Get the Orkin man on the the Supreme Court.
Posted on 06/27/2005 1:45:48 PM PDT by kpp_kpp
there are not enough Americans today willing to shed their own blood to save the purpose of our nation (let alone property rights). its a no go concept from the start... a pin prick that the media would wash over as a bunch of fanatic lunatics. regardless of how justified, regardless of the true intent of the words of our founding fathers.
Get the Orkin man on the the Supreme Court.
That's why you start with the media not by shedding blood but by taking the power of this unjust American media out of the hands of these commies and putting it back in the hands of common folk who have a clue on how to pen truth and not make up news for their own betterment !
Hell theres a few FReepers i could see taking over and righting the illiterateness of the likes of Kopple and Curic for just a start !
Cleanse the Institutions of higher education of the anti-American communist professors and teachers who fill this bile into our children's heads !
"there are not enough Americans today willing to shed their own blood to save the purpose of our nation (let alone property rights). its a no go concept from the start... a pin prick that the media would wash over as a bunch of fanatic lunatics. regardless of how justified, regardless of the true intent of the words of our founding fathers."
I disagree. We are slowly headed toward serious confrontation in this country and there are surprising numbers of people willing to take action. The buttons just haven't been pushed hard enough yet.
The Minutemen Project is a subtle but seismic shift. As the left continues to eschew civility and embraces a scorched earth, win by any means mentality, the divide will widen. I hope for my children's sake we find a solution short of civil war.
On the eminent domain issue (which, to me, is vastly more important than the Ten Commandments issue, and will resonate much more profoundly with the public, because their homes are potentially involved, as opposed to the Courthouse lawn they almost never see), sure, write your Senators and your Congress Member -- but also your State Senator, your State Representative, your Mayor, your City Councilors, your County Commissioners, as well as candidates for those positions.
Pin them down. Ask then if they would oppose eminent domain for private development in their jurisdiction. Don't let them evade answering the question on the grounds that state or local laws forbid the practice. State and local laws can be changed. "Will you, Commissioner Smith, pledge to oppose eminent domain for private development in the event that such a practice is now permitted in your jurisdiction, or becomes permissible in the future?"
Such an approach is, I think, more productive than asking a Senator to pledge not to vote to approve a Judge who is a private property rights opponent. Get the issue down to the local level, and the rest will take care of itself.
Call for Constitutional Amendment to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kelo vs. New London and to protect American Citizens from future eminent domain violations CLICK HERE
thanks for your reply. that is along the lines of what I was looking for -- something individual can do, beyond spewing rhetoric here on fr.
Yes I have called my Representatives and my Senators to protest the lessening of private property rights by the Supreme Court's latest march against freedom.
What can be done is for each of us to urge our representatives to execute the checks and balances placed in the Constitution by our founding fathers.
It's far past the time for the Legislative Branch to curb the excesses of the Judicial Branch. A Bill should be introduced in Congress to reinstate private property rights recently struck down by the SCOTUS.
My answer: hope & pray that Alberto Gonzales is not the next Supreme Court pick.
We need a reliable conservative.
My answer: hope & pray that Alberto Gonzales is not the next Supreme Court pick.
We need a reliable conservative.
Find out where the Fantastic 5 hold property, and push for other "Public Uses" that said Justices would have enjoyed.
You said,
"Perhaps you didn't hear - in one opinion today the SCOTUS explicitly upheld a religious display on government property."
One? One?
Did YOU hear about the other opinion? IMHO. we are losing our religious freedoms "one" slice at a time.
But I gather that it is SO much easier to ignore the obvious and just pretend that no assaults on people of faith occur daily.
Moreover, if you really believe that politicians and scoundrels always reveal their motives through written "endorsements", may I suggest that you need a reality check?
Like it or not, the SCOTUS did not hold today that "all" religious expression on government property is forbidden - as you stated. You just chose to greatly overstate the case.
I gather that you would prefer to defer action until "all" religious freedom is lost, on the grounds that it's GOOD that "some" freedom has been left to us -- for the time being.
I also gather that you are not troubled by the efforts of the left to establish atheism the one and only "permitted religion" in America.
Perhaps, as you say, I have "overstated the case". You are entitled to your opinion.
But, IMHO, I have not overstated the threat.
Can you quote me one single solitary leader on 'the left' who advocates what you state here?
In a country where more than 85% of the people self-identify as either Christian or Jewish, I'd say you are overstating the threat to an almost comical degree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.