What's your relationship to it?
Posted on 10/10/2005 1:08:53 PM PDT by Keith from NH
“233 Years following the “Pine Tree Riot”
By: Keith R. Lacasse, Vice-Chair of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights. October 7, 2005
We the people of Weare have a proud history of taking action to defend our rights. Back in April 1772 a group of 20 or so saw mill owners led by Ebenezer Mudgett took drastic actions to protect their private property rights, (white pine trees in this case). Back then it was made illegal to cut down or mill any white pine trees (even on your own property) without government permission and expensive permits. In one of the first acts of civil disobedience, the Weare mill owners ignored the unjust law, and were fined. To get to the point, Mr. Mudgett and his band of like-minded mill owners agreed to meet with Sheriff Whiting and Deputy Quigly (who came to collect the fines) in the morning after a good night’s sleep at Aaron Quimby’s inn. In stead of waiting until morning, Mr. Mudgett and company decided to pay the sheriff and deputy a visit earlier than previously agreed, pulled them from their beds by the arms and legs, beat them mercilessly with sticks (one whack for each tree), cut off their horses’ ears, tails, and manes, forced them to mount and rode them out of town down the streets full of jeering “well wishers”.
I wonder what these guys would have done if not only their trees were taken from them, but if there land and homes were included? I bet it wouldn’t be pretty.
Fast forward 233 years to June 23, 2005. The U.S. Supreme Court decides in Kelo v. New London, CT that it is O.K. to take private property (our homes) and give them to other private owners (developers) using the, what used to be, limited powers of Eminent Domain. As long as there is some economic benefit to the town, as simple as more tax revenue will be generated, it can be considered “public benefit”. Just like that, the 5th amendment to the Bill of Rights has been changed. Let’s all take out our copies of the U.S. Constitution and in the “Bill of Rights” amendment V. cross out the words “public use” and write in the words “public benefit”. Wow, that was easy. But wait a second, I thought I remembered it written somewhere that it is supposed to be harder than that. Oh yeah, now I remember. Don’t put away your copy of the Constitution just yet, take a look at Article V. where it talks about two thirds of both houses and three fourths of the states, etc. – cross that whole thing out too and write in “The Supreme Court can amend this Constitution whenever and however they damn please.” The ramifications of these changes are that our American Dream is in danger and up for grabs to the highest bidder, except the bids go to the politicians and you get “fair market value”.
What can we do about it? We can convince our government to reconsider this horrible decision by sending a message to one of the judges who made the bad choice to take away our rights, Weare’s own David Souter. Now I am NOT suggesting we bust in on a sleeping Mr. Souter in the middle of the night and give him a spanking, rather we need to have him live under the same rules he thinks are O.K. for everyone else. This March the voters of Weare (our legislative body) will have an historic opportunity to use the logic of the Kelo v. New London case and re-direct ownership of Mr. Souter’s home from him to a private developer to build a bed-and-breakfast in it’s place. Mr. Souter will receive “fair market value” for his property, and I’m sure a discounted rate at the newly renovated inn. I think this might be enough of a hint to our politicians that they better do something to fix this or their homes might be next.
Our American dream is at stake here and I for one am not ready to concede my private property rights or any other rights, for that matter, to the government for “public benefit”. This March we must stand together and make Ebenezer Mudgett proud!
Today in New Hampshire it's illegal to give someone a haircut or a manicure without government permission and expensive permits. I wonder if someone will take the Mudgett approach on this, instead of Mike "Outlaw Manicurist" Fisher's Ghandi approach?
Why do you think the politicians have militarized the police department like they have? They "banned" so called assault rifles from the commoners then allow PD's to get anything from the AR15/M16's to old Huey choppers from the military as surplus.
I wish you the best of luck next March.
I think it's important that some of our un-elected officials get a first-hand experience at the consequences of some of their decisions.
Right now, what do you think the voters of Weare will do?
