Home ownership (land and its accouterments) has become the primary thrust of working Americans, each of whom looks forward to that joyful day. Because of that desire to own a home, their right of ownership is largely dependent upon local governments - ones who are generally under the control of special interests or even worse - total stupidity.
As Brussels exposed its lack of intellectual mastery and timing with the Euroland referendum, the US Supreme Court may just have made the same mistake - whether by accident or intent.
If the US Supreme Court had rendered this decision in a period of extreme economic pressure, the general public might well have accepted this monumental ruling as being in their best interests. However, making this decision now may scuttle efforts to prevent the economic meltdown that over-the-counter derivatives guarantee at some point in the future.
The US Supreme Court has now sanctioned local government's confiscation of privately owned property for business concerns without the owner's consent and its subsequent transfer to any other private entity that might "promise" a greater financial reward to "the public good" as per Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
Historically, the compensation given under the title of eminent domain has been less than acceptable to the previous owner of the property.
Here we have the US Supreme Court deconstructing the 5th amendment of the Constitution, legalizing authoritarian plunder and thereby emulating the spirit of the Communist Manifesto which has in certain characteristics been a model from which Authoritarian Free Enterprises has sprung. This is an example of the authoritarian character of the new economic system being pursued in the USA, Great Britain and Russia.
The Supreme Court ruling that specifically removes private property rights exists and parallels what is enumerated in the 1st and 4th planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Five justices have in pursuit of the thesis of Authoritarian Free Enterprise embraced principles far more in harmony with the work of a "foreign" concept of jurisprudence that has repeatedly generated immeasurable suffering, poverty and tyranny. At the same time, they have rendered a decision that simultaneously denies the primary thesis of the American Constitution that they swore to uphold as a condition of assuming office - and, as always, for the "greater good."
The sitting Supreme Court of the USA has made alterations of basic tenets that are always inherent in the right of private property. This blatant perversion of the foundational concept of a free society is supposedly intended to be made acceptable to the populace by its legalization.
The Supreme Court's blessing for a local government's confiscation of wealth and property from its rightful owners and its redistribution to economic entities to which the property does not belong, constitutes, we believe, an act of legalized confiscation by the authorities of Authoritarian Free Enterprise. Plunder it is - and nothing less!
And how might any citizen identify an official act of legalized plunder? Easily: With the simple observation of any authority taking without consent what rightfully belongs to one private entity for the sole purpose of allowing its ownership to be taken over by another private entity. This is something that no ordinary individual could do without being charged with a crime.
Legalizing the concept of eminent domain for the purpose of the businesses of Authoritarian Free Enterprise only requires that the party in power extend its control to the local levels as has been accomplished by Putin in Russia. When this is accomplished, as it has been by Putin, his office controls the basis of that society. This exists in Russia and the old KGB takeover now is for profit not ideology or territorial imperative.
This decision is without question a perversion of the law because it allows the authority of a city, county, state, or nation to be a willing participant in an action of plunder wherein its basis is "might" against "right" - and the victim who resists must always be cast as the criminal.
This ruling supports an ongoing process that has weakened already and could totally alter the US Bill of Rights and particularly the 5th Amendment.
Voting for the legalization of plunder were the following members of the Supreme Court: Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy. Those against: O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.
Authoritarian Free Enterprise won 5 - 4, resulting in the establishment within US law of the intent contained within planks 1 and 4 of the Communist Manifesto.
The US public and many other western democracies have lost their core principles, those that so many brave souls have died for. They are now totally dedicated to the accumulation of wealth and the expansion of their personal egos at any price. This fault may turn out to be it's savior - maybe.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenny Adams & Jim Sinclair
