View Full Version : "Throwing us out of our Homes!!"

06-24-2005, 07:58 AM

For crying in a bucket, what is next?

Search and seize at airports, national landmarks; entering your home without warrant; invading Iraq based on lies; kicking you out of your home for "economic development" purposes as the Supreme Court ruled yesterday!!

Yes, I'm sure "economic development" is a very good reason to displace people!!

Certainly, the government has the people's best interest in mind, eh with this ruling?

When will they disarm us?

When is curfew coming?

When will they open the first concentration camp??


What a bunch of Nazi's!!

In Peace,

06-24-2005, 04:12 PM
Alex Jones had a few choice words on the matter:

Supreme Court Rules That No One Owns Their Home

Gives free reign to roving land barons, their agents and banks

Private property rights are the foundation of freedom. Now developers can pay off your local politicians and then come in and steal your property without even giving you best use price. Imagine middle class neighborhoods across America being bulldozed because developers have written up a proposal for making more money off of your property. Either it's your property or it isn't.

The United States is simply going back to feudalism. In medieval England, before the Magna Carta, in 1214 the local lord would decide what you could and could not do with the King's property.

This ruling overturns 800 years of common law and common sense. It butchers the Bill of Rights. To put it frankly, it's gone.

So many Americans are asking why the Justices would make such a decision, overtly, 180 degrees away from freedom. That's the point. It's in your face.

The big police state dog is off the porch, and they think there is nothing you can do about it.

The all-powerful Imperial State has thrown down the gauntlet. They have slapped the American people upside the head and brutally raped us, and we have put up with it. So, now they're placing what's left of American freedom on a spit so they can roast and eat us.

The founding fathers said over and over again that the level of tyranny under which we will live is the exact amount that we will accept. A group of hard-core criminals has gained control of our society. They could care less about the future of this country or the general public's welfare. What we are witnessing is a mad gold rush of corrupt politicians and corporations strip-mining western society.

We are being looted and sacked like ancient Rome by a heard of blood-thirsty

The only difference is the barbarians of today have high-tech public relation firms and cable news channels launching their psychological warfare barrages: "lie down, lie down, don't resistGovernment loves you. Give up liberty for security..Tasering 82-Year-old Alzheimer patients is good..Mercury in vaccines is nutritious..Open borders means safety..Submit to us..Trust us..We don't lie.."

The fact is, just because the Supreme Court says we don't have any property
rights doesn't mean it's true. A previous court ruled that black Americans were not human beings and thus had no rights. Would you follow a similar decree today?

Despots know the power of setting precidents. That's why they've been bragging about their unprecedented ruling. I for one am glad that the mask is beginning to slide from the demon's face. They've been land-grabbing for a long time. Now it's just going to be more overt. So let it come, and let everybody know what you are: a pack of wolves, a pack of criminals, a pack of liars, and a pack of scum.

06-24-2005, 08:38 PM
I have to ponder the question as to why the conservative supremes would vote NAY!!

Okay, I pondered.....

SO, it would APPEAR TO BE A LIBERAL DECISION by the Supremes.

Any objections???

GAWD, what GAWD awful people we have in such positions of power!!

In Peace,

06-28-2005, 08:17 AM
The SUPREMES have decided in the past, no prayer in school.

However, it is okay to have "In God we Trust" printed on our currency and for prayer to begin legislative sessions.

Now, the ten commandments disallowed at federal buildings, but okay in Texas at a park!!

And, who is part of the NWO?

