PledgeBank is now closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse, but you can no longer create or sign pledges. Find out more…

United States
I’ll do it, but only if you’ll help


Pledge “LostLibHotel”

"I will pay to spend 7 nights in a hotel built on property seized from David H. Souter but only if 10 other people will do the same."

— Travis J I Corcoran, liberty lover

Deadline to sign up by: 29th August 2005
1,418 people signed up (1408 over target)

More details
On 23 June 2005, Supreme Court justices Stevens Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy decided, in the "Kelo et al. v. City Of New London et al." that local governments may seize property from one property holder and transfer it to a private citizen or firm, if the new use would "promote economic development".

Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.

( http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/... )

On 28 June 2005, Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media contacted Mr. Chip Meany, Code Enforcement Officer, of Weare, New Hampshire (where Justice Souter owns a home) and proposed that the town of Weare transfer Justice Souter's home to Mr. Darrow, so that Mr. Darrow might knock down Mr. Souter's home and build a hotel and museum to lost liberty on the site.

( http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostlibert... )

By signing this pledge, you agree to pay for lodging in the "Lost Liberty Hotel", once it is built at 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, NH.

It is expected that during one's week of residency in the hotel in Weare, lodgers will contribute significantly to the local economy - not just staying in the hotel, but shopping, buying gas, eating at local restaurants, etc.

This pledge is important, as it will help to demonstrate

(a) the large public demand for lodging in a hotel built on what is currently Justice Souter's property

(b) the large economic benefit to the citizens of Weare that will occur once the hotel is built.

This pledge has now closed; it was successful!

See more pledges, and all about how PledgeBank works.

Things to do with this pledge

  • Create a local version of this pledge
  • Creator only: Send message to signers
RSS feed of comments on this pledge

Comments on this pledge

  • Please send confirmation number. I'm packed and ready to go. Prefer summer accomodations.
  • I would like to reserve summer 2007 acommodations for two, please.

    Breakfast service, evening beverage and turn-down services, a free newspaper and a copy of the Constitution of the United States (in lieu of Gideon) are also requested.
  • I would like to reserve room #17-76, A.K.A "Liberty Suite" on the south-facing Jefferson Wing, for the 4th of July weekend in 2007.

    U.S. Constitution-patterned toilet paper is a plus!

    May I suggest, if there is any difficulty of obtaining the aforementioned TP, you may substitute it with some good ol' inflated U.S. greenbacks.
  • I'd like to thank David Souter very much for handing over his 'property' (ha ha! Property, that's good).

    I look forward to spending many relaxing vacations on the site of his former home Weare. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or American flag toilet paper would be a plus. Will pay extra for a toilet bowl etched with pictures of the founding fathers.

    Oh, and could I get a wake-up call for 9:00 AM?
    Daniel Waechter, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I grew up in Hampton, many years ago. A week's vacation in Weare on Souter's former homesite sounds like the ultimate vaca to me - truly a mix of fun & social responsibility!!
    Jeanne Williams, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • And a good time will be had by all. Sic semper tyrannis.
    Ed McDonough, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Can I reserve the Epstein suite?

    As a vegetarian, I won't be ordering the crow, which should of course be found a the top of the menu.
  • I would like the Benidict Arnold Suite for the week. Tea and Crumpets served proptly at 4 o'clock and a copy of the Federalist Papers to wipe my arse with.
    Dan Murphy, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • That museum should be a hoot!
  • Dibs on the Souter Memorial Honeymoon Suite...next time I'm in NH, it's a deal.
    Dave Coates, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • If this hotel actually gets built, I will buy a round of drinks for every guest at the bar on the night my wife and I check in. Please remind the city council of how much tax revenue that will create for the liquor control agency....
    Wes Wagner and Andra Wagner, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I would gladly pay for a weeks lodging to teach these ratbastard justices a lesson..... a week at the Liberty Lost Hotel, and a week each at three other hotels to be built soon..... Lornie
    Lornie McCullough, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Reserve a week for me in the Live Free or Die Suite in the Lost Liberty Hotel when it is built on the site of the house now sort of "owned" by the hopefully soon-to-be-homeless Justice Souter.
    MaryAnn Metzger, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Perhaps the hotel could be located next door and the outhouse and septic system on Mr. Souter's former property...
    John Rawlins, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I believe this new hotel will attract many law students, lawyers, and other professionals interested in learning about the separation of powers within our federal government. I also believe the hotel will attract a large number of foreign guests interested in learning about democracy.
    Neal M. Cohen, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Just finished reading 'Atlas Shrugged" for the 3rd time since 1992 so I'll pass on my free copy to anyone who would like it. However, I would like to reserve a table for at least 4 in the Just Desserts Cafe. I intend to eat and drink myself into a state of primordial elation at such an opportunity to even the score. Ah, sweet revenge. Kinda like I felt when I hoisted my manhood and piddled on the Georgia Guide Stones in Alberton, Ga, another NWO monument..Your day is coming, Mr.Rockefeller. You too, Souter. Sincerely, Bill Borgstrom Mobile
    William Borgstrom, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I want to visit. I will come just to stay in the hotel
    George A Holiday, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Please advise as soon as possible as to expected dates of availability so that I can plan a family vacation for four to the area. We expect to fully participate in local culture and recreation as well as eat at local restaurants. I have budgeted approximately $5,000 for this vacation. Thank you!
    Michael D. Miller, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I spent four summers in New Hampshire as a child. Living in Los Angeles now, I would love to take my child to New Hampshire and I can't think of a better place than "Old Souter's Property".
    Jill Levin, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I used to call the 5 Supremes who elected Bush president the gang of 5.

    The 4 who did not elect him were my heros. No more. Now we have a gang of 9. But, none of them ever considered "What are the unintended consequences?" before their vote. Thanks to Mr. Darrow, we now know.
    Dennis Eros, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Oh yeah, I will bring my husband and any friends who want to go along for the ride. I would spend my entire 2 weeks vacation here, and budget around $4-5k for my vacation. In fact, I would make a POINT of buying local art, and visiting local restaurants and taverns and anything else that I can spend my hard earned cash on to both entertain myself and benefit your town if this hotel is built.
    Christine Boyle, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Thank You Drew! lets make the council that decides this, HEAR US!
    Joe Montoya, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I can't think of a more appropriate place to spend my vacation cash than among the local businesses of beautiful Weare, NH. Looking forward to the trip!
    Richard Hall, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Please book me for two weeks in the spring of '06. I plan to spend my vacation in beautiful town of Weare, NH. The bad smell of dirty politics should be long gone by then.
  • Put me down for a week in March in 2008.

    Glacius.
    Deebs, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I read this on WFTV.com (Flordia)

    "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."

    Dennis
    Dennis Eros, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'd like to book a good Hawaiian band to perform from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. in the new hotel, but on second thought, a hard rock band would be better.
  • As the operator of two travel agencies, I can verify the economic benefit would exceed the town limits (should you choose to partner with the travel industry). Would you believe we have clients asking about your proposal? They want to be on a list to be notified when it's actually in business. I'm sure our agencies aren't alone. Fascinating concept. If you hire experienced chefs, I'll take my reservation during the opening week.
    Alex Windsor, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Will gladly spend one week in town first summer after it opens, to prove that sometime people do count :)

    Looks we need more similar efforts started, there are other 8 justices waiting in line to have their houses replaced by more valuable developments; it will surely benefit the economy!
    Luc Pisau, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I wish someone could start a legal entity to fund this - Souter would only be the beginning.

    I'd buy shares.
    Sandra Pedersen, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Count me in. Money well spent.
    Jules Marsh, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Let me know when the water park and the petting zoo go in. I'm sure the neighbors won't mind a few goats. I've got half a dozen school aged kids that would just love the peace and quiet of your little burb.

    See you in 2006
    Margaret Kaye, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • My family can't wait to spend a week back in lovely New Hampshire . . . and another week wherever Souter moves next!

