Posted on 11/24/2004 2:14:22 PM PST by Chummy
Not for you rudypoot....
>>I'm from the government and I am here to help.<<
Mr. Government, would you help me stick this all the way up your a_ _?
BTTT!!!!!!!!
Fascism - government control of private property.
People have been so dumbed down they don't know what fascism is. Every one of these fascists should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. I've had it up to my eyeballs with politicians and bureaucrats telling property owners what they can and can't do with their property. If I owned a newspaper there the headline would be: "Fascists Steal Land Along Lakeshore." Damn pigs.
Waukesha County used to be a conservative stronghold. Soon it will look like liberal Milwaukee.
Facism is a form of government control over all the processes in a nation....to include an individual's private practices. That may include control over "private property" - but if the control of that property is to be considered facism, then we have ALWAYS had facism in this country...and it's nothing new.
The fact is, like it or hate it, that the US government HAS ALWAYS AND STILL DOES actually own nearly all property in this country. The only land actually OWNED by anyone but the government is tribal lands.
We "own" property in a very superficial sense. Yes, we have paid for it and we pay taxes on it...and we can do pretty much as we please with our "private land". However, it eventually belongs to the government...and it can be taken away.
In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for public use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.
In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.
When the government steps in and regulates use of "private property", it's sometimes a hard lump to swallow, but it's generally done with the whole "greater public good" in mind -- not saying that's completely right (a matter of opinion), but that's the case.
If, when we "buy" property, we really dig into the nuts and bolts of the process, we'll find that these facts are pointed out...albeit in a rather vague and shadowy way.
all your land are berong to us!
Actually, no, fascism hasn’t been with us forever.
I trace the start of Marxist/fascist movement in the United States to the arrival of the anarchists and red flag wavers during the great 1890-1910 immigration wave from eastern Europe. These people planted the Marxist seed, of which fascism is but a branch of the Marxist tree.
Before that time we were a constitutional republic with a strong tradition of common law. During this time you couldn’t pass a law stopping people from cutting a tree because it might affect some common good. Instead, people used common law to correct environmental problems. Real problems, mind you, not some nebulous junk science claptrap.
For example, in 1890 a copper smelter opened in a small community. The smelter bellowed dirt all about the town, soiling the womens’ linens, furniture and walls as it breezed through the community. The ladies, very angry about this matter, formed a group, walked to the local government and told the mayor about the soot and dirt soiling their homes.
The mayor acted. He walked into the smelter and related the problems of soot and dirt. He told the company that if they didn’t fix the problem, the company would be sued in local court for trespass under common law.
The next day workmen were on the chimney rigging an apparatus to catch the soot. That’s how the environment was taken care of before the advent of bureaucrats and fascism. It was the community spontaneously rising up and acting under common law to correct a problem, which is how America is supposed to work. No bureaucrats needed.
In the 1930s, Roosevelt packed the courts with assorted communists and socialists. At this point, in my opinion, courts started replacing the common law with precedence rulings.
In the Johnson/Nixon years the cult of the bureaucrat and bureaucrats writing law began. With the loss of common law, including the constitution, along with unelected bureaucrats writing, influencing and enforcing law, you now have the two necessary elements to create a fascist state - unelected bureaucrats able to ignore common law and the constitution.
The fascist model came to fruition during the Clinton years, when the Endangered Species Act and Wetlands regulations were used to create de facto government nature preserves on millions of acres of private property, with no compensation, of course. It was done under the guise of promoting the health of the commons. Many courts are in on the scam and continue allowing this theft of property under the fascist tenet - government shall control private property for the “common good,” another Marxist/fascist dictum.
Waukesha County not allowing property owners to cut trees on their own property is a perfect example of fascism. It serves no purpose other than allowing the state to exercise control over private property for some questionable common good.
Fortunately, the US Court of Claims has made two critical land use decisions which could and should cut the guts out of the eco-fascist movement across the country. Waukesha County and its stupid fascist land theft needs to pay.
In a case of eminent domain, is not the property owner paid a sum for the property? Is there not a right identified in the Constitution that addresses this?
The Pilgrims who arrived by chartered freighter and landed at Cape Cod?
Instead of Virginia where they had a right to make a settlement. Those anarchists?
I mentioned the compensation:
"In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation."
Whether or not it's identified in the Constitution, I do not know.
"So I guess we thing we pay property taxes, but we really don't?"
Nope, we rent the right to hold title and live on the property persuant to meeting certain restrictions, obligations, etc. If we don't pay the rent (taxes) they kick you out and take the property.
Who's shoreline is it? If it is the "property owner's" then that is the concequences they need to face.
We own 407 feet of shoreline on Lake James. We are NOT allowed to cut any trees over six inches in diameter. Otherwise it is a $5,000 fine.
So then you are paying waterfront taxes on property that does not extend to the water line or you are being fined for doing something to your own property. Which is it? I bet it is the latter, which would be like the government fining you for tearing down your house (I am not talking about polluting, just the act). If the trees are on your property, they are your property. The government has no business telling you what to do with it if it is not damaging the neighbors property. It is as simple as that.
It's, of course, the 5th Amendment, reading in part, "...No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." and at the 14th Amendment, reading in part, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
I'm not sure how your comment reconciles with these basic rights of ours as American citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.