In Peace,

06-29-2005, 11:30 AM
Justifying the Glorious Revolution of 1688, John Locke advanced natural-rights theory of government. He argued that all just governments are founded on consent and are designed solely to protect people in their inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being.
“In one key respect Jefferson used Natural Law instead of natural-rights theory, substituting "the pursuit of happiness" for "property" in the trinity of inalienable rights. In this change, derived from the Swiss legal philosopher Emerich de Vattel, he emphasized public duty rather than (as the language seems to indicate) personal choice, for natural law theory is that happiness is attainable only by diligent cultivation of civic virtue.”
Note that Vattel’s view of property clashes with Locke. For Vattel - The nation may alienate its public property: “THE nation, being the sole mistress of the property in her possession, may dispose of it as she thinks proper, and may lawfully alienate or mortgage it. This right is a necessary consequence of the full and absolute domain: the exercise of it is restrained by the law of nature only with respect to proprietors who have not the use of reason necessary for the management of their affairs; which is not the case with a nation. Those who think otherwise, cannot allege any solid reason for their opinion; and it would follow from their principles that no safe contract can be entered into with any nation; - a conclusion which attacks the foundation of all public treaties.”
The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution specifically references property thusly: “ . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Even the most simple of minds can understand the meaning of private property being taken for public use. Heretofore the public nominally accepted that the United States honors the rule of law. After the KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. decision, the supreme court has demonstrated decisively and for all times that the legal system has become a Vattelian harbinger of regal predictability. If the constitution deemed the relevance of recognizing private property as an essential right and empowered eminent domain solely for public use, with just compensation; by what stretch of credulity should a reasonable man conclude that we still live in a country that adheres to the most fundamental principles of national creation?
Recognize from the outset that natural rights are not conferred by a court, a legislature, a head of state or even by a constitution. For a right to be ordained it must be inherent in man’s nature. The five judges Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer inextricably prove that they are tools of an oppressive autocracy bent on eradicating the last vestige of citizen sovereignty. Dissenting Justice O'Connor sums up the lawful revulsion precisely: “Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
Appreciate the reality that the mantra of a government under the law is a myth. The mere fact that Chief Justice John Marshall set into motion the primacy of judicial review doomed this nation to the whims of arrogant black robed tyrants. The fact that citizens accept this fraud and so easily surrender their God given created endowments attests to the cowardly and gutless moral fiber that runs in the veins of spineless serfs that bow to a corrupt and illegitimate government.
If the favored noble is the only knight worthy of owning property, the feudal realm will strip the land and steal the soul from every ordinary citizen that deems to reside in their own castle. If the “public good” is left to be defined, exclusively by beneficial use for the government and their crony patrons, we have lost the very purpose of our country. Allowing adjudicators to interpret language, much less basic rights, is like giving the keys to your house to the tax assessor so their civic planning bureaucrat compatriot can gain access to redesign the best use for your home for the advantage of the State. If this is free enterprise, give us chaos . . . liberty seems to foreign for the guardians of the public trust!
Losing your home to the corporate/state partnership bulldozer should get your blood boiling. How many of the docile populace will just accept a valueless check and move on? The answer is apparent, the outrage talk will be prevalent, while the overt action will be nil. Unless the fundamental injustice is resolved, the courts will just continue their robbery of your sacred heritage. When will the breaking point come – when will the public go postal? The time is so far overdue for direct confrontation and the necessary removal of the ill gotten fraudulent authority of judges and their fake legal sham that if folks refuse to rebel over the loss of their residence, just what will it take to rise up against the despots?
It can be said that radical proponents of Locke’s natural-rights theory justified civil disobedience whenever government encroached on any of the specified rights. Even the more conservative Jefferson held that resistance is justified only when a consistent course of policy shows an unmistakable design to establish tyranny. Look to your heart and conclude that radical action is proper, appropriate and necessary to restore individual dignity and reclaim our traditional heritage. The rule of law is dead. The age of corporate/state despotism can now sentence you to tenant lessee status in a public housing project. Your own citadel of refuge from the barbarians at your gate can now be forfeited. The sheriff, under orders from the Star Chamber high court can now escort you from your home to make room for governmental progress. The bastion of your family can now become the graveyard of dreams for the greed of favored contributors.
Is this what America was intended to be all about? Or are you willing to exist under the Vattel mistress model of the property that now extends to any choice location that advances the landholding of the State? Even Vattel acknowledges limits on confiscation: “The general rule then is, that the superior cannot dispose of the public property, as to its substance - the right to do this being reserved to the proprietor alone, since proprietorship is defined to be the right to dispose of a thing substantially. If the superior exceeds his powers with respect to this property, the alienation he makes of it will be invalid, and may at any time be revoked by his successor, or by the nation.” If KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON doesn’t deserve to be revoked, what would! The classic liberal revolution fought by our founding fathers was meant to establish a Jeffersonian vision of “the pursuit of happiness” for individuals – NOT GOVERNMENT. That cause was waged to protect property rights for every citizen, not just the connected and privileged few.
Eminent domain acquisition should be strictly limited, rarely implemented and always have a clear, direct and distinct public use benefit. Kangaroo courts do not have the tolerable authority to destroy our property rights. Protect your castle, lay siege on the judiciary and throw them into the dungeon – a chamber fitting for their treachery.