    P.S. How about a golf course at Ginsburg's place? I hear she's loaded and probably owns a few prime acres.
    Matthew Ellingwood, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • How about 2 or 3 days for a family of 3.
  • I would gladly visit the Town of Weare, N.H., (more than once) for the opportunity of saying I stayed in such a historic hotel and pay tribute to what was and should not have been lost. Hopefully the building of this hotel will make those too willing to take away our rights think twice and restore what should be American over what seems more like corporate greed-run rubber-stamping against human rights.
  • I would enthusiastically invest in Lost Liberty, Inc. A corporation set up to develope hotels and resorts on the siezed properties of all judges and legislators who support this type of action. After Souter's property, the next corporate priorities would be developements at Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer's residences. I feel certain that these would be raging commercial successes and dividends should be handsome, not to mention share appreciation. Who will do the IPO?
    Don Duca, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I see from our P&L that our motel paid $30,000 in taxes to the city last year.
    That doesn't include water. Economic benefit---you bet!
    Dan Gummitt, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I am not American and I am identified as being strongly opposed to the deeply dishonest Bush-Blair regimes and their constant attacks on freedom in the name of Freedom. So I guess that until you Americans reclaim your liberty there is scant chance of my getting a visa to visit. However, I am happy to donate an annual 7-days stay for two to a genuinely freedom loving/libertarian American organisation to award as they see fit for services to freedom. If this challange grows real legs then this is a serious offer - I have in mind lewrockwell.com or the mises.org but there are many other worthy organisations. Any suggestions for a short list?
    Peter Brooks, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • My wife and I would love to see a 3-day, 4-night package at this hotel. Our money would be well spent. I hope to see more of the same happen to the other justices that voted for the loss of our liberty! We HAVE to send a strong message and end this lunacy!
    Adam Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • LETS ALL GO BACK TO OUR NEW FUTURE - IN NEW HAMPSHIRE -"LIFE, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
    TONY PENACHIO, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Hey I'm pretty sure that all us plegees have found our names added to the FBI's trouble-maker lists, so don't be suprised if you get any extra scrutiny next time you visit the Federal Penitentiary... umm, airport and get strip-searched, cuz' God forbid you are one of those 2nd Amendment wackos who believe his freedom is guaranteed by a piece of paper written over two centuries ago.
  • I'm in Australia, so it may take a while for me to fulfill my pledge, but rest assured, your fight against the fascistic merger between government and corporate interests has not gone unnoticed.
    Bernard Booth, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • My beautiful wife and I will have our second honeymoon in your lovely establishment, celebrating the fact that El Supremo has been given the swift kick that it deserves, and our 27 years of marriage...truly so much to be thankful for...we will be there in the fall of 2008, and would like a room overlooking the former site of Souter's house....
    dagu 2, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • This is all a great idea and very funny,not to mention a great way to vent. We all know Souter and these other monsters are untouchable, and it is a shame real people can only joke about it.
    holt, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Black bathrobes?
    Marc Bobula, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I can't wait for my turn at Cilley Hilley Road. What a great name -- don't let them change it when they build the hotel.

    I've suggested to his honor that they might make a special deal for him after the place opens.
    http://neighborhoodofgod.blogspot.com
  • Can we bring pets?
    Francis X. Dillon, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • It would be nice to have a chain of these hotels springing up all over the US we could start with Crawford Texas...The Village Idiot Hotel and Suites...In Wyoming..The Puppet Master Inn..Taos New Mexico..The Grinch Who Stole Iraq Hotel..what do ya think?
    Shane W. Gibson, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Please sign me up for this product and or service.
    Josh Van Swearingen, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I pledge 7 nights in the Lost Liberty Hotel if it is built on Souter's property. A national chain sounds good. How about one on Bush property?
    Karen Snowdon-Way, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Sure, it's fact that we don't really own the land we live on due to the squirmy little laws they have passed through over the decades, but it would be a pleasure to stay on land owned by one of the many thieves raping our country of the liberties afforded us by the Fathers of this once great republic.

    I too would like a chance to stay at the Crawford Ranch, any plans being developed?
    Neil Bapst, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Please send a hard copy of this completed pledge to:

    U.S. Supreme Court
    U.S. Supreme Court Bldg.
    Washington, DC 20543
    (202) 479-3000
    Court Officials
    Clerk: William K. Suter
    (202)479-3014
    Marshal: Dale E. Bosley
    (202)479-3200
    Reporter of Decisions: Frank D. Wagner
    (202)479-3390
    Librarian: Shelley L. Dowling
    (202)479-3037
    Attorney Admissions:(202)479-3018
    Public Information Officer: Toni House
    (202)479-3211
    Christa Stewart, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Will the Lost Liberty Hotel have an Orange Julius where Souter's living room is now? Either way, I'll happily stay there and help boost the economy of Weare, NH, if this hotel is built.
    Joe K, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • A Bush hotel is a great idea -- that is, if he votes in a law or signs an executive order that does away with private property rights. So far he hasn't done that. Souter has.

    Let's keep the bashing specific, hmm?
  • I'm not quite old enough to book a stay for myself yet, but it would make a lovely graduation celebration for the summer of 2008! Might I also reccomend a candy and a selection from 1984 on every pillow?
    Molly, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • To be fair, Bush benefitted from this kind of eminent domain abuse when his new ballpark for the Texas Rangers was built. He considered filing an amicus brief on behalf of New London and has been strangely silent on the furor that the Kelo decision caused.
    Joe K, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Wonderful Idea!

    Further, I will pledge to stay at any other hotel / resort built on the land of any other socialist. May I suggest a lovely resort on Marthas vineyard? Ted Kennedy doesn’t need his land as much as the local government does the tax revenue.

    I heard John Kerry has some prime property throughout the US. A world class resort could be created by clearing out all the bitter liberals on the California coast. I would pay almost anything to stay at a place built on Barbra Streisand’s condemned property!

    I find it UNBELEIVABLE that liberals come here blaming conservatives for this. They don’t even recognize the fruits of their own twisted ideology / religion when they see it.
    John Gault, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. While liberal city planners love the Kelo decision, liberals overall do not. While conservative businessmen love the Kelo decision, conservatives overall do not.

    It's a wealthy/powerful vs. the-rest-of-us issue and it cuts across party lines. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and most everyone else are united on this issue. Let's not squander this unity over petty partisan politics.

    The supporters of eminent domain abuse want us to fight with each other, and not against them. Don't give them that satisfaction.
    Joe K, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I can't tell you how excited I am! I want to be the first one to stay in the Galt's Gulch suite!

    - B.
    www.loveisearned.com
  • Great idea. I'd love to see a chain of "Lost Liberty" Hotels spring up on the remains of the "private" property currently owned by the Supreme Court Justices who have so disrespected the liberties of every hard working American.

    And the "Lost Liberty Hotel" would be a great place for people to stay while they are checking out New Hampshire as a place to relocate to.
    Douglas Lorenz, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • The founding fathers are looking down from the heavens and are not enjoying seeing the current state of affairs.
    Barry C, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'm getting married late next year, and we'll be having our honeymoon in early 2007. If you can get the hotel built by then, we'll skip our Florida plans and join you!!! I couldn't think of a better way to celebrate our marriage than to spend our honeymoon in such a fabulous hotel. And I'm sure the town of Weare will see fit to provide all sorts of expensive entertainment, dining, shopping, and various tourist activities to throw our dough at...

    Good luck, and hope to see you then!
    Renee, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'd even pay a bit more if Souter, O'Connor, and gang were employed as maids.
  • I will gladly stay the seven days and contribute to the local tax funds of Weare through the hotel occupancy tax since NH is one of the very few states which does not have sales tax. They do have a property tax however, and I believe a large hotel would be worth more than unJustice Souter's home. I believe the have resteraunt tax as well and will bring my family up from Hudson and Amherst to stay with us.
    Thank you to Mr. Clements for proposing this idea. Thomas has actually dissented on two cases recently and is gaining some respect.
    How is it that the nine most learned people on Law (supposed) in the United States of America can split 5-4 on what is lawful in almost every decision?
    Mike Walsh, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Don't forget 24/7 surveillance of the Supremes and the White House on cable. Install those crittercams right on their little heads, since there is no privacy anymore, either.
    Norma, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Get out of my way.
    C. Jeffery Small, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'm willing to host an annual banquet at the Lost Liberty Hotel every June 23rd. I'm thinking it should be an all day event starting with brunch then a few events and activities, perhaps some sporting clays before dinner and wrap the whole thing up with some friendly banter over cordials running late into the evening.
    Tim Duggan, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • EXACTLY WRONG-
    The Supreme Court makes a decision that the majority of us hate, disagree with, and don't want- and what do we "independent, intelligent, rational" slobs do? Go right out and excercise our 'right' to do what we claim is undoubtibly 'wrong'-

    COUNT ME OUT- doing wrong, to stop wrong doesn't make anyone 'right' except perhaps if you are a member of the "Right Wing Republican Party". Then you are 'always' 'right' even when you are as far from correct, or noble, or 'righteous' as one could be-
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • emma b., do you see us (us being those who are disgusted with this decision) exercising this supposed "right" on anyone but those who support it? we are willing to show them the consequences of their actions, we're not endorsing their decision.

    striking out at those who steal from you is right.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B--

    Get a sense of humor. This is fantasy revenge. Doesn't hurt anyone and it's free speech....the first amendment is still intact, even though they just gutted the fifth.

