Free Republic

The very symbol of the freedoms we enjoy in America is represented by the Statue of Liberty. However, after 123 years, one gets the impression that her birthday aint much to celebrate! NOTE: The author of this comic requests that you visit his web site and please refrain from copying this cartoon within this thread. Thanks!

After trillions in taxpayer debt has been foolishly poured into the bottomless black hole of leftist wealth redistribution programs, under the guise of economic “stimulus” or “stabilization” legislation, the new “ONE World” government running Washington DC announces; Geithner, Bernanke Call for New Wind-Down Powers After AIG… and the people still sit silent as they watch Obamanation grow in unbridled power. Geithner Asks Congress for even Broader Power to Seize private Firms as the average American stumbles through their daily routine as if nothing is happening. Canada Free Press managing editor Judi McLeod writes No cheerleader for propping up greenback at...

First let me say - - it most certainly is an “obsession.” At least, given the verbal assaults that come my way when I so much as raise a question about the President's policies, it most certainly seems like an "obsession" to me. “Obsession,” by the way, is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.” And doesn’t it seem that to you that many of our fellow Americans are “obsessed” with the “persistent idea” that our 44th President, Barack Obama, is something more than human? It may be...

The real toxic assets on Wall Street are the people who run Wall Street. Their boundless recklessness and their grotesque desire to be enriched for that recklessness are what have brought this country to its current sorry state. Some think the wolves of Wall Street don't get it. Some think they are out of touch with ordinary Americans, who work hard and play by the rules and don't understand such naked greed. But the wolves do get it. That's the problem. They get it just fine. Because the way the system is set up, they cannot lose. If you are...

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies...

Who’s going to duck and cover on the Second Amendment debate that’s really getting wound up since the Supreme Court of the United States decided to rule on District of Columbia vs. Heller, or more commonly known as the D.C. Gun Ban? It seems that the republican candidates are getting involved and are at least letting voters know how they interpret the Second Amendment. The democrats seems mum on the issue, maybe because they know that gun rights can be politically deadly. The debate hitting all the media outlets still seems to be on the interpretation of “A well-regulated militia...

Jose Goitia for The New York Times A tourist looked at Che Guevara post cards for sale in in Sanata Clara, Cuba. Jose Goitia for The New York Times Raúl Castro with Aleida Guevara March, right, daughter of Che Guevara, and Aleida March, center, Che’s widow, at a ceremony Monday for the 40th anniversary of Che’s death. SANTA CLARA, Cuba, Oct. 8 — Aleida Guevara March, the 46-year-old daughter of Che Guevara, says she can bear the Che T-shirts, the Che keychains, the Che postcards and Che paintings sold all over Cuba, not to mention the world. At least...

Declaring immigration reform a national-security and “defining” issue, Sen. Edward Kennedy yesterday vowed that supporters will resume their push for a controversial bill later this week in the Senate. Kennedy, speaking at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Park Plaza Hotel, denounced “naysayers” of the comprehensive bill that has drawn criticism from both sides of the political spectrum for either being too lax or too tough toward illegal immigrants. “I think that this issue is sort of the defining issue for our country,” Kennedy said. The American people will probably come around to appreciate the bill’s virtues,...

The Inside Story On What's Happening With The Senate Immigration Bill Yesterday, a GOP aide, who is one of my sources in the Senate, gave me the rundown on what's happening with the Senate immigration bill (this is the same person who I talked to last week about the bill). First off, it does look like the Senate immigration bill is coming back. The conventional wisdom seems to be that it's going to be brought up right before the July 4th break, so that the Senate Republican leadership can try to use that as leverage to get votes (in other...

Reflection.. on all men being created equal. I want to preface this note with one disclaimer... this is in no way, shape or form yet another George W. Bush justification. This clearly comes from the mind of markbureau! I was walking down Peachtree Street in Atlanta today (I am still there, by the way) coming from the Credit Union heading for a bite to eat when this, for lack of a better term, toothless, filthy bum approached me and just shouted .... "End the War, Stamp out Bush".

