as if Robin may be dealing with a case of government abuse in reference to eminent domain. I'm all for economic expansion and the social goods that are derived from this, but whose protecting us from abusive government? b***h all you want Robin but if you're looking to amend the constitution it's not going to happen. At least you're getting your 'fair market value' from these jerks. Hold your head up high and good kismet and pay no heed to the Bush supporter (Stacey).

Can someone post a list of which 8 States currently have laws on the books prohibiting land seizure for other than public use? I'm hoping one is Florida as I plan on moving back there in a few years.

Just in case anybody hasn't noticed, the "Voting Rights Act", which includes your credit rights are also under fire and nobody realizes that the law was written with time Limits! Those time limits mean that Women and minority groups will not be able to vote or have a say in their present or in their futures. The law will cease to exsist that give you the right to vote. This sets the clock back about 2 hundred years.

For more information about this looming problem in Democracy go to Rainbow P.U.S.H coalition and sign the online petition...Time is trully running out on Democracy if you don't speak up NOW!

Gee, Stacey...you will probably be moving before I do!

I assume it is me that you are telling to "shut up and move".

Unfortunate that you feel that way. I still have one Constitutional right and that is the one that allows me to openly b***h about the government. That is what I choose to do. If I cannot own anything, I am going to gripe until it gets changed or the end comes.

Folks like you who fall quietly to their knees and bow their foreheads to the dirt in complete adoration of all the bureaucratic idiocy are the folks that have allowed the government to become the pompous overbearing bloated smelly turd that it is today.

When you read in the newspaper that it is "the quiet ones who will get you" it is certainly true in this case.

If you will re-read the post, this complaint involves the Supreme Court, not the "Congress or the Senate". Congress did not (for once) hurl this load of dog crap on the people.

Uh, Congress is made up of the House and the Senate, so you are repeating yourself here. Or you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. The government has three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. In theory these separate branches are supposed to check abuses attempted by either of the other two. This complaint involves the Judicial branch.

Problem is the three branches have been blended together into one big stew, with each branch attempting to use the other two for its own ends. Sad thing is that it is working. The lines of separation become more blurred every day.

Once that happens, the garbage that is spewed from all branches gets bigger and smellier. The stench is becoming overwhelming now. Can't you smell it?

If you don't like the topic, don't read it. Subside quietly and start packing your things. I know its hard to do while on your knees with your forehead pressed to the ground, but do it for your country.

I will remain here, standing upright and doing what I can to create a change for the better, as little as that may be.

Enjoy your life up North. Watch out for the bears.

the cowboys are getting a new stadium?. what is wrong with the old one? is the new one gonna somehow guarantee a superbowl ring?.. HAHAAHAHAHHAHA

If you do not like it then MOVE! You cannot control everything that happens in Congress or the Senate - Fact of life - Thanks Carl for your posts - I live in Dallas and guess what! The so called Dallas Cowboys are forcing people in Arlington to give up their homes for their new stadium because -----
The residents of Arlington voted on it!
I hear Canada is nice this time of year

Go back and reread the first line of my initial post.

Let's see what happens now...

Developer seeks Souter's property
Looks to build 'Lost Liberty Hotel' at home of Supreme Court justice

Posted: June 28, 2005
1:45 p.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development be seized to make room for a new hotel.

Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

According to a statement from Clements, the proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Caf" and include a museum, open to the public, "featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America." Instead of a Gideon's Bible in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site "being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."

Souter has claimed Weare as his home since he moved there as an 11-year-old boy with his family.

"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.

Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

I filed this report originally because I felt deeply betrayed as an American by the action taken by the Supreme Court in this case.

I have since found out that I am fortunate enough to live in one of the eight "safe" states where eminent domain is justified only in cases of blight. If I maintain my property, all should be well.

I also waited for President Bush to comment on this issue, but he was doggedly silent. A little investigation showed me that it will never happen.

Bush was an investor and eventually managing general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Through a public-relations campaign and political connections, he and his partners persuaded a city and the state to subsidize directly a facility for their private business.

Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens via eminent domain so it could be used for their own private purposes.

Litigation over the ballpark deal revealed documents showing that, beginning in 1990, the Texas Rangers' management which included Bush as a managing general partner conspired to use the government's power of eminent domain to further its private business interests.

The Supremes just gave a thumbs-up and a wink to Bush's own tactics. If he opens his mouth against it, this will come out and bite him in the butt and show him to be a hypocrite. If he comes out for it, he will be revealed as the anti-American Big Business suck-up that he is.

We seem to have a government ruled by people who hold nothing sacred. It is that way in both parties as near as I can tell; both parties talk the talk but neither walks the walk when money and/or power is involved.

So it really does not matter who is Republican and who is Democrat. Doesn't matter who is liberal, who is conservative or who is a moderate. What matters is what happens when the final ruling is given.

Any society which worships money and power to he detriment of the individuals who make up that society is doomed to failure.

I filed this report originally because I felt deeply betrayed as an American by the action taken by the Supreme Court in this case.

I have since found out that I am fortunate enough to live in one of the eight "safe" states where eminent domain is justified only in cases of blight. If I maintain my property, all should be well.

I also waited for President Bush to comment on this issue, but he was doggedly silent. A little investigation showed me that it will never happen.

Bush was an investor and eventually managing general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Through a public-relations campaign and political connections, he and his partners persuaded a city and the state to subsidize directly a facility for their private business.

Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens via eminent domain so it could be used for their own private purposes.

Litigation over the ballpark deal revealed documents showing that, beginning in 1990, the Texas Rangers' management which included Bush as a managing general partner conspired to use the government's power of eminent domain to further its private business interests.

The Supremes just gave a thumbs-up and a wink to Bush's own tactics. If he opens his mouth against it, this will come out and bite him in the butt and show him to be a hypocrite. If he comes out for it, he will be revealed as the anti-American Big Business suck-up that he is.

We seem to have a government ruled by people who hold nothing sacred. It is that way in both parties as near as I can tell; both parties talk the talk but neither walks the walk when money and/or power is involved.

So it really does not matter who is Republican and who is Democrat. Doesn't matter who is liberal, who is conservative or who is a moderate. What matters is what happens when the final ruling is given.

Any society which worships money and power to he detriment of the individuals who make up that society is doomed to failure.

I filed this report originally because I felt deeply betrayed as an American by the action taken by the Supreme Court in this case.

I have since found out that I am fortunate enough to live in one of the eight "safe" states where eminent domain is justified only in cases of blight. If I maintain my property, all should be well.

I also waited for President Bush to comment on this issue, but he was doggedly silent. A little investigation showed me that it will never happen.

Bush was an investor and eventually managing general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Through a public-relations campaign and political connections, he and his partners persuaded a city and the state to subsidize directly a facility for their private business.

Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens via eminent domain so it could be used for their own private purposes.

Litigation over the ballpark deal revealed documents showing that, beginning in 1990, the Texas Rangers' management which included Bush as a managing general partner conspired to use the government's power of eminent domain to further its private business interests.

The Supremes just gave a thumbs-up and a wink to Bush's own tactics. If he opens his mouth against it, this will come out and bite him in the butt and show him to be a hypocrite. If he comes out for it, he will be revealed as the anti-American Big Business suck-up that he is.

We seem to have a government ruled by people who hold nothing sacred. It is that way in both parties as near as I can tell; both parties talk the talk but neither walks the walk when money and/or power is involved.

So it really does not matter who is Republican and who is Democrat. Doesn't matter who is liberal, who is conservative or who is a moderate. What matters is what happens when the final ruling is given.

Any society which worships money and power to he detriment of the individuals who make up that society is doomed to failure.