    Lighten uppppp.
  • I'm in. I'm a longtime liberal Democrat and I am disgusted and outraged by the Supreme Court decision. I think this pledge makes a GREAT point. I would like to see a movement to pass laws in each state to stop this kind of abuse of eminent domain.
    Cris Reed, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I disagree. This is far from fantasy; on the contrary. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Next, Crawford, Texas!
  • I'd like room 1984 please. Also a copy of our Constitution and the People's Republic of China Constitution so I can compare and contrast the two before going to bed each night.
  • I'd also donate an extra $20 to have my name engraven in a brick in the "path of the downtrodden" somewhere on the property!
    Chad, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • i've got a great sense of humor- but i don't find this funny- nor do i think it is accomplishing anything.

    How many have gone to the links from this sight, and actually read the supreme court briefs dissents, and cases which were called into the discussion???

    Why target Justice Souter???? What about the other 4 who voted and WROTE the decision???-

    Could it be because the man behind this petition is a person who wants to move to NH to make it the "Freestate"???
    Could there posibly be a 'confilict of interest, or something more than 'outrage' at the SCOTUS decision???-

    Doing wrong is wrong- Bombing Afganistan because Bin Laden 'masterminded' the 9/11 attack has brought us 'what' in return? Are we better for returning like for like????

    Not in my view- we are getting deeper into hell, by playing dirt against dirt.
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I don't know that I'll be able to afford it, or make it, but if the Lost Liberty Hotel is built, I fully intend to stay there for at least one night, if and when I am in the area. And, if it isn't too much trouble, I would like to have Justice Souter welcome me himself to a disaster of his own making. He can read the Constitution to me while I enjoy the museum.
    Seth Asa, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • What a fantastic opportunity! I'd love to vacation on a spot once called home by a myopic special interest whore who chose corporate profit over the rights of the citizens of this country. I'd take my whole family and make it our summer vacation spot!
    Logan DeAngelis, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I look forward to enjoying a margarita at the hotel lobby bar. -
    Gisela Macedo, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I would like to know how much to rent this place out for the summer of 09.

    Current Calculations advise that this will be the year that the place is fully operational after a year's worth of faults and creaks are found....
    Praes, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Why not do something similar on property owned by President Bush? After all, as Governor of Texas, he enabled his partners in the Texas Rangers to abuse Eminent Domain to build their baseball stadium.

    But you are probably crying now, Justice Souter is part of the liberty hating left wing and President Bush is fighting for everything worth fighting for.

    Well I say actions speak louder than words, and if you don't start the same movement against President Bush's property, you are simply a HYPOCRITE.
    George, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Any decent fishing spots in that part of New Hampshire? I'd have to purchase an out-of-state license right? I smoke cigarettes so there's some more local/state/fed tax. Might even enjoy a few alcoholic beverages as well.....tax/tax/tax.

    Might as well rent a car.....same taxes.
    How much does the state collect for rented rooms? Seems here on Maui the gov't(s) do just fine.

    Yeah - let's get that deadbeat who pays less than $3000/yr OFF that much needed land.

    More to the point - I live across from a popular beach. Condo is "old". Built in the 80s. Original paint, carpet etc.
    The rent is "right" though.
    I'm sure a large national hotel chain could demo this complex and contribute a larger portion of tax revenue to the county,state. (The mean price for a single family home price is now at $800k here).

    So.........ME NEXT! Called it!

    Some months I can afford the steak....but I still order the burger. Lowers the waiters tip. I'd like to see him try to take my burger away though. It's mine. I bought it. We had a deal. It's written on the menu.
    DaKine, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B., if someone came to your home and was trying to kill you, would it be wrong to use force against him/her? if you say yes, you're irrational and not worth arguing with. if you say no, you lose. those are your only options.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • New Hampshire has wonderful lakes. Newfound Lake is gorgeous. And huge. And it's a cheap place to live.
  • I challenge all the other "rochesterwatchers" to pony up. Maybe we can fill up our own wing.

    Sounds like the perfect place for a meeting.
  • I'd like to book the Church State Ambiguity Suite. (The one with the painting of Jesus and Thomas Jefferson writing the constitution on a stone tablet.)
    Pat, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • James S
    if my intent was to kill, then yes, i would be wrong- if my intent was to do what i could to get away, or avoid being killed, and had no intention of causing harm, but seeking to take myself out of harms way, then i would be doing the RIGHT thing.

    Your 'logic' falls flat on it's face, when you say "lets go take Souters home"

    It is now 'legal' to kill someone in Florida WITHOUT the person who you 'fear' doing anything physical, or even presenting a REAL danger.
    If i fear for my life, even if that person has not 'done' anything, i CAN pull out a gun and shoot to kill- so, by your reasoning, why don't we all go down to Miami, and kill those who make us 'feel' threatened- regardless of why we 'feel' threatened, or any REAL danger-

    The world isn't black or white James- those who want to ruin it refuse to see the vast array of shades and colors that lay between the two.
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B., what if theres no way to escape? what if any legal recourse we have has been exhausted, and we have to use force to defend ourselves? we tried, via the supreme court, to escape the guns of the government, and were told that private property is an illusion. Souter, and the other 4 justices that ruled with him, announced to the public that the government would use its guns and force (if i don't want to give up my home, thats what it will come to) to take private property. a person or group that declares that it will take my property, via force, will be responded to with force (not my first option, but again, we've exhausted every other option). this is not an imagined threat, this is a declaration of intent to harm my livelihood. i did not initiate force, i am responding in kind. do you have any other options? i am not proposing that we kill justice souter, i am proposing to steal his property, as he has helped to make it possible to steal mine.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Interesting.

    So, if the US Government decided to declare an eminent domain upon all of the states – while using the Art. VI, Section 2 clause of the USC, in order to sell-out to say, China?

    Would that be legal?

    Art. VI, Sect. 2 is the 'supremacy clause' of the USC, and it states rather matter-of-factly that the USC is the 'supreme law of the land,' and if the USG decides to take advantage of that clause, then the USG has all the power it needs to dispense with the states, and sell their property to the 'People's Republic of China' for whatever it might obtain – all before those aforementioned states get their act togher and attempt yet another secession, if that is at all possible anymore.

    Justice Souter is an arse.
    He 'comes' from New Hampshire, but he 'cums' nonetheless.
    Maybe with his last cumming, he lost his brains?
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Good on you, EJ Totty.

    This is all a fantasy revenge. Let's enjoy it. If whats-her-name wants to go on about what that mean and contemptible George BUsh did, go for it. Meanwhile, let's all enjoy the idea of Sourpuss Souter being booted out of 34 Cilley Hilly Rd..."making way for a parking lot" as the song says.

    The Bush-bashers need a site of their own...I am really enjoying the creative ways you guys have come up with to fantasize Souter's retreat.

    Of course it won't ever happen. He's got too much pull. But for the interim, while we figure out a legislative way to block such outrageous judicial activism, this is fun to think about.

    I loved whoever had the idea of Souter as the waiter. Delicious.

    Meanwhile, the humor-impaired fuss budgets all sound like Lucy in Peanuts. Only we're not Charlie Brown so we can blow.it.off.

    Party at 34 Cilley Hill Rd!
  • Well Dymphna,
    laugh your way right to hell- it was your darling GWBush's father that appointed Justice Souter- and if you feel that 'your' fifth ammendment rights have been screwed by Souter- How much more have they TRULY been screwed by the Patriot Act your beloved Republican administration plowed through-
    The SC left things pretty much as they have always been- and don't pack your bags anytime soon- NH wouldn't take Souters land for MANY reasons- least of all would be his pull-

    Humor at the expense of others isn't humor- it's bigotry and hate disguised as 'acceptable'- maybe not in the blue ridge mountains, but here in New England we call em like we see em.
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma,

    No need to be too harsh ...
    I consider that those in the Blue Ridge Mountains have learned several lessons.

