Radio Broadcast 3 June 2005 Talking Points Is Freedom Christian? Series Topic: Eminent Domain Do you think local governments should be able to seize people's homes and businesses for private development? What is eminent domain? The right of a government to take or destroy private property for the public welfare has been universally recognized as part of the powers of sovereignty. Among pagan nations this power has been greater than in this Christian nation. Perhaps that is because God placed such emphasis on an inheritance of land for Israel, or maybe they were mindful of the lesson that can be learned from studying the story of King Ahab when he tried to take Naboth’s vineyard. The story is in 1Kings 21. Ahab wanted to turn the vineyard into a herb garden. Ahab had the same attitude our Supreme Court Justices and these local government tyrants who think they can take away private property and give it to people who will pay them more money. I think that many of the people involved in these things are not just trying to improve their communities. Anybody who thinks there is not a lot of graft and corruption among many city and county officials are living in a dream world. Like Ahab their purposes are often selfish. People involved in these activities should be investigated to find out what is coming to them under the table. The old saying is follow the money. Of course there is another reason our founding fathers had for respecting private property. That is the British Empire had shown little regard for the rights of property for any other than those with titles. And, if you were some of those out of favor with the particular monarch in power, even then you were subject to having your lands confiscated. In spite of this James Otis said in (1761) "One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle." – Unfortunately, this is a less certain thing now than it has been at any time in two hundred years. A woman who has lived in the same house for 87 years is about to be evicted from her home. It is being taken by local officials to be given to private development against her will, ostensibly to improve the tax base. All the labor and memories that has been bestowed upon that house during that time is about to be destroyed. Her home is no longer a castle. What happened with the recent Supreme Court decision was the process of dismantling private property rights in the United States was continued. We are headed toward turning back the clock to even before we were colonies of England. The United Nations is a key player in this plan. It is necessary to dismantle private property to bring about totalitarian control of people and a One World Order. The taking of private property from one person and giving it to another, even when you give them some recompense is still confiscation. Of course the Supreme Court has recently chosen to disregard that fact. They disregarded the fact as far back as in 1896 the Court expressly stated this to be the case. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids taking private property, but any Justice who says they believe the Constitution is a “living” document has already told you they believe that they can make it to mean whatever they declare it is. A major portion of the Declaration of Independence lists the bill of particulars, 27 indictments of King George's faithlessness toward British laws. Reading these charges today, especially in light of the Supreme Court's assault in recent weeks on the U.S. Constitution - the document that implements the Declaration's principles in practical government - we should wonder, are we indeed the heirs of our Founding generation? For at least seven of the indictments are suspiciously aligned with allegations we could, lay against our U.S. courts. There is a similarity between what you hear from the Supreme Court and what the revolutionists had been hearing from the British king. Questions about today’s Supreme Court and its Justices: 1. The Justices say that criticism of them is “worrisome.” But, what if justices have been using their independence to violate the Constitution? Should not people be critical and worried? 2. Are people supposed to ignore the fact that Justices have repeatedly violated their oath of office? Remember that for Benedict Arnold to betray his country he too had to violate his oaths as well. 3. Justice Kennedy claimed that individual attacks on their actions amounts to a real “threat.” (He was responsible for extra guards being place around the court.) But what are people supposed to do when you have Justices taking an approach to their work that ignores the Constitution and elevates the courts and rulings of other nations.? The Justices who voted to do away with the rights of private ownership in the United States were: Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Simple facts about these justices: John Paul Stevens became a justice in 1975. He is a WWII veteran. At 85 he may not be thinking things through as clearly. He is known for quirky and unconventional jurisprudence Justice Anthony Kennedy In April 2005, the conservative Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration held a conference where several speakers advocated Kennedy's impeachment. I agree that he should be. David H. Souter When Souter was under consideration to become a justice in 1990 I was concerned he might be a homosexual. I am still not convinced he is not. After all he is from New Hampshire and a solitary person. He is a Rhodes scholar, which makes him suspect as being more of an international citizen than an American. His work on the court has made me even more suspicious of his lack of loyalty to the United States. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Nominated by President Carter to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, then nominated by President Clinton as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; she took that oath of office August 10, 1993. That these two bad presidents would be for her is a good reason to hold her suspect. She has more than fulfilled my misgivings. American Civil Liberties Union lawyer: Women's Rights Project, Founder and Counsel (1972-80); General Counsel (1973-80); National Board of Directors (1974-80). Council on Foreign Relations (1975-) an anti-American institution we actually fund.. Stephen G. Breyer President Clinton's second nomination to the Supreme Court Breyer's father, Irving Breyer, worked as a lawyer and legal counsel for the San Francisco Board of Education. His mother, Anne, spent most of her time as a volunteer for the San Francisco Democratic Party and for the League of Women. In 1974, Breyer accepted Massachusetts Senator Kennedy's invitation to work as legal counsel to the Judiciary Committee. Thus it is fair to say he has a liberal heritage. With powerful supporters in Senators Hatch and Kennedy, two disappointments themselves, Breyer became the 108th Supreme Court Justice in 1994. What is an oath? An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration usually made before God. The breaking of which is supposed to incur penalties. Recently I received a letter from a lawyer friend about what we have been seeing going on, I would like to tell you what he said: The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London (Connecticut) has, without doubt, proven that the current majority of the court is bent on throwing the U. S. Constitution out the window or, at least turning the Constitution into a scrap of paper. Also the Court had the temerity recently to state that they had the right to look at the laws of other countries to assist them in adjudicating cases before them. It is high time that the good citizens of our country stand up to these arrogant members of the court and get rid of them. The Connecticut decision gives local authorities the power to condemn private property for use by private developers in order to increase tax revenues for the local government. This flies in the face of the Fifth Amendment and places every property owner in our country in jeopardy. Nothing in the Constitution is clearer on any subject than the rights of property owners stated in the Fifth Amendment. For the Court to exercise such arrogance as to single-handedly repeal the Fifth Amendment, in my opinion, amounts to "high crimes and misdemeanors." In another case, the Court held that they could look to the laws of other countries in adjudicating cases before it. Isn't it true that judges who are appointed to the Court, upon being sworn in, swore that they would uphold and defend the Constitution? Truly, this Court has run amuck, and should be impeached or run out of town on a rail. All is not lost, since there are three methods to, hopefully, remedy the situation: (1) Members of the court can be impeached; (2) Congress has the power to restrict what laws can be interpreted by the court; and (3) Citizens can urge state governments to precisely define the rights of private property owners and restrict condemnation proceedings to actual public use. As a corollary to this action citizens can throw out those local governments who abuse property rights. I, for one, am going to send my Congressman a letter asking him to join with other members of the House of Representatives and impeach the "crazy four" justices who are destroying our Constitution. Maybe, if enough people wrote the Congress, the Court might take heed. I think we should all follow my lawyer friend’s advice. Perhaps you have not noticed how silent many conservatives, including the President have been on this subject. Why do you suppose this is so? Samuel Adams advised: "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Point of Humor, but I say why not? There is a Developer Wants To Seize Supreme Court Justice Souter's Home His home Would Be Replaced With 'Lost Liberty' Hotel (Posted June 29, 2005) WEARE, N.H. -- Following a Supreme Court ruling giving local governments power to seize private property, a California man has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel. Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community. In a letter faxed to town officials Tuesday, Logan Darrow Clements said that a hotel on Souter's property would bring the town economic development and tax revenue. Souter could not be reached for comment. Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer, said he is taking the matter seriously. So are police, who posted officers outside Souter's home as a precaution Tuesday. Ten Commandments and Eminent Domain- The attack on property rights almost overshadowed the other things that this Supreme Court had done, even the close of the last session they attacked the Ten Commandments. It is not surprising the justices have ruled as they have done. They have proved John Witherspoon’s (1776) statement: "There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage." I hope our listeners will not believe what some of the media has been saying about this week's Supreme Court decisions on the Ten Commandments. These rulings were some of the most blatant and outrageous examples of judicial tyranny we have seen to date. Allow me to explain. It is true that the Supreme Court technically affirmed the Texas Commandments display while rejecting the Kentucky display. But it is much worse than a "split" ruling. Read the reasons why one is approved and another is rejected. The Court once again trampled on the right of the people to publicly acknowledge God! Even worse -The Court has set itself up as the sole arbiters of when it will allow the Ten Commandments! I can prove it to you that this Supreme Court is no friend of the Ten Commandments. The day after releasing its rulings, the Supreme Court REJECTED the appeal from Adams County, Ohio, who have been fighting to save the Commandments for their community! This had the effect of cutting them and their struggle off at the hip. Of course people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg can always be depended on to be supportive of her godless cronies over at the ACLU. John Adams, one of our founding fathers, made an eloquent case for both private property ownership and public religious observance: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." Our Supreme Court does not want people to read those commandments lest they might read them and believe them. Then we would rise up and say thou shalt not covet my private property, neither should thou steal away my freedom. Final notes This 229th birthday of these United States, we may remember the correctness of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
P. O. Box 752
Buchanan, Georgia 30113