In honor of Bastille Day, I have decided to dedicate this column to that proverbial fly in the world's ointment, France. I suppose "honor" is the wrong word to use. Bastille Day signified the birth of le republique and the beginning of the end of le ancien regime, which wasn't necessarily a good thing for France or the rest of Europe. While this commentary is going to seem harsh, I would like to say that I am quite proud of my French heritage. France was the home of my paternal ancestors, though it was a very different place when Jean-Baptiste...

Institute for Justice Property Rights Cases: New London, CT Back to page -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case Institute for Justice Warns: Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers WEB RELEASE: June 23, 2005 CONTACT: John Kramer (202) 955-1300 [Private Property] Susette Kelo: "I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests." Scott Bullock: “With today’s ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent...

A holdout in a developer's bid to acquire property for a shopping center is having her day in court. A hearing on whether the city has the right to take the home of June Thompson by eminent domain was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon before St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Timothy Wilson.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17162 Utah Bans Eminent Domain Use by Redevelopment Agencies Written By: Henry Lamb Published In: Environment News Publication Date: June 1, 2005 Publisher: The Heartland Institute Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (R) on March 17 signed into law Senate Bill 184, effectively preventing the exercise of eminent domain authority by redevelopment agencies, which otherwise had the power to transfer land from one private entity to another. Local governments may still use eminent domain for more traditionally defined and understood "public purposes." First State Legislature to Act Utah appears to be the first state to take legislative action to curb the...

Kennedy's Vast Domain June 24, 2005; Page A12 The Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses. CUT CUT So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In...

I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law. What ruling? Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country. Background. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain. It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of...

<p>The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did Thursday.</p>

I wrote a book a few years ago about property rights. It was called, "This Land Is Our Land." I didn't think of it as an optimistic book at the time. But after yesterday's chilling U.S. Supreme Court ruling that government can seize our property against our will for no other reason than it capriciously chooses to do so, the title is certainly no longer accurate. We do not own our property any more in America. Imagine the home you own – the one you scrimped and saved your entire life to purchase, the one you planned on living in...

I am not the vanity posting type, nor am I usually an alarmist but this latest USSC ruling taking away our private property rights for increasted tax revenue... it is impossible to put into words the impact this is going to have on our country. One area I'm interested in getting feedback on is that of Religious organizations and property tax. Obvouisly states can choose on their own to tax religious organizations if that is what they really wanted -- but that would probably not go over well as a state wide issue. But now, with eminent domain expanded, local...

Today, June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court totally defied history, abdicated their duty to insure justice, ignored our Constitution and trashed the rights of We the People by depriving us of our right to private ownership of property.

Beginning his oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London, the Connecticut eminent-domain case the Supreme Court took up last week, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly: “Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall,” he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again. That’s...

Beatrice Lambert, a 63-year-old legal secretary, worries about losing her cats, Tinkerbell and Abigail, and the garden she dedicated to her late son, if she's forced to sell the mobile home she's lived in for 20 years. Joe Depamphilis, a 39-year-old handyman with a failing kidney and an ailing mother, is concerned he won't find affordable storage space for the tools he has amassed over two decades. "We're worried about losing a way of life," said Lambert, a resident of Brown's Trailer Court. "We put down our roots here," Depamphilis said. What Lambert and Depamphilis see as home, borough officials...

U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.

Monday, July 30, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal EDITORIAL: 'Unconstitutional taking' Courts across the country moving to curb abuse of eminent domain Finally, a number of courts around the country are starting to set limits on the municipal use of eminent domain to favor one private property owner over another. Eminent domain, of course, is supposed to be used to seize private property (subject to payment of full compensation) only in the case of a true "public use" -- for roads and firehouses, things like that. Las Vegas has its own examples of abuse of this authority, as when...

Justice Thomas, dissenting. Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that “the law of the land … postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134—135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but instead for “public use.” Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a “ ‘[P]ublic [P]urpose’ ” Clause, ante, at 9—10 (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)),...