    No need to lambaste them endlessly.
    But then? Those in the north need to be assessed of the 'lesson' imparted, if only that the lesson was not lain upon them in that same way as it was upon those in that southland.

    History is my witness ...
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • E J Totty,

    i guess like humor, harshness is in the 'eye' of the beholder- and don't for one minute think we 'in the north' need to learn hard lessons-

    As not only history, but personal experience through a loved one showed me, decades ago, when through 'eminent domain' a beautiful, successful beloved farm, and the family that sweated, toiled and worked like hell to see thier dream realized, at last- Had to surrender their life long efforts to the 'state' through 'eminent domain' for the 'betterment of all'.

    They put a highway directly through the property- leaving what had been excellent fertile 'riverside' acreage reduced to a postage stamp home on one side, and on the otherside of the insurmountable mound of 'fill' and asphalt, what had been rich tillable land became useless swamp - not good for raising anything but cat-tails and mosquitos- no cows could graze there, even if they were trucked AROUND the highway- no crops (we don't grow much rice up here) would grow- and i, as a young girl watched someone i loved wither up. grow old and pass away far ahead of his time.

    So, i know eminent domain, and it's evils- Not ONCE have i ever said SCOTUS was a'good decision' or a 'good policy'- that is my WHOLE POINT- if eminent domain is a BAD thing- especially when abused, then why would a reasonable person, a person with principles and beliefs they stand behind AND for, reduce themselves to doing 'for a joke' or any other reason, that which they believe is wrong.

    it ain't funny- it's a waste of time energy and foolish people's money-

    and i'm seeing that it is also a waste of my time trying to 'crash' this 'hate fest'-

    Time will be my witness- past experience is my teacher- and learning what NOT to do, because if it's wrong to have it done to me, i shouldn't be doing it to anyone else is my credo-

    Best of luck to you all
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I submit that we go after the White House. No place in history has cost our country so much. I'm sure tax revenues from a hotel would put the region in black in a couple of years.
    Maggie Kaye, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B. is one bitter old prune! LMAO

    Some things you just don't joke about, like abortion, religion and . . . um . . . err . . . eminent domain? LOL

    I'll pledge a seven night stay and also $10 toward Emma B.'s next counseling bill.
    Black Jack Shellack, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'll happily travel from my current location of BC, Canada to stay at this hotel. I'll even bring my boyfriend. And 3 or 4 friends.

    "You reap what you sow" after all...
    T. Smith, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B writes:

    "[I]f eminent domain is a BAD thing- especially when abused, then why would a reasonable person...reduce themselves to doing...that which they believe is wrong[?]"

    If a mugger hits you over the head, do you have the right to lash back? Suppose you manage to grab the blackjack away from the mugger--do you have the right to club him with his own blackjack?

    Government thugs all across the country are using the weapon of eminent domain against innocent people, destroying their lives with abandon. If those who wield that weapon against the innocent suffer a taste of their own medicine, via the weapon and the rationales they themselves uphold and parrot, that is only justice.

    Sorry, Emma B, but you're not only wrong in your assertions but tragically wrong. The victim of a mugging has the right to fight back. So do the victims of tyranny. The Five on the Supreme Court are now the premier enablers of eminent domain abuse. The proposed hotel would not be built on the land of an innocent victim, but on the land of one of the muggers-in-chief.

    I hope this project is brought off and that more such projects will be pursued in the future. We will see that with enough effort, the necessary "economic development" to fulfill the arbitrary requirements of unfettered eminent domain can be assured in every single instance. In such retaliatory uses of eminent domain, care must be taken to publicly announce the purpose: to give an exerciser or enabler of eminent domain abuse a taste of his own medicine. Such care was taken in this case.
  • I could not pledge 7 days with so many unknowns, but please e-mail me when you are #1 raising funds, #2 if you need legal defense money or #3 need money for leather bound AS's, I would seriously consider those investments/donations/pledges. And for what it is worth I *would* really like to hear that it is (big) dog friendly, that would gain our pledge for more than 7 days in a heart beat.
    Shawna S, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I think I'll go during the winter season.
    Brian Mulhearn, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I can't wait. I also want to invest in it. To be a partner or stockholder in this would give much satisfaction.

    Boyd
    Boyd W. Smith, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • For whomever is casting aspersions on Virginia as being somehow less enlightened than New England. That's hilarious!

    Lived in Cambridge, Watertown and Wellesley for 15 years...saw fewer black people in that time (except for domestics) than I do here every day. New England is no less bigoted and unenlightened than anywhere else. There's no such thing as regional purity.

    Virginia is actually an easier place to live in, as my relatives in Boston remind me.
  • Brian--

    A trip in winter sounds like a great idea. I'll bet you get the off-season rate. Or is it open season?

    ~D
  • I'm normally against using eminent domain against anyone, even enemies of freedom. However, by signing the majority opinion in Kelo v. New London, Justice Souter has expressed consent to living under an abusive takings regime in a way that few others are able. Sic semper tyrannus!
    Dan Alban, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Maybe we should make another law that says that those who make decisions affecting our lives should be among the first to suffer under them. The Supremes get their homes turned into strip malls and the Bush twins to go Iraq. Or has that law already been implied in the Golden Rule that our "Christian" government no longer seems to recognize?
    Barb B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I realize two wrongs don't make a right, but this is poetic justice for those who have raped the Constitution. I can't stand the FSP or New Hampshire, but I'd go anyway to stay at this hotel.

    If it becomes a chain of hotels, I'll stay at them all. They should also have banquet rooms to host LP conventions and meetings. I'd like to stay in the Rand, Jefferson, Spooner, Nolan, and Browne suites.

    It would be great if this hotel had an attached indoor gun range.
    Paul T. Ireland, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Hey, a chain would be a great idea! Why not build them on Stevens Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy's property as well as Souter's?
    bbbco, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Cris Reed said "I would like to see a movement to pass laws in each state to stop this kind of abuse of eminent domain."

    I believe there is such a coalition, called the Castle Coalition. http://www.castlecoalition.org
    Greg Artiles, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • To be fair, 4 of the justices dissented. Their property needn't be at risk. That being said, Sandra Day O'Connor (the outspoken voice against this decision) has just retired. She deserves some sort of "punishment" for beginning the end...

    Mixter
  • I'd gladly donate an additional $20 to have a brick with my name on it placed in a "path of the downtrodden" leading into the hotel!
    Chad, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'm in it for the free copy of Atlas Shrugged. Mine's kind of tattered and needs replacing. Kind of like the current state of freedom around here.
    Eva Schwartz, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor dissented on both the eminent domain and the medical marijuana cases. They do not deserve any punishment...for these particular cases.

    I wish O'Connor could have held out a bit longer, but people get old. Personally speaking, I'd die of old age before allowing Bush to appoint any of his twisted, insane, church and state mixing idiots to the Supreme Court.
    Paul T. Ireland, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Sign me up for a week's vacation. I'd like to book the 'Disintermediation Suite' with a view overlooking the ruins of the Justice Souter former residence next door, please.

    Or perhaps they can just "upgrade" the Justice Souter former residence into a brothel, which would be even more appropriate...
    Ocelot Wreak, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • In practical terms, could there be a more congenial crowd than the people who would stay here? I can't wait to buy them all a round of drinks!

    In moral terms, I agree with Dan Alban. By signing the Kelo decision, Justice Souter agreed that the compensation he'll receive is fair and sufficient. So, unlike most of the victims of this decision, he has given consent in advance.
    Brian T, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Please reserve me a table for five at the Glancing Goose revolving restaurant at the top of the tower.
    Brian T, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I couldn't make the pledge. 7 days would be far too expensive. I'd love to pledge a weekend stay, even a long weekend. Are there fun things to do in Weare?
    TCP Wagner, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • And with this pledge, I would like to ask the Chamber of Commerce, Weare, NH, to be herewith advised of my intent to make a bid on the property here in question. I believe that my bid as well as my development plans for the property will add greatly to the existing tax base and most certainly to the prospective tourism that will ensue, should my bid be accepted.

