What's all this noise about some Supreme Court property decision?
This must be just a short note. I am gathering material to pull a terrible happening and responses to it together, and that will take a while. The event occurred 23 June 2005 when the Supreme Court of the United States attacked the roots of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. It was a day that shall live in infamy. What happens from here could determine whether the United States of America makes it to the 22nd century as a republic run on democratic methodology.
In a five to four, rancorously split decision, the Supreme Court turned private property over to the philosophy of pragmatism by nullifying each citizen's right to his property. It has been the Constitutionally mandated role of the American government to protect that right for all citizens, and previously actions have been confined to "eminent domain" for public use. Eminent domain has been a bad flaw in the Constitution, and it became the springboard for Leftist Supreme Court judges to dive through on 23 June 2005.
Many writers and talk radio personnel are properly furious, and they are properly furious generally about the right meanings. None, however, so far gets down to the root issues.
Pragmatists believe something is right if it works (in hindsight), so they think the Supreme Court did the right and benevolent thing because the Court put the "benefit to the" community, the group, the collective first. A la Utilitarianism, another rotten philosophy, the Court declared that the decision provides the greatest good for the greatest number.
This is just another reason why it is essential for all Americans to be able to think about their own philosophies for living and living together in terms of principles.
Here is just a glimpse into what the 23 June 2005 Supreme Court decision really means to each and every INDIVIDUAL American. It establishes collectivism as the social-political-and-economic basis for America instead of capitalism. It erases the sovereignty of the individual, who now exists at the whim of the local, state, national government.
Vile changes will not happen overnight. Right now, New London, Ct., is affected, and that is a long way away from most people. So people will be lulled into thinking that all the talk about a cataclysm is just so much "sky falling." Unless reversed, this decision, however, will serve as precedent which will slowly gather the force of law. Those unable to think in principles will not grasp the significance of this decision, the incremental changes to America, or resist on principle. They will not grasp that this decision puts us in the same category as socialist states, whether democratic socialist, fascist, Nazi, communist, or Islamic. Shut your eyes, ears, and mind, and you shall have it.
How can these be the meanings? You have to know what rights mean. [We have been working on elucidating these more and more on our website 6th Column Against Jihad--check it out.] The right to property is one of the fundamental Rights of Man. The right to property is how you preserve, protect, sustain, and further your life and your personal persuit to happiness. To put it bluntly, when you abrogate a man's right to property, you abrogate his right to life. That is total loss of individual sovereignty.
No other nation on earth upheld the sovereign rights of humans to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness other than America. Yesterday, the Supreme Court put Americans on equal footing with every other human on earth whose rights are blocked by groups including governments.
If you needed a good example of judicial activism, well, here is a super-sized one. In principle, you are no longer safe in America. In principle, you belong to the state. You must let this sink in. The realization belongs to the march of time.
You and I along with millions of others must reverse this. Freedom requires no less of us. Not only does the old saw say that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but it is hard work as well. The payoff is spectacular, a major moral and political triumph, in the march of mankind to free himself from mankind.
What happened on 23 June 2005 stands with significance along with 11 September 2001 and 7 December 1941. Only this time, the attack came from within.
In a five to four, rancorously split decision, the Supreme Court turned private property over to the philosophy of pragmatism by nullifying each citizen's right to his property. It has been the Constitutionally mandated role of the American government to protect that right for all citizens, and previously actions have been confined to "eminent domain" for public use. Eminent domain has been a bad flaw in the Constitution, and it became the springboard for Leftist Supreme Court judges to dive through on 23 June 2005.
Many writers and talk radio personnel are properly furious, and they are properly furious generally about the right meanings. None, however, so far gets down to the root issues.
Pragmatists believe something is right if it works (in hindsight), so they think the Supreme Court did the right and benevolent thing because the Court put the "benefit to the" community, the group, the collective first. A la Utilitarianism, another rotten philosophy, the Court declared that the decision provides the greatest good for the greatest number.
This is just another reason why it is essential for all Americans to be able to think about their own philosophies for living and living together in terms of principles.
Here is just a glimpse into what the 23 June 2005 Supreme Court decision really means to each and every INDIVIDUAL American. It establishes collectivism as the social-political-and-economic basis for America instead of capitalism. It erases the sovereignty of the individual, who now exists at the whim of the local, state, national government.
Vile changes will not happen overnight. Right now, New London, Ct., is affected, and that is a long way away from most people. So people will be lulled into thinking that all the talk about a cataclysm is just so much "sky falling." Unless reversed, this decision, however, will serve as precedent which will slowly gather the force of law. Those unable to think in principles will not grasp the significance of this decision, the incremental changes to America, or resist on principle. They will not grasp that this decision puts us in the same category as socialist states, whether democratic socialist, fascist, Nazi, communist, or Islamic. Shut your eyes, ears, and mind, and you shall have it.
How can these be the meanings? You have to know what rights mean. [We have been working on elucidating these more and more on our website 6th Column Against Jihad--check it out.] The right to property is one of the fundamental Rights of Man. The right to property is how you preserve, protect, sustain, and further your life and your personal persuit to happiness. To put it bluntly, when you abrogate a man's right to property, you abrogate his right to life. That is total loss of individual sovereignty.
No other nation on earth upheld the sovereign rights of humans to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness other than America. Yesterday, the Supreme Court put Americans on equal footing with every other human on earth whose rights are blocked by groups including governments.
If you needed a good example of judicial activism, well, here is a super-sized one. In principle, you are no longer safe in America. In principle, you belong to the state. You must let this sink in. The realization belongs to the march of time.
You and I along with millions of others must reverse this. Freedom requires no less of us. Not only does the old saw say that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but it is hard work as well. The payoff is spectacular, a major moral and political triumph, in the march of mankind to free himself from mankind.
What happened on 23 June 2005 stands with significance along with 11 September 2001 and 7 December 1941. Only this time, the attack came from within.
posted by George Mason @ 6/24/2005 08:10:00 AM
1 Comments:
At Fri Jun 24, 09:18:00 PM PDT,
Always On Watch said…
Are you familiar with the analogy of the frog in the water? As long as the water is gradually heated up, the frog won't jump out; over time, he gets cooked and doesn't even know what's happened.
Yesterday's court decision will first be applied to New London, Connecticut and possibly to Anacostia, D.C. (the ballpark project). The average American will not be worried. "The revival of these areas benefit the community" will be the prevailing comment.
But, as you allude to in your commentary, once rights are eroded, bigger steps are taken over time. How long will it take for yesterday's decision to impact property owners in the suburbs?
I live on a lot which developers want to acquire, and a nicer home here would certainly bring in more revenue for the county. Can that increased revenue be justification for exercising eminent domain? Maybe not immediately, maybe not in my lifetime, but I predict that the likelihood is great that yesterday's decision will be extended to deprive individuals of the right to own private property in prime areas.
Now, maybe what I'm about to say is reaching a bit, but bear with me. Here where I live, many of the larger developers are Muslim-owned companies. Already, we county residents know that such developers have an "in" with the zoning board and can get approval of building projects when other smaller companies cannot. I know whereof I speak, because the only developers interested in my prime suburban lot are those which are Muslim-owned. And the house in which I live, my grandmother's house which dates back to pre-WWII days, doesn't fit in very well with the new McMansions which surround me now. Right now, I have the choice as to whether or not to sell to any developer. But will the day come when the county exercises eminent domain and forces me to sell? And at what price? Just who determines what is the fair price?
The decision of June 23 is a dangerous blow to our right to private property. Yet the news blabs on about other insignificant matters which won't matter a few years from now.
Post a Comment
<< Home