RIGHT TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY 1. Whereas the power to tax is the power to destroy; Tax on all property, real and personal, except as income or on sale or transfer, above one-tenth of one percent per annum shall be prohibited. 2. The taking of property by eminent domain shall only be by just compensation for the purpose of the erection of public infrastructure. 3. Public property that is sold or otherwise converted to private use within 20 years shall first be offered to its original owner(s) or their heirs in substantially its original condition at its original price...

Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes HOPE YEN Associated Press WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights. Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas....

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04—108SUSETTE KELO, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OFNEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT [June 23, 2005]     Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.     In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.” 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507 (2004). In assembling the land...

Senator Tom McClintock released the following statement on the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut. McClintock to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights “Today the U.S. Supreme Court broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights. Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.” “The responsibility now falls on the various...

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court gave local governments broad power today to bulldoze homes and other private property to make way for business development, a ruling that could encourage more city-backed plans to replace small stores with big-box retailers. The 5-4 ruling upheld a plan by officials in a coastal Connecticut town to condemn nine homes of longtime residents that would be replaced with an office complex and a marina. The dispute between the homeowners and the city officials became a classic test of government power versus individual rights. It pitted a community's hopes for economic rebirth against an individual's...

On June 23, 2005, a divided US Supreme Court stunned most Americans when it ruled 5-4 that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision awaited by both local governments and property owners. The case under consideration was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for a private office complex re. Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for public projects such as roads or schools. As of this...

Some say the dogs were a victim of progress. Others suggest it was a test of wills, and the little dogs simply succumbed to the bigger dogs. But many who were munching on the $1.84 hot dog and fries combo Friday night were less concerned with what killed this celebrated and scruffy little hot dog stand under the Fullerton L station than with the fact it was the last time they'd ever walk through its door. After work. Or headed to a Cubs game. Or just to grab a quick lunch. At age 22, Demon Dogs, of Lincoln Park, is...

BEGINNING his oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London, the Connecticut eminent-domain case the Supreme Court took up last week, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly: ‘‘Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall,’’ he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again. That’s...

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain. The city of New London has fallen on hard times. In 1998 - when its population was at its lowest since 1920,...

NEW LONDON, Conn. -- On Bill Von Winkle's side of town, word of the Supreme Court decision spread like the news of a passing relative. His cell phone rang incessantly. "Hello," he answered. "Yeah, we lost. I know, hard to believe, huh?" No sooner had he hung up the phone than his letter carrier walked by. "Need a hug?" he asked. Von Winkle is one of seven homeowners who learned Thursday that the city's plan to demolish their working class neighborhood in the name of economic development is constitutional. On the other side of town, city leaders cheered the decision,...

In "House of Cards" (Orange County Register, 2/27/05), Steven Greenhut worries that the U.S. Supreme Court will make yet another of its colossal blunders--this time damaging the Constitution's important provision on eminent domain. Due to an epidemic of instances where municipal, state and federal governments have taken private property from a private owner to deliver over to another private party, one of these cases, Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.), finally has found its way to the Supreme Court. Not that this is a new subject for the Supremes. It was in 1954, when the Court upheld an urban...

THE country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did Thursday. Most conservatives hoped that, in the most important case the court would decide this term, judicial activism would put a leash on popularly elected local governments and would pull courts more deeply into American governance in order to protect the rights of individuals. On Thursday, conservatives were disappointed. The case came...

To: U. S. Congress PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVENCES We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices: John Paul Stevens Anthony Kennedy David H. Souter Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen G. Breyer We, the undersigned, consider the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, 04-108, rendered June 23, 2005, not only unacceptable, but to be in criminal violation of the Justice's oaths to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Be advised that We the People...

After decision, an amendment is quickly proposed to limit powers of eminent domain Texas' cultural commitment to private property rights surfaced quickly Thursday as a state legislator moved to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments may seize land for private development. Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation. Houston Mayor Bill White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels offered assurances...

Cities may now seize homes and businesses and hand them over to private developers to raise tax revenue. That's what the Supreme Court decided yesterday in Kelo v. New London, a 5-4 ruling that strips Connecticut homeowner Susette Kelo and several others of their homes and land. By siding with New London, the court drastically expands traditional eminent-domain powers beyond highways and fighting urban blight. This is a resounding defeat for ordinary landowners and a threat to property rights. Homeowners now own their homes only if the government wants them to.

