Posted on 06/25/2005 6:19:52 PM PDT by CHARLITE
In a recent Supreme Court decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "If the peasants sow the fields poorly, they should be helped – and this particularly applies to the poor peasants – by means of collective cultivation of the large estates. There is no other way of helping the poor peasants." Therefore, "the landed estates must be confiscated immediately."
Actually, that was Vladimir Lenin writing in an issue of the Communist publication Pravda on June 2, 1917. I've compiled a small list of quotes for use in this article, but at times it can be hard to remember who used which ones. It doesn't help that Lenin and Justice Stevens – the oldest member on the court – are roughly the same age. Rest assured that while quotes may be at times confused, no one's beliefs will be misrepresented.
What the Supreme Court ruled on this week is as pertinent to America today as it was to Russia in 1917: the distribution of land. Connecticut statutes express a legislative determination that the taking of land as part of an economic development project is a "public use" and in the "public interest." The point of debate was the constitutionality of a Connecticut city's confiscation of land to that end.
Stevens defended the city, writing in the majority opinion: "The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue." In other words, individual rights take a backseat to economic planning. If the poor peasants aren't using their land as well as others might be able to use it, it can be taken away.
Those who take as permissible the idea of a "public interest" capable of obliterating individual rights are not unheard of. Maybe the justices simply looked to international law as a justifying precedent. In Zimbabwe, thousands of white farmers have had their land dispossessed in recent years. But President Robert Mugabe was only giving farmers a 45-day eviction notice, instead of the legally mandated 90 days. When this complaint was brought before the Zimbabwean Supreme Court, its justices ruled that the "public interest" overrode the "private interests of individual landowners."
And then there's Asia. Official estimates place the number of Chinese who have lost their land in recent years to the construction of roads, dams, housing projects and factories at around 70 million. Last November, government troops opened fire and killed a number of protesters in the Sichuan province, where thousands of residents were protesting the seizure of their land for construction of a hydroelectric dam project.
Of course, agents of the American government would do the same thing. Anyone who resists the confiscation of his or her property will be imprisoned. If someone resists imprisonment, that person, too, will be shot and killed. The only difference between the Chinese and the Americans is that Americans are being more amenable to the demands of their government.
On June 23, America took a step toward better emulating the admirable ways of the "international community" in Kelo et al. v. City of New London. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy won out over Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and O'Connor in determining that private property could be taken away for the purpose of giving it to other people.
O'Connor, writing in dissent, said, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Resident Bill Von Winkle, who faces sacrifice by government on the altar of the "public interest," said, "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." If Americans are truly concerned with freedom, they'll offer to join Von Winkle. It'll be a pitiful day when the Chinese are more willing to die for freedom than Americans.
The senile trash who believe they've been endowed with a divine right to singularly mold the course of the world have driven another nail into the coffin of American freedom. My congratulations go out to Justices Stevens, Bader, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. You've proven that rights don't proceed from God. They proceed from you.
Rudy Takala is 16 years old. His articles have appeared on more than 20 websites across the Internet, and he also maintains a blog.
Look at goal 22 and 23 here.
Now think about the IFC Memorial.
That's a match.
Thanks for the ping.
OK..then you tell me...if the Senile 5 WERE avowed Marxists, how would their ruling be any different?
Same goes for ANY ruling that abrogates/supersedes/TRASHES the US Constitution...on any potential Second Ammendment ruling that outlaws PRIVATE ownership of weapons...how would a REAL Marxist rule differently?
Calling a spade a spade is NOT hyperbole...and calling for REVOLUTION is NOT out of the question!
We are ulrimately talking about the supremacy of the STATE over ANY individuals rights...that is NOT what the American Revolution was about...nor is it what the US Constitution EXPRESSLY says...it is what our Feudal Lords and the Robed Nazgul that sit in judgement are INTERPERETING the words to say...kinda like "Double PLUS Un-Good", dontcha think?
For some time I planned to save up to buy rural land (which would include some tillable land that I could rent out) as both an investment and possible 2nd home site. No more. This ruling adds an encumbrance on all real property, especially raw land. In the future, I'll simply buy gold and silver as a hard asset diversification. If things get even worse from the standpoint of individual liberty, then I expect precious metals to perform much better than financial assets.
Excellent article.................by the way Charlotte, is there some problem with Michael? His mailed to you is returned as blocked!
Wrong person.
If he is fiddling, then why does the left have calls out for his assassination?
Because the left is beyond pernicious and diabolical. They're trying to hang him with his own rope. For whatever faults Bush has, the left is exponentially worse.
All I'm saying is that time and again -when we need a leader to step to the plate about the momentous issues that get to the heart of being American(Eminent domain, ten comm. postings, selling out to China, illegal aliens, outourcing, taking it to terrorists hardcore, etc., Schiavo,etc.)-Bush fails to show up at bat. I for one am sick of rooting for him, although I wish someone could give me a reason to. Remember that Bush I and Reagan court appointees are betraying the constitution as well.
The Supreme Court has closer ties to Lenin than to the framers of our Constitution. The ACLU is so close to their goal of destroying America from within. A hair's breath, actually. Every month they get closer and closer, with the help of the country's highest court.
>>>>Remember that Bush I and Reagan court appointees are betraying the constitution as well.
That might have something to do with this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
>>>Because the left is beyond pernicious and diabolical. They're trying to hang him with his own rope. For whatever faults Bush has, the left is exponentially worse.
I disagree. Bush is stepping up to the plate which is why they are calling for his head.
Thanks to the National Lawyers Guild.
You are exactly right -- the decision has nothing to do with "leninism".
I disagree. Bush is stepping up to the plate.
I hope you're correct, but why has he not commented publically one the supreme court decision. And, the recent talks with the Vietnamese dictator seem insulting to both those who served in Vietnam as well as to our manufacturing base. All this talk of WTO seems a little sell out to me, unless Bush needs as many friends as possible in the wake of an ever dangerous China. Not to get off topic though.
>>>>I hope you're correct, but why has he not commented publically one the supreme court decision.
He will respond. He just doesn't give the expected reaction that the left sets him up with.
>>>And, the recent talks with the Vietnamese dictator seem insulting to both those who served in Vietnam as well as to our manufacturing base.
There was two different versions of a press release on these talks. Both are posted here.
The real interesting one was terms and conditions for accounting for our POWs remains and what happened to them.
McCain and Kerry are deeply saddened.
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.