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."