The owner of Freestar Media, Logan Darrow Clements, has met with us and has offered his support to our cause. We are in regular communication with Logan keeping him up to date with what we are doing.
We have taken the time to poll registered voters in Weare. We asked them first if they agree or disagree with the Kelo decision, and 100% of those we polled disagree. Next we asked whether or not they would be inclined to apply the logic of the Kelo decision to Justice Souter by using eminent domain to take his property. Approximately 51% are in favor of taking Souter's property. We then asked what they would be most likely to support being built on Souter's property, and although I am not giving the result of that, or what we placed as options, we have decided to place on the ballot the "Lost Liberty Inn". 51% of the voters in Weare are willing to support our warrant article without us even beginning a public campaign. Once we start to campaign, I think it is safe to assume that number will go up. I feel pretty confident that we will win in March.
Heinlien was right:
"In a mature society, the terms 'civil servant' and 'civil master' are semantically equal."
So long as nine-tenths of the population continue to be sheep, kept fat and content by welfare and cheap consumer goods, I don't see anything changing for the better.
And when you finish that task, go over to Plainfield and see about taking Justice Breyer's property for a park. Or is that another group? Pretty handy they both have property here in NH.
Bump
The vote is in March at the Annual Town Meeting. I havent met anyone yet in NH that has told me they agree with the Kelo v. New London decision. I think in the end the vote will be a sucess.
http://www.natural-rights.org
Anyone who thinks this vote will be a lay up is not paying attention to the facts:
1) The poll Keith mentioned (and let's assume for the sake of argument that it is accurate and an unbiased sampling) shows 51% support, i.e., too close to call.
2) ALL of the Weare selectmen have made it clear they do not support Kelo, but they are equally adamant in not using a 2nd wrong to make a (property) right.
3) If the proposed hotel is DOA with the selectmen, and let's also assume they represent the views of their constituents, I would have to assume the proposal will fail in March.
NH towns, or anywhere else, do NOT like outsiders cominng in to tell them how to conduct business. Too many are imposing their wishes on the cold reality here, and as of now I would have to bet the motion will fail.
You are the second person who has mentioned that strategy to me (out of towners visiting & claiming residency). Is there any merit to it? Is it legal? How does it work? I know plenty of people that would love to take part.
As far as your comments about thinking we will fail in March. Maybe I'm an optimist, but when you start with 100% of the people in disagreement with the Kelo decision, and the only disagreement is what to do about it, I think with a little explaining and campaigning from now until March, we have a very good chance. As far as the selectman go, we might be able to replace a few of them in March as well.
I think you are missing the biggest thing that our Group has going for them... The group of people putting forth the effort, and warrent article in the town of Weare are Weare Citizens. The "outsider coming into town" is not the case.
Natural-Rights.Org is in contact with FreeStarMedia.com, but we are not doing the bidding of Mr. Darrow.
I think when the people get a chance to vote the US will see that the people of Weare belive strongly enough about Property Rights that they will send a message.
I certainly hope they send a message, but the question remains: are the Weare citizens willing to use two wrongs to make a (property) right? If they are, that means the selectmen are way out of the mainstream of political thought in town. We shall see.
But if Souter's home is seized, it would do more to reverse the activist drift of the court than any other single action. It is long overdue that politicians and judges fear the wrath of the citizens, not the other way around.
We can only wait and see what the voters of Weare do. The Selectmens' position seems to be that they do not want to be the ones taking a citizens property by eminent domain, even an out of control supreme court judge. That sounds like a good thing on the surface, but we can't guarantee that will be the opinion of the selectmen for the next 200 years. I also think the current selectman are afraid of what might happen to them if they take Justice Souter's land. I truly beleive the voters see the larger picture, not to mention it is much easier to vote anonymously to take Souter's land. Once the selectman see the will of the voters on the warrant article, they might re-think their positions.
Your last sentence sounds a lot like Thomas Paine who said, "When the government fears the prople, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny." It is time to claim some liberty back.
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.