06-29-2005, 02:46 PM
There is news of a libertarian moving to take Souther's house in New Hampshire by emminent domain. The proposal is to tear the house down and build a hotel that would be a greater taxable income to the town rather that this justice's house. Best idea I've heard of in a long time. Would it be possible to get a group together and do the same thing to the other "justices" who voting in this Hitlarian law. I and many others would be willing to donate money even to this kind of effort.

06-30-2005, 07:53 AM
Clarence Thomas, Atonin Scalia and O'Connor dissented.


"The fallout from this decision will not be random."

The winners, she wrote, "are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process."


Thomas reminded his colleagues that so-called "urban renewal" programs had historically bulldozed minorities and the poor.

"And even if people are paid well for their homes, Thomas wrote, no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them."

The dissenting justices - outnumbered, 5-4 - seemed shocked that their otherwise intelligent colleagues had such blind faith in politicians acting on good intentions.


"The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more," O'Connor tersely concluded.

"The Founders cannot have intened this perverse result."

Mayor Tim Kreischer in Ventnor, loves to talk about his redevelopment plans for the neighborhood between the ocean and the bay.

He wants to demolish 126 buildings, mom and pop shops, $200,000 homes, and makeshift apartments housing casino workers and erect sleek luxury condos, high end specialty sotres, and a parking garage.

He beat one lawsuit and has one to go.

Taken from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In Peace,

06-30-2005, 07:59 AM
That is so funny!!

Re: Mother Fucking Eminent Domain. Hey, that wasn't the title of my thread.

Don't make it look like I have a "gutter mouth."

Minuteman's reply is hysterical. Are the rumors true???

I wonder how that would work if it was attempted?

In Peace,

06-30-2005, 11:20 AM
Even though this guy may be not entirely on the up and up I admire his initiative.