    Let's get the ball Rolling!
    Oh.. And don't take it personally Souter. As they say in Texas, bid-ness is bidness....
  • A building with a foundation of Irony is the strongest structure and surly worth a visit.
  • OK BLACK JACK SHELLACK-
    i'll take you up on that offer- post your address so i can tell you where to send the money- Because, i'm IN counselling, and paying on a sliding scale for each session, as i have no health insurance, and 2 children to support- your 'generosity' is very revealing.
    My husband (ex) is off travelling the country living 'underground' and stuck in his drug habit last i heard- i've never recieved a cent in support from him, and your $10 will help LOADS-
    i don't have much hope in ever seeing a thing from you- since your so busy laughing your ass off, and if you have to envision me as a dried up old prune to justify your hate, be my guest- but, then, you don't 'really mean what you say' it's all 'just jolly good fun'-
    eh?

    i don't have to 'wonder' why 'they' hate us- i've see enough bitter, arrogant, ugly, selfish, "outraged" and vengeful people right here to give me a good look at what 'we' really are all about- and dried up prune would be a compliment-

    Hate breeds hate, and revenge only keeps the cycle going-

    Good luck in your hotel plans- God willing i'll be long gone before you ever set foot in this state- we've been used as peoples 'playground' for over 100 years- i'm tired of picking up the trash you throw out of your windows,and watching your bodies be scooped up off our highways because we don't drive as agressively as you do-

    Don't expect to be welcomed as you expected to be welcomed in Iraq- you ain't liberating 'us' from anything-

    except perhaps a moment of peace.

    (be sure and eat all the fish you catch too, the larger the better)
    Emmy B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B--

    Sounds like you're having a rough time. If you need some help, please back channel your address or paypal portal. I'd be glad to help out.

    I was once in your shoes; I was once in your children's shoes. It's a very, very tough life.

    My heart goes out to you.
  • Dymphna,
    i thank you for your kind words, and offer- you humble me with your genuine compassion in the face of my anger and discouragement.
    i mis-judged you, based on what you wrote in 'fun'- guess i'm just too tired of people hating and hurting to find much humor in things like this-

    i'm going to make this my last post- i've spoken my peace, and then some, and said far too much here already-
    i appreciate your willingness to help, but it's my mess, and my struggle.
    Things are very bleak at present- guess it's easier for me to be outraged by people i WANT so much to believe are 'good'- (at heart) but are every bit as human, foolish, and unkind as i know myself to be- and wish i weren't.

    i still can't join (even in jest)doing wrong to Souter, though i'm disapointed in his siding with the majority, and not at least choosing to remain silent.

    And as much as i hate what has been done through 'eminent domain' - this isn't the answer-

    thank you again, and my apologies for my rude, and harsh replies.
    bye,
    emmy b.
    emmy b, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emmy B--

    It can be very healing to allow someone else to help. I know how hard I had to fight for counseling. And, now, having been in it for longer than Woody Allen, I was vindicated.

    Don't let the betrayal of others harden your heart: they will go on and you'll be left with the ashes.

    If you change your mind, you can get my email from my websites.

    Go in peace, and take good care of those children. Teach them to laugh because in the end laughter is all we have...
  • Ok, so over 1000 have signed this, and promised a week in NH... how about some of you sign up for the FSP, and pledge to work for liberty in your lifetime there?

    Join the mover, who are already making waves, and those who are going to move, like Logan, and help defend liberty in the Free State
    Seth, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Yeah, I'll sign it, but who's to say Souter won't use the money to buy a brandy-new condo on the Thames River??

    Shari ;)
    Shari Putnam, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'd like to reserve my space in the "Golden Door" room. Will bring my own lamp. ;)
    Kara McLeod, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emmy B, Please understand. There are two types of people in the world. Those who stand up for their rights and fight back where neccessary, and sheeple. The founders of this country were not sheeple. Too many people roll over and take it. That's what got us into this mess. Turnabout is fair play, and if the people we elect don't do the job we pay them to, then they should be outed. Problem is, we are now living under the beginnings of a Totalitarian State. Why? Too many sheeple that roll over and take it. This is not what this Republic is all about.
    Maggie Kaye, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • i know i said i was done here- and i honestly do appreciate the anger, frustration, and the 'concept' behind this site- but i'm a stubborn ass-hole.

    Wrong is wrong-

    What catagory would you put Martin Luther King Jr. in Maggie? or Gandhi? were they not effective in bringing about change? Did they use the same tactics their 'enemies' used? i don't propose doing NOTHING- just not doing what i believe to be 'wrong' in order to get what i want. i will indeed ask my legislature to institute laws that prohibit the taking of private land by any entity for monitary 'gain'- as we all should- If those in Connecticut had done that, the case would not have come to the supreme court to begin with-

    i agree, this land is not the land i loved- nor are those in power using that power in the way my ancestors fought, died and toiled to create-

    and i'm sorry to be the 'wet' blanket- i just don't want to 'become' or 'encourage' doing what is wrong, simply to drive home a point- even if the court has said it's 'legal'- it's wrong-
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Now all of you know what it might feel like to be a Native American, except you aren't being killed or mistaken for Indians of the subcontinent of Asia.

    Too bad you couldn't stick up for the least among us. When you raise the waters for those who are most vulnerable, you raise the waters for all.

    Too little, too late. I have little sympathy, but much empathy for you.
    samiam, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Lets see who on the supreme court was siding with the citizen's rights to own property without the risk of siezure by the government so that it can be sold to private developers - Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting the opinion of the majority. It seems that the more conservative jurors were the ones who are looking out for the common man and woman again. While the more liberal jurors are the ones once again trying to force the constitution into their mold of what they think it should be.
    Norman Johnston, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma,

    This is a case of playing there game by the rules that they laid down and in the manner in which they have decided to play. They only way we can lose is to not play their game their way. They are counting on us to beak the rules they set forth. They are not counting on us playing the game the way the rules say to. They know they can't win that way. They must be defeated and using their game against them is poetic justice.

    And I would love to drive the bulldozer over Souters house. This would make me feel a whole lot better. I would even pay for the priviledge.

    BWS
    Boyd W. Smith, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Samiam,
    you are completely correct- and there is no 'excuse' or 'apology' i can offer to make things 'right'- The only thing i CAN say, is that i have more respect for those that remain of your ancestors, than i have for most of 'my fellow Americans'-
    "I will fight no more forever" were wise words- and the knowledge of how unabashedly EVIL many actions taken by this 'Godly' country are 'glossed over' 'prettied up' and 'sanitized' as balm on the guilty conciences of many, haven't been effective on me.

    The NATIVE Americans were not 'perfect'- but they WERE abused by US- and 'we' who scream for our freedom, and our 'rights' and our 'privlidges' do so, while standing on ground we took at the expense of an entire NATION of people-
    Who, i believe will live to see this land ultimately returned to it's 'rightful' owner- itself- NO MAN or WOMAN.-

    And Boyd, if you believe what you say you do, any means to an end, and dance on their graves for good measure (my paraphrase, "pay to drive the bulldozer")
    i pity you- You are not 'in control' of yourself, you are not 'taking action' you are 're-acting' you've chosen to become, that which you claim to despise, and lost YOURSELF in the process-

    this isn't a game- you don't get any 'do-overs', and the people who suffer aren't computer generated images, or characters being 'played' by actors- they are YOU, and ME, and our brothers and sisters.

    the only rules that truly matter, are those you choose to live by- Laws be damned, all "laws" really are, are words that people use to justify doing what they want, or avoid doing what they know they should-
    Written and verbal means of attempting to 'control' others.
    Our prison system should demonstrate how successful they work.-

    There is only one law that never changes, and never will change-
    That law is: anything that is alive, will someday die.

