Friday, June 24, 2005

Liberals Denounce Their Own Divisiveness, "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Watching the righteous indignation that Rove's comments stirred up with people like Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton and others, is instructive in who they think they are. Rove used the L word, not the D word. They called it extremely divisive. However, by assuming the Liberal mantle themselves, they find the shoe fits them perfectly. They are seeing themselves in the mirror and don't like what they see. If the shoe fits, blame Karl Rove. Now we have some bi-partisanship. These libs don't like what they see in themselves either. After the attack on 9/11/01, there were liberals (moveon.org and George Soros, and others like them) who where calling for restraint. Their tune was not to respond with the military but to track them down and prosecute them. That's what they were saying at that time. Rove simply pointed that out. While most Democrats were on the side of the President and voted for war, at the time, that support lasted for 90 days. Growing nervous at the amount of support Bush was getting, by January 2002 the anti-Bush nabobs began carping on how things were wrong, how we shouldn't have been there. Kucinich campaigned on it for crying out loud. But that liberal core was that way from the get-go. It's but another distraction from the aiding and abetting the enemy comments that Dick Durban made last week. related: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman: 'Faux Outrage' 7:37:59 AM    comment [] trackback []

The Tyranny of Eminent Domain This is the government taking your property and selling it to someone else, with the reasoning being getting more tax revenue. In all cases so far, that 'someone else' has been developers. What was that blurb in the U.S. Constitution about the government being responsible for protecting our private property rights? Today the Supreme Court gave the go-ahead. Always looking for ways to get money from their constituents, both republicans and democrats are salivating at the tax bonanza that awaits the end of private property rights in this country. This is where your private property begins to be thought of as profit centers for politicians and developers. In affirming the decision, Justice John Paul Stevens resolved a question that had surprisingly gone unanswered for all the myriad times that governments have used their power under the Fifth Amendment to take private property for public use. The question was the definition of "public use." It's the old, depends on what the definition of 'public use' is, routine. The majority concluded that public use was properly defined more broadly as "public purpose." This is epitome of an activist judicial decision. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power." She added: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory." "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more," Justice O'Connor said. "The founders cannot have intended this perverse result." Let's recap: The Supreme Court abridges our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech in the name of McCain-Feingold, which BTW has failed miserably and nobody cares anymore. Now, they have rendered the 5th Amendment private property rights a thing of the past. reference Update 6/27/05: Developer Wants Hotel on Justice Souter's Land 12:29:41 AM    comment [] trackback []

© Copyright 2005 Ross Calloway. Last update: 11/27/2005; 8:41:18 PM.