O'Connor is not a conservative. She is a moderate who often casts the swing vote in big cases. In fact, she was the key vote in the 10 Commandments cases that came out today. Here is the lineup:

Conservatives: Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and Kennedy

Moderates: O'Connor and Souter

Liberals: Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer

Only 8 states have laws on the books forbidding the seizure of property from an individual so that another can develop it. You people in the other 42 need to get on the ball. As for Souter and Kennedy being conservative....too funny. Bush Senior was NOT a conservative in any regard and he did not appoint any if possible. I put him down as a RINO(Republican In Name Only) just like McCain and a slew of others. The only cons on the Court were the same ones who got voted down...Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and O'Connor. Thomas was the ONLY conservative Bush Sr. ever nominated to anything, and I'm sure it was a mistake. You'll notice that 3 of the 4 were Reagan appointees, with Rhenquist originally being placed as an associate Justice by Nixon. Remeber this the next time you vote. If you vote for people who want to give everything to you, remember where they get it from.

Only 8 states have laws on the books forbidding the seizure of property from an individual so that another can develop it. You people in the other 42 need to get on the ball. As for Souter and Kennedy being conservative....too funny. Bush Senior was NOT a conservative in any regard and he did not appoint any if possible. I put him down as a RINO(Republican In Name Only) just like McCain and a slew of others. The only cons on the Court were the same ones who got voted down...Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and O'Connor. Thomas was the ONLY conservative Bush Sr. ever nominated to anything, and I'm sure it was a mistake. You'll notice that 3 of the 4 were Reagan appointees, with Rhenquist originally being placed as an associate Justice by Nixon. Remeber this the next time you vote. If you vote for people who want to give everything to you, remember where they get it from.

Only 8 states have laws on the books forbidding the seizure of property from an individual so that another can develop it. You people in the other 42 need to get on the ball. As for Souter and Kennedy being conservative....too funny. Bush Senior was NOT a conservative in any regard and he did not appoint any if possible. I put him down as a RINO(Republican In Name Only) just like McCain and a slew of others. The only cons on the Court were the same ones who got voted down...Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and O'Connor. Thomas was the ONLY conservative Bush Sr. ever nominated to anything, and I'm sure it was a mistake. You'll notice that 3 of the 4 were Reagan appointees, with Rhenquist originally being placed as an associate Justice by Nixon. Remeber this the next time you vote. If you vote for people who want to give everything to you, remember where they get it from.

Only 8 states have laws on the books forbidding the seizure of property from an individual so that another can develop it. You people in the other 42 need to get on the ball. As for Souter and Kennedy being conservative....too funny. Bush Senior was NOT a conservative in any regard and he did not appoint any if possible. I put him down as a RINO(Republican In Name Only) just like McCain and a slew of others. The only cons on the Court were the same ones who got voted down...Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and O'Connor. Thomas was the ONLY conservative Bush Sr. ever nominated to anything, and I'm sure it was a mistake. You'll notice that 3 of the 4 were Reagan appointees, with Rhenquist originally being placed as an associate Justice by Nixon. Remeber this the next time you vote. If you vote for people who want to give everything to you, remember where they get it from.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." - U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.

Karlton,

Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has ruled that "public use" includes private development which will increase the tax base of a municipality. Asking your congressman or senators to "fix the problem" is misguided and simplistic. Fixing the problem at the federal level will require a constitutional amendment.

All fifty states have eminent domain laws. What the Supreme Court said in its ruling, in effect, was "Hey, if you don't like the rules, change your state laws or vote your local public officials out of office."

Although I agree that the decision is appalling, the U.S. Supreme Court is not a "rogue liberal court". In fact, two of the five Justices who voted for the decision were Republican appointees. David Souter served as George Bush's Chief of State and Anthony Kennedy is considering one of the most conservative members of the court.

Well the only way we can protect ourselves now is to CHANGE the law. We are a Democracy we have the ability to take our life's away from ROUGE liberal courts. And the LIBS want more power HA HA HA! Its not reproductive issues they want to protect on the supreme court its more power for rich liberals like Kerry. Starts in a liberal state with a liberal agenda for a liberal drug company to build a BIG development for RICH Democrats to move into.

Ask your congressman and state senator to fix the problem! All started in the most liberal part of the country and now we all have to suffer. GOD help us all!

Thanks for your report!
All of us who have a mortgage can start packing soon.
We truly ARE DOOMED.