    Everything else,all that happens in between is where our 'self' has reign, where our own "personal laws" exist- you cannot FORCE me to 'do' anything that is against "my law" - i can choose death, rather than be submissive to that which i feel over-rules my personal 'law'-

    If you come to NH You'll notice our license plates read- "Live Free or Die"-

    WE ALL already have that freedom, it is the concequences of our actions we really seek to control- and there-in lies the rub. Because in the end, we may 'get what we want' only to find we can't live with 'who we are', or spend all our lives trying to 'hold onto' our 'things'-

    To what end?
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Having given additional thought to the matter, I say without reservation that the only fitting punishment for the five 'justices' who sold their souls to the idea that 'there ain't no such thing as private property,' should for as long as they shall live, have every place they occupy and call 'home' or use as an abode, be stricken under law, such that they never have a permanent residence that lasts for more than a month – if that, no matter where they might find themselves.
    And that includes anything on wheels as well.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • any solutions, Emma B.? what should we do? perhaps we could take up our grievances in a court of law. OH WAIT! can't do that, we just tried. perhaps we could pass laws that make this illegal. OH WAIT! thats what the constitution was. umm...what else? should we kill anyone who comes to take our land? according to you, that would be even worse (though i don't understand the reasoning behind your stand). plus, if we did start killing government officials, the response would be so swift and hard we wouldn't see it coming. wouldn't work. i don't see any solutions besides the one that has been proposed, and i say this next part in all seriousness, so i would like to hear any counter-proposals you have, besides "this is wrong".

    when the government declares their intention to harm me, the only options i have are armed resistance and compliance. we are complying with the letter of the law in the only manner that will harm the government officials who chose this path.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Hello I think this is the horrible ideal. This justices have make for us a law to the good of the people. We have for now a way to built of the revenues with the People's land to and for the people's benefits not just that of some the rich. I can tell you which I will support of this bills. Please to the authors of this your petition please contact me. I wish you do not contact on this email address as I do in no wise check it I am force to use of spammers. But do to reach of me on my homepage. leave for a way to contact you on my guestbook. I will turn around this opinion for you.
    JJ, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • yeah, James S-

    Your anger, while understandable, and shared, is directed at the WRONG people- If the 'city fathers' of New London Connecticut, had said "no deal" to the investors, if the 'good neighbors' had said 'no sale' we stand together, in our 'right' to stay where we are- If the Legislature of Connecticut passed a law making it illegal for a state to take land by emininent domain for potential 'economic' benefit- then there would have been no case-

    Congress is working on a bill to stop this on a federal level- several states already have laws on thier books preventing it- Why don't you be sure your's is one of them-??? The Supreme court did NOT TRUMP the right of the state of Connecticut to violate it's own laws- (and had there been a law against this in Conn. i believe the decision would have stood with the right of the Kelso's as protected under what would have been Connecticut State Law)-

    So yes, you want to do something useful? something to protect yourself and others from ending up like the Kelo's? Get your state to pass a law prohibiting it, and if someone approaches you wanting your land as an investment, think about how that would affect your neighbors- talk to them- or let money 'buy' your soul, and the 'soil' you call your own-

    Sadly for the Kelo's and the other handful of hold-outs, thier own neighbors sold them out- and their town government pushed this through- blame THEM- if you need to blame someone- if it makes you feel better, go after THEIR land- they are the ones that sold out thier own.
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Put me down for a week the first year the Liberty is open and a week on the first anniversary of its opening. Now who wants to start building a chain of Liberty Hotels at the homes of all the justices that voted for this stupid ruling?
  • Residential land produces the least tax revenues, and the least amount of jobs. Blighted or not.

    A Kmart store produces more jobs and tax revenue then a 10 acre, 40 million dollar home.

    A pig farm produces more jobs and tax revenue then Sutters home.
    Bob Dolee, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • So it has started!!! Who ya' gonna' call?

    OAKLAND (CA) City forces out 2 downtown businesses
    Action follows high court ruling on eminent domain
    Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Saturday, July 2, 2005

    Last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city's plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.
    But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.
    A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.
    "The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It's not fair."
    The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.
    The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week paved the way for local governments to buy out unwilling property owners, demolish homes and businesses, and turn that land over to new owners for development. Last week's ruling expanded on earlier decisions that allowed agencies to take property only if it is considered "blighted" or run-down.
    "The city thinks I cause 'economic blight' because I don't produce enough tax revenue,'' Revelli said. "We thought we'd win, but the Supreme Court took away my last chance."
    The two properties, which total 6,500 square feet, were being forced to move or sell because their businesses are on a larger section of land that is slated for the Uptown Project, a city-subsidized real estate development that is expected to include nearly 1,200 apartments and condominiums.
    Both Revelli Tire and Autohouse, owned and operated by Tony Fung, are on the northern edge of the project in the 400 block of 20th Street, which is also called Thomas L. Berkley Way.
    The eviction came as no surprise to Revelli and Fung. The city has designated their block as a redevelopment area for about 20 yearsThe decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there.
    Both men said Friday that losing their businesses was like losing a piece of themselves.
    "I've worked here full time since 1959, and I looked forward to coming to work every day," Revelli said. "I'm not ready to retire, but the city forced me into this. I don't have many options."
    Fung, who is in his late 40s and raising his children, said retirement is not an option.
    "I'm an immigrant from China, and this has been the fulfillment of my American dream," Fung said. "I worked hard. I played by the rules. But now it's all gone. I've got to start all over."
    E-mail Jim Zamora at jzamora@sfchronicle.com
    Dennis Eros, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma,

    You seem to me to be either a disinformation agent, or someone sent here to stir the pot. Is your objective to get this site taken down? Is your objective to stir up trouble? If you don't like rock concerts, do you go to them? What is your purpose here Emma?

    If you are neither, then please, get a life and READ YOUR HISTORY.

    Sheeple are the reason we're in this mess.
    Maggy Kaye, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emmy wrote: i know i said i was done here- and i honestly do appreciate the anger, frustration, and the 'concept' behind this site- but i'm a stubborn ass-hole.

    M: You are also ill-informed. Obviously you accept the status quo’s understanding of History, which could not be more incorrect.

    E:Wrong is wrong-

    M: Sez you, but you don’t back it up with why you think so. You just spout it because you “believe” it with no facts to support it.

    E: What catagory would you put Martin Luther King Jr. in Maggie?

    M: MLK taught us to stand up for our rights. How old are you Emma? MLK was part of my personal history. He was no wimp, he was no roll-over-and-take-it kind of person. Why do you think he was killed? He was making progress and the powers that be could not have an “uprising”.

    E: or Gandhi?

    M: Ghandi taught us to resist, through peace. But it was understood that this was but ONE way, the first way. Ghandi was no patsy, read history. He resisted too, and he spoke of times when a little more than resistance was necessary.

    E: were they not effective in bringing about change?

    M: If you examine closely, not much. MLK was assassinated,… I know, I watched it happen. Ghandi didn’t effect much of a change in the world as much as he did in the minds of people. But look around you… do you see his principles at work? NO, we’re razing another country, creating another Viet Nam. Peace? When is it brought about? Or is it just something to be endlessly talked about. Up to now, nothing has really changed, if not gotten worse. Open your eyes.

    E: Did they use the same tactics their 'enemies' used? i don't propose doing NOTHING- just not doing what i believe to be 'wrong' in order to get what i want. i will indeed ask my legislature to institute laws that prohibit the taking of private land by any entity for monitary 'gain'- as we all should- If those in Connecticut had done that, the case would not have come to the supreme court to begin with-

    M: Ask away. From personal experience, it’s a bitch getting a law changed. I know, a group I was involved in did exactly that in Florida. You think it’s so easy to get in to see your Congressmen/women, Legislators, Senators? Try it Emmy, see how easy it is. Just pick up the phone and start your odyssey. I hope you’re up to the paperwork.

    E: i agree, this land is not the land i loved- nor are those in power using that power in the way my ancestors fought, died and toiled to create-

    M: From your statements it seems you are not aware of what your ancestors fought. “Fought” being the operative word.

    E: and i'm sorry to be the 'wet' blanket- i just don't want to 'become' or 'encourage' doing what is wrong, simply to drive home a point- even if the court has said it's 'legal'- it's wrong-

    M: What you fail to notice is that the current Junta in Power is attempting to take state powers away. When that happens, no one is safe. When that happens, you become the property of the Federal Government, and so do your kids. So Emmy, please educate yourself before you go telling everyone what is “wrong”. Obviously you do not have all the facts.
    Maggie Kaye, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma, I appreciate your concern, but how can it be wrong when Souter officially approves? You're making the mistake of looking at it purely from your perspective.

    However, _your_ considered, binding, top-of-the-heap judicial decision didn't proclaim it a perfectly acceptable idea. _You_ would _object_ to such a transfer of _your_ land. But empirically, and very publicly, Souter does not. He considers such transfers constitutional and "just." Surely he _applauds_ the proposal.

