July 2005

This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.

<livejournal>

<entry>

<itemid>6930</itemid>

<eventtime>2005-07-14 17:05:00</eventtime>

<logtime>2005-07-14 21:22:29</logtime>

<subject>The Ultimate Snow Job</subject>

<event>

And so it is that while the main stream media has finally stopped talking about Michael Jackson and the lawsuit that was vital to our national interest (and the people who were appearantly vitally interested in watching it, as sad a state of affairs as I have ever heard), we have now moved on to issues of somewhat more import including the choice of the next Supreme Court Nominee; the issues about Karl Rove, the Presidents Popularity and various other issues before the public today. All of this is merely a blip on the radar compared to something that only appeared briefly in the spotlite and then went away. There is no national moral outrage at it. There is no mass of protests at this vitally important issue that transcends any party issue; yet at the same time proves that the liberals on the Supreme Court can be just as indifferent and fanatical as any decision made by Scalia or Clarence Thomas. I speak of course of the recent <a href="http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_property/kelo/kelo-USSC-opinion-6-05.pdf">KELO</a> decision by the Supreme Court. There are some 'gray areas' about how this is interpreted, but basically they're saying that a corporation can flat out bribe a local government official, and then have land condemned for economic principles, and then use their immeninent domain power to take it away. <lj-cut> The practical effect of this is that any corporation, anywhere, can take your home away from you. I first found out about this unsavory practice about two years ago when I was hearing common complaints about Wal-Mart, only to find out that it was actually relatively standard practice in the retail industry. This is not a Wal-Mart issue, this is a 5th amendment issue. This is the same Supreme Court that has decided that virtually any form of speech is protected under the first amendment. I'm not saying I disagree with this idea, in fact generally I do. However, I now postulate that a lot of the opinions of the court come from the popularity of the people at the time, not the actual consitition itself. And by popularity, I mean the voices they hear; not what most people believe. I have not run into ANYONE in my entire life; much less over the past two years since I have heard this issue that believes it is a reasonable thing for a local government to be able to use Imminent Domain for economic purposes. And yet; there is no grass roots well funded political organization to protect our Right to Homestead under the 5th amendment. They protect the 2nd Amendment, the 14th amendment and the 1rst. There are PAC's that work for the rights of Men, Women, Children, Dogs, Cats, Businesses and the like; but if there is a PAC out there for people having the right to keep their home it isn't very powerful because I've certainly never heard of it. People don't care. They care in the abstract, but they don't seem to care enough to actually do anything about it. A friend of mine recently came up with a petition to impeach Stephen Bryer for this decision, and I signed it. There are some decisions the court has made that I agree or disagree with; but the fact of the matter is that I honestly believe this to be the first decision in my life time that I believe the Supreme Court should actually be impeached for. I also believe this is the reason Sandra Day O'Conner retired when she did. She's old, true, but a lot healthier than Rehnquist, and he's staying on the court. She hasn't said so, but Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the minority opinion against this abominable decision. I would have left the court too. I would not want my legacy to be tarnished by such an oily group as now sits on the bench in the majority. A few of the people I've mentioned this petition to have rejected the idea of impeachment for such an issue. After all, ABORTION is a far more important issue and that's what the Supreme Court is all about now. That and a dozen other issues that largely boil down to Republican vs Democrat politics. The Democrats have to support Breyer because he's a liberal; and since he's liberal that means he must be defended. There is nothing more sovereign, nothing more sacred and nothing more important to preserve than the American Home. What good is your right to a gun, a right to vote and a right to drink alcohol or say what you want if they can take your home away from you? Owning a home is one of the essential components of the American Dream. Take away the home and you take away the dream. Take away the dream and America is just an empty socket shell of what it previously was. </lj-cut>

</event>

<security>public</security>

<allowmask>0</allowmask>

<current_music/>

<current_mood/>

</entry>

</livejournal>