PRESS RELEASE Supreme Court Rules Government can seize your home ALEXANDRIA , VA – The American Conservative Union, the nation's oldest and largest Conservative grass roots organization, sharply condemned today’s highly controversial 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that local governments may use eminent domain to take people’s homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers. The case, titled Kelo et al v. City of New London, was brought by homeowners in New London, Connecticut where officials plan to tear down a neighborhood community near the Thames river to make way for an office complex. City planners, backed by the...

The Supreme Court yesterday said cities can seize people's homes or businesses to make way for private commercial development such as shopping malls, a far-reaching ruling decried by property rights advocates. By a 5-4 vote, the justices for the first time said governments can take private property and give it to developers citing eminent domain, a practice historically used for public highway projects.

Many Americans are perplexed that it was the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court, and not the conservatives, who voted 5-4 to affirm Kelo v. City of New London. The decision allows local governments to seize homes and businesses and hand them over to private developers. It shouldn't surprise. Liberals, like their socialist friends, have never been too keen on private property rights. It has been Conservatives that have historically looked out for the rights of the property owner and the taxpayer. Indeed the liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is so determined to give government more authority over...

Property-rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court's split decision yesterday allowing a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's will for the purpose of private development. The 5-4 ruling went against the owners of New London, Conn., homes targeted for destruction to make room for an office complex. The American Conservative Union, the nation's oldest and largest conservative grass-roots organization, noted many of the affected citizens have deep roots in their community, including a married couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years. "It is outrageous to think that...

If any of you are doubting what the judicial fight is all about, go read the link above, it contains a monograph of Thomas Sowells thesis written in 1989, and states clearly that judges are clearly out of bounds in some of their decisions.

"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." -- Thomas Jefferson One of the most powerful weapons at the ACLU's disposal is that of judicicial activism. Considering that the ACLU is an elitist organization lacking in respect to the democratic process, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised with the methods it uses to achieve its goals. But few seem to be aware of the power behind the quiet, behind-the-scenes, high profile cases filed by the ACLU. "If the ACLU is truly concerned about issues of...

I think when we see the blind hatred, and baseless rage of liberals, the best place to take solace are in the words of one of the Greatest American Presidents Ronald Reagan: "We've come to a moment in our history when party labels are unimportant. Little men with loud voices cry doom, saying little is good in America. hey create fear and uncertainty among us. Millions of Americans, especially our own sons and daughters, are seeking a cause they can believe in. There is a hunger in this country today-a hunger for spiritual guidance. People yearn once again to be...

The BBC report on the racist police recruits has given new ammunition to those who are curbing our legitimate freedoms, says Leo McKinstryIn our modern secular society, we pride ourselves on our supposed tolerance. We sneer at the bigotry of the past, wondering how the monstrous cruelty of events such as the Spanish Inquisition could ever have occurred. But we should not be so smug. For in Britain today we have our own powerful creed — multiculturalism — which is imposed on the public by a political establishment that is brimming with self-righteous fervour. And anyone refusing to accept this...

The Alliance of Liberty Meet the UN's replacement Would the McDonald's Corporation make an appropriate sponsor for a seminar on obesity? Should Bacardi be providing refreshments at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings? If Bill Clinton offered you marital advice, would you take it? Unless you're a fat, drunk adulterer or a former president, I assume your answer to each of those questions is no. I also assume you wouldn't let Iraq run a conference on disarmament, or let Libya lead a human rights commission. You might not. But the United Nations would. Yes, the United Nations--whose purported purpose is "to reaffirm faith...

"UN Expresses Concern over US Senate Election" UN Secretary General Kofi Annan "The people must have a choice for any election to be fair. Any attempts by the opposing Republican party to prevent a replacement for Senator Toricelli would be a grave strike against democracy. I will personally meet with the NJ Atty General to ensure a suitable replacement is allowed to participate. The eyes of the world are upon the United States. Tomorrow I will also unleash my robot execudrones, such as the one behind me here, to issue painful but well-intentioned physical threats to everybody concerned."