    Think of it another way. If all government could do was _ask_ if he'd give up his property for the good of the community, he'd say, "Sure!," wouldn't he? And wouldn't that be OK? We're just giving him a perfect opportunity to contribute, just as he wishes. I will admit, "Be careful what you wish for," comes to mind...
    BikerBill, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma. You say that it's the neighbors fault and the citys fault, but not the supreme courts. That doesn't make a bit of sense. My neighbors can sell their land, that doesn't mean a damn thing to me, I still own my property. The city can order me to sell all they want, if I resist and bring it up in a court of law, the city should lose. BUT the court that ultimately got to decide this case, the supreme court, made the wrong decision, this much I'm sure you agree with. It's the supreme courts fault that the land was stolen, regardless of the fact that the city started it. Yes, the city asked for the land, but the supreme court is the group that said yes. I blame them, rightfully.

    Two wrongs do make a right, as long as the second wrong is directed against the group or individual that made the first. That's something called "justice". If somebody strikes me, they should be prepared to be struck. If somebody kills a loved one of mine, they should be prepared to die. If somebody steals property, they should be prepared to have theirs stolen. You need to drop this "wrong is wrong" nonsense. It's in the same vein (sp?) as "war never solved anything" or "violence is not the answer". As long as you don't initiate violence, as long as you only return it (take my house, I take yours), violence is A valid answer. We've tried the rest of them, it's time to hit back.

    I fully support any groups or individuals that attempt to have laws passed forbidding eminent domain, but they will not always be successful, nor should they have to be. Theft by the government or a group is the same as theft by a private individual. They should be governed by the same laws already in existence forbidding thievery.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • One of the things that I thought was greatest about America was that the State couldn't seize my house, or my church, or my school as long as I paid for each. For example, my church doesn't have many people attending it, but it is a beautiful building, that may someday be at risk from this law. In defense of what I hold dear, I'm willing to pay, if it's the only thing I can do. And you can be sure I'll spread the word.
    Valeryia, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • WOW= guess i hit several nerves-, and i'll start from the bottom-

    VALERYIA,
    this is absouletly NOTHING 'new' emininent domain as law has been aroung for a VERY long time- DO spread the word- and call your congressmen, or state legislators, and tell your friends and neighbors to do the same- tell them you want legislation passed that makes it illegal for THE STATE to take your home for economic gain- heck, tell them you want to have legislation passed that makes it illegal for the THE STATE to take your land for any reason, other than failure to pay taxes on it.

    JAMES S-
    NO two wrongs NEVER make you right- if someone steals something from you, you are every bit as wrong for stealing something from someone else- Gandhi said it best when he said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".-
    You want to blame the supreme court James, because they are far removed from you- If you sold your home to an investor, knowing that that person was intending to build a shopping mall in your residential comunity, then, you obviously don't care much about your neighbors- And if you are on the town Council, and a developer says they want to buy up land, but some of the people won't sell, and you go to bat for the devoloper (which is INDEED what the town of N.L. Conn. did- they even sought to have the houses declared 'blighted', but that didn't work) then YOU are guilty of stealing this land from the Kelo's- Like it or not, the supreme court would never have 'heard' this case if the Kelo's had not been sold out by their own neighborhood, town fathers, and state.
    And James, if war truly WAS the answer, then we'd never need to fight another war- because the problem would have been solved- Humans have used killing and violence to get their way forever- we are still barbarians- the worst part is, those who 'want' the wars, (or the spoils) often do so at absolutely NO risk to themselves, or their 'own'- they use the pawns- Because you insist on staying STUCK in the 'eye for an eye' you will always be fighting, and fearing. And if you call that life, then i feel sad for you. Change DOES have to start within each one of us- But it takes courage,- a HELL of alot more courage than giving back as good as you got-
    Eminent domain is nothing NEW- SCOUTUS, didn't 'make' law- they simply looked at existing laws, and how those laws had been and were being applied, and ruled that precidence and states rights prevail.- Sad? you bet your life- Don't like it? CHANGE THE LAWS!!!
    BIKERBILL-
    no, i don't believe Justice Souter 'likes' what was done- Being a 'judge' doesn't give you the right to vote against existing laws, because you don't LIKE them- If that were true, it would be a fact that the Judicial Courts MAKE law, rather than 'rule, and interpret' them- It is the legislatures job to MAKE laws-
    Eminent Domain has it's 'roots' in the fifth ammendment of the constitution, and the first time the Supreme Court ruled on it was in the case of KOHL vs United States of 1875- apparently up until and even after the Civil War, land was taken by the government WITHOUT the 'just compenstion' clause- just outright taken- So, your anger, and indignation and the UNFAIRNESS of this goes back over 100 years.
    A 'judge' takes an oath to uphold the law- not decide things on whether he 'likes' what the law says- That is what Souter has done- Please, if you are going to claim that 'he' likes this law, or even 'thinks it's good' show me proof- show me in HIS WORDS- that his personal opinion is that a woman who was born in her home in 1910, and who has lived there with her husband, and raised children there, should have to leave for a shopping mall, a pharmaceutical company, and a park????- He didn't say he 'likes' it- nor did those Justices who said a woman should have the right to abort a child necessiaraly say the LIKED that 'right'- but they looked at the facts, and the laws, and gave their 'best interpretation' of what the law means-

    And FINALLY MAGGIE KAYE-
    i'm alot older than you'd think- were you in Memphis when MLK was shot? Were you at the motel???? then i'd surely like to meet you- i remember that rainy april morning VERY well- i remember bursting into tears, i (young white girl that i was) went with a trusted, KIND, and wonderful older black friend of my family to NYC where he, the organist of the Shiloh Baptist Church, allowed me to join him, and his community in mourning the loss of one of the greatest men this world has known-
    You may not think that he made a difference- i KNOW he did- and he died TRUE to his convictions- Don't 'assume' to 'know' me Maggie- you have NO CLUE who i am, or what i know-
    You don't believe Gandhi made any difference outside of India- he did- to those of us who are willing to learn from him AND MLK- if you aren't willing to suffer for what you believe is right, and you excuse doing evil in return for evil- then you spit on the lives of both these men- No one said it was 'easy' no one said it was 'comfortable'- no one said you wouldn't DIE for your convictions, but if you aren't willing to do that, if you would KILL rather than be killed, then how are you any 'better' then 'them'-???
    i've been VERY active in trying to stop things i believe to be wrong- i do not believe in doing HARM to others, to accomplish good- maybe you do- and maybe you will win- but someday, someone is going to be the last bully standing if that is true- and i sure as HELL don't care to be that fool-
    The current JUNTA (and you have no idea how much i agree with you on this) already have themselves 'set' up- The Supreme Court couldn't stop them.... gee why didn't everyone go after them for that????? maybe because it didn't seem 'funny' or ' novel'???? This dictatorship that is masquarading as our govenment' isn't going to be stopped by 'ousting' Souter- it isn't going to be stopped by 'moving to NH'- rather, as James Madison said- America as we know it is already 'self' destructing'- from within, disguised as 'fighting an outside' enemy-

    here are SEVERAL wise words for you about this-
    These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.
    Lincoln, Abraham
    "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
    --Abraham Lincoln
    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
    -- James Madison, while a U.S. Congressman
    "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
    --James Madison, from "Political Observations," 1795

    and lastly from Mr. Lincoln- the reason i believe this pledge is wrong- and will continue to fight to help open the eyes of those whose outrage is causing them to BECOME what they despise-

    "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.

    Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived."

    Abraham Lincoln-

    And when he said those words, neither you nor i could have cast our votes for him- nor could my grandmother, as she was giving birth to my father-

    Without the work of many WOMEN and MEN who fought to change what was indeed an 'unfair' law- and they did it without killing anyone.

    i ain't no sheeple- not by ANY stretch of the imagination- unless you want to call me the 'bell-wether' here- but i'm not running to the shepherd in the white house, because this woman is smart enough not to run to a wolf- or be taken in by one. (and i have a very VERY full life, too full at present)
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Especially to MAGGIE-


    you wrote:
    'Emma,

    You seem to me to be either a disinformation agent, or someone sent
    here to stir the pot. Is your objective to get this site taken down?
    Is your objective to stir up trouble? If you don't like rock concerts,
    do you go to them? What is your purpose here Emma?

    If you are neither, then please, get a life and READ YOUR HISTORY.

    Sheeple are the reason we're in this mess.'