07-01-2005, 05:36 PM
By: Alan Stang
A couple of days after the recent Communist ruling by five injudicious scumbags on the U.S. Extreme Court, I interviewed Michael Cristofaro on my national talk show, the Sting of Stang. Mike is one of their victims in New London, Connecticut, which the court has now allowed the local government to despoil in collusion with developers who have more money and clout than he does.
Mike told my listeners that the confiscators have been perpetrating a literal reign of terror, including telephone calls at all hours, invasion of his property, threats and intimidations, including a warning that if the Cristofaros didn’t yield they would get little or no money, bull dozers revving up so early in the morning that the families couldn’t sleep, with the result that his mother suffered a heart attack.
The Cristofaros came to this country from Italy the old fashioned way, legally, in 1962, thanking God for bringing them to a place where they could own property. In 1971, the city of New London stole their first home. The unindicted perjurers who ran the city told them their property was needed to build a sea wall. The city stole the property, via eminent domain, but never did build the wall.
This time, of course, the claim jumpers didn’t even bother to lie. I asked Mike Cristofaro where we go from here. He said that despite the Extreme Court he and other families are not going anywhere. "This property is ours." Suppose the land grabbers send men in black, labeled S.W.A.T., I asked. "Then we’ll rely on the Second Amendment," said Mike. He didn’t amplify, but I got his drift.
When the mercenary thugs do show up to show off, will they find the Cristofaros and others sitting on the porch with ye old twelve gauge widow maker across their knees? Will the shot heard ‘round the world be fired again, this time not in Lexington, but in New London? I pray not, but the hair on the back of my neck is standing up.
One of the victims is 93. Another couple has lived in their home for fifty years. Why did the soviet of New London do it? To improve the city? Remember the sea wall fiasco of 1971. Or did somebody in Pfizer pharmaceuticals or one of the other invading envelopers make a sizeable contribution to the soviet’s "favorite charity?" If the laser like investigation this grand theft deserves does not uncover something of considerable value changing hands beneath the conference table, I shall be astounded.
What happens now? Now, the slime oozes out of the woodwork and from under the flat rocks. As city council members from everywhere roll craps on vacation in Vegas, they will tell themselves this is the best job they ever had. Confrontations like the one coming in New London will erupt across the country. The next phase of the revolution is already much bigger than a man’s hand.
A word should be said about the Extreme Court. This is the body that says we must rely on foreign law, which amounts to saying that people in other countries who do not share our system or beliefs—people who have no stake in the United States—should have more say about what happens in our country than the people who live here. But the Extreme Court members who say we must do as other nations do, ignore the fact that no other nation gives foreign law more clout than its own.
Prevaricator-in-chief Smirk’s factotums in the conspiracy for world government say we must keep electing Republicruds like him, however dissatisfied we are, because of judicial appointments. Republicrud Presidents, we are told, appoint "conservatives" like themselves. Really? Who appointed the majority that ruled New London could kick the Cristofaros out?
Republicrud President Ford appointed Stevens. Maybe Gerry wasn’t wearing his football helmet at the time. Republicrud President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy, who loves foreign law. Republicrud President Bush I appointed Souter, a bachelor who has never had a hankering for girls. Disbarred Democrud liar Clinton, an unindicted perjurer, appointed Breyer and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, one of the ugliest feminoids on the planet.
I mention that fact only because ugliness of such magnitude does not occur in nature. Ruthie isn’t a victim. That is how she wants to look. It probably takes considerable effort to look so frightful. Ruthie comes to her job from the anti-American Communist Liars Union, where she was chief counsel, and which was founded by Communists to impose Communism on the United States.
So, three of the five votes to confiscate your property were cast by judicial commissars appointed by Republicrud Presidents. What was that you said about the need to elect Republicruds? Remember that in the appellate vote to kill Terri Schindler, the only judge who voted for her was appointed by a Democrud. All the Republicrud judges voted to kill the blameless lady.
Now remember Plank One of the Communist Manifesto: government control of all property in land. According to Marx, that is the very first requirement of Communism. What does the Extreme Court’s New London ruling arrange? Government control of all property in land.
It started with zoning, which the Court approved in 1921. Zoning is another name for Communism. It continued with environmentalism. It ends with outright government ownership of the land. Communism of course is a variety of socialism. So is Fascism. In Fascism, whoever has the most money and influence has the rights and makes the rules. That is the system the Extreme Court is installing now.
Consider that government—federal, state and local—owns almost half the territory of the United States outright and is grabbing more daily. Government owns the rest of the land area indirectly. How? What is the name of a fee you must pay for the use of a property? Let’s call it "rent." Rent is a fee you pay to the property’s owner for the right to use it. .
So, what is your property tax? It’s a fee you must pay the government which in return allows you to use the property. You may even profit from that use, by selling the right to use it, but if you fail to pay the fee, large unsmiling men, maybe wearing black suits, will show up and kick you out.
The scumbags on the court say they are using foreign law. Here is something foreigners do. In the Dominican Republic, at least when I lived there, if you did not pay your property tax, the government did nothing. Why? Because it would have been barbaric and unthinkable—uncivilized—to kick someone out of his house. When you sold your house, the government would require you to pay the tax from the proceeds.
But we are more Communist than the Dominican Republic, so our Extreme Court does not apply that principle of foreign law here. In other words, the court applies the foreign law it likes. Generally, it likes foreign law that promotes totalitarianism here and world government abroad. What they do is utterly arbitrary, with the result that people around the country are puzzled by their recent ruling that an expression of Christianity is okay outside the Texas State Capitol but not inside Kentucky courthouses.
In the days of my long disappeared youth, Americans boasted that ours was the "freest country on earth." That is no longer true. Sadly, there are many countries that are freer than ours. In Costa Rica, when I lived there, you could buy a hand gun in a store, no questions asked. Try that here.
So, where are we going? If you let it happen, the government eventually will tell you where to live. Aren’t the Communist government schools now training your kiddos for careers the government will choose? You will live where the government sends you to work. Remember that the people the government kicks out of their homes will probably be unable to buy in the same neighborhoods with the pittances they are paid. They will have to move on.
Population will be concentrated in urban areas connected by corridors. The rest of the land will be the property of the emperor and the nobles, and you will be forbidden to poach. Your papers please! How do we know this? We know it because that is what the conspirators say they will do. Look at the recommendations that flow from the Communist UN and Council on Foreign Relations.
The country is unraveling. Soon even the blind will see. The key to survival is the recognition that we do face a conspiracy, conducted by men with names, numbers, addresses and faces, whose goal is a totalitarian socialist world dictatorship in which the United States would be dissolved.
If enough people realize that in time, they will do what is necessary to restore our republic. That is why the conspirators do everything they can to avoid exposure, unleashing the fires of hell, which they command, on anyone who dares lift the flat rock. Meanwhile, Mike Cristofaro and the other holdouts in New London, are waiting to apply the Second Amendment. My prayer is that they won’t have to. My fear is that they will.