    If you can't see that i am the only NON 'sheeple' here- then you are blind-
    And if i'm not willing to speak the TRUTH to those who i believe are on the wrong path, then i'm as bad as they are- NO, worse- because if i SEE the danger, and choose not to act- because it's not fun to face the hatred, and unkind words like yours-

    Don't like the 'pot stirred'-? sorry-
    Don't like dissenting opinions? then you OUGHT to be happy with this president- he doesn't either, he even keeps them away from him where ever he goes- i'm not here to be liked- i'm here to say if you don't like it being done to you, or others, then DON'T do it yourself!!!! geez even my children can 'get that logic'-

    read some history yourself Maggie- like the origin of eminent domain to start with.
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emmy B--

    I'm curious: how many people here do you think have been moved to change their hearts or minds by the words you have written and the energy you have used to put forth your explanations about why all this is bad and wrong? A lot? A few? None?

    In my experience, anger hardens hearts, stiffens resistance, and generally adds to the hatred level of any given group. Discourse becomes serial monologues where people wait impatiently for their turn to interrupt. And as it goes on, the conversation becomes shriller and less coherent. But that's just my experience. Yours might be different.

    I hope you have a wonderful Fourth of July. As a first generation American, I am so glad to be a citizen of this wonderful country where people can make the most of their own opportunities and are not looked down on for their class or place of origin.

    We're so fortunate.

    Happy Fourth, Emmy, and everyone.
  • Emma said: "Being a 'judge' doesn't give you the right to vote against existing laws"

    And yet that's exactly what he did when he perverted any reasonable definition of "public use," as used in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that he's sworn to uphold, and that you, yourself, cite as a law he shouldn't violate. As in "rape."

    BTW, just to be pedantic, justices _do_ vote against laws that they believe are unconstitutional all the time. But since we're talking _about_ the Constitution, that doesn't really apply in this case, does it...?
    BikerBill, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma. If you take something from me without my consent, such as my house, your life is forfeit. When you declare yourself to have no law, that you can take as you please, indiscriminately, you give up any rights you may previously have enjoyed. When those five justices declared that they would take as they please, they gave up any right they had to their own property. Why is that difficult for you to understand? If I sell my house to a private company that wants to build a mall or some other large development in my neighborhood, that doesn't mean jack-shit to either of my neighbors. Their property rights are in no way diminished by mine. So no, I will not blame the neighbors in this case. That would be as effective as blaming you, assuming you aren't a neighbor. How can you justify that stand? Developer C wants to build a store on the properties of persons A and B. Person A sells. Person B refuses. Developer C is shit out of luck, don't you think? Then the government comes along and points a gun at Person B and says "Move". How is that Person A's fault? Me, I would blame the person holding the gun. Now, which government am I speaking of, the city government or the federal government (supreme court)? I say the federal government is the group holding the guns. Or rather, passing them out. The city government was helpless to take Person B's property, they had to ask the federal government for help. The federal government should have said "Umm...nope, unconstitutional". Instead, they started passing out weapons. So yes, I blame the supreme court. They were the ultimate authority, the arbiter that both groups (Person B and the city) went to with a dispute, and they're the group that sided with the city. The city was wrong to ask, the supreme court was wrong to give. If you're thinking "Hey, that's two wrongs right there and you don't like it, see, two wrongs don't make a right" then you would be incorrect. Like I said, and you conveniently glossed over, two wrongs make a right if the second wrong is directed against the perpetrator of the first wrong. This doesn't make the both groups blind, this takes the third eye from the initiator of violence (the eye he stole), maybe a bit more to insure he doesn't do it again, and gives it back to the person whos eye was initially stolen. Initiator has less than he started with (crime doesn't pay) and the victim has exactly what he started with. That's fair, wouldn't you say? Should we just let the initiator have three eyes? And how do you propose we recover the victims stolen eye? Should we ask the initiator kindly? The only option is to take it by force. War is the answer (STARTING a war is NEVER an option or answer, I speak only of retaliation.), and I don't want to hear any more ridiculous assertions to the contrary.

    And you're correct when you say that the supreme court didn't make this law, but they have the power to get rid of it (as does congress) and they have not, they've only broadened it. Again, I will blame the supreme court and congress. I will attempt to change the law (in this case, the constitution) through congress, but somebody just tried to do it through the supreme court and they upheld it, taking private property. Their property (specifically justice souter) is forfeit.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • DYMPHINIA-
    i don't know if i've changed anyones mind- Are you saying i should just be silent in the face of what i believe is wrong? Are you saying 'stay away' if you don't agree?
    i can't do that, and live with my conscience.
    i wish you a wonderful weekend with your family and friends as well-

    JAMES-
    if something is wrong- it is wrong. If i slap my son across his face or on his butt, while shouting 'I TOLD YOU NOT TO HIT!!!' i'm a hypocrite.- And if you think compounding the wrong done the Kelo's by (even in jest) using the same BAD LAW to seek revenge on someone you fear, or hate because they upheld prior court decisions (yes, even supreme court hearings) is a way to 'fix' anything, then you ARE blind.
    Someone posted the "Castle" group link here- That organization is working to fight the unfairness of the law, and to STOP it's pillaging communities- This 'pledge site' and the 'money' behind it are in reality promoting the very law you claim to want to do away with.
    The worst part of the Kelo decision, that is NOT being publicized is the fact that the Pfizer Corp. is behind much of the 'push' for this 'development'- How many people in this acdministration have ties to Pfizer???- Donald is one that comes to mind- and odd that a 'museum' for the Naval Academy is part of the 'benefit' that will come of the development.-

    We haven't made the world a better place, by responding to the violence done to us on 9/11 with more violence. We have simply kept the spiral going.

    Blame who-ever you like James- but when you seek your revenge by doing EXACTLY the same thing to someone else that you profess to be blaitently WRONG what does that make you? And what have you accomplished except to spread and re-enforce the law you hate????

    Look PLEASE at the history of eminent domain in this nation. It is a law that should be overridden- Just as the laws against women and minorities having the right to vote- Just as the law allowing a person to 'own' another person were. And Just as the "Patriot Act" should be.

    Just as i believe the death penalty should be- but not by killing someone to 'achieve' my goal- because if something is WRONG- it is wrong.

    No one as yet, owns any land around David Souters house- The cost effectivness of your elite hotel is dubious at best- Between upgrading the roads, and the lack of adequate public services for a project such as this would likely NOT prove financially "prudent"- but all that is moot- Excercizing this 'law' or 'right' that everyone else here seems to agree is an abomination- should apply to each one of us- If someone shoots my child- i would NOT shoot thier child in response- that is the precise example of an eye for an eye James- and i can't support that-

    i may 'desire' revenge- but it is NEVER 'sweet'- and very short lived.

    i yearn for the America the founding fathers envisioned- but even they saw the likelyhood of it lasting, as rather slim-

    smart men- we could use some like them today.
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma. If you spank your child for hitting someone, that doesn't make you a hypocrite. The function and goal of a punishment is to make the net result of doing wrong a negative. Else, crime would pay and I could walk around my neighborhood shooting people and taking their valuables. You spank or ground, the goal is the same, your child in order to show them that hitting someone is not in their best interest. Whatever somebody gains by striking or stealing from someone, you take away and then some. The net result of doing wrong has to be negative or society could not function. Justice Souter and his fellow justices have permitted a wrong to take place, and the net result for them must be negative. First we take their property, then we take their jobs. This is at the same time as we try to remedy the wrongs they caused by changing laws, via groups like Castle. We have to punish them as well as fix their wrong-doings. If we didn't punish as well as remedy the damage, we would be running around behind rapists and thieves paying out to the victims forever.

    If somebody shoots your child, you shoot them, duh. Or send them to jail, whatever you want. Either way, you take away their freedom and ability to live. Why would you shoot their child? That would be like shooting Person Z because Person A shot your child (in this example, Persons Z and A have no relation whatsoever). Person A's child is innocent.

    You cannot simply change the law and let wrong doers get away, you have to make the net result of doing wrong a negative. The only way to do that is to punish the individuals who do wrong.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • This move against Justice Souter is right on the money. However, it bothers me some that so many people have sat on their hands while this kind of thing has gone on for hundreds of years in America. It's not a simple issue always, e.g. I can't help Native Americans at this late date, BUT: Where have y'all been while poor people have been moved from their homes by developers AND when South Carolina gets stuck with much -- and likely soon-to- be all -- the high level nuclear waste from America's defense and energy utilities WHEN the govt. has found a much, much safer repository in a VERY stable very deep cave in a remote part of Nevada.
    There is no such thing as states' rights for SC.
    This is NOT what our founders intended at all.
    The common good is not provided for by abandoning
    Yucca Mtn.
    Ernest Law, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • JAMES-
    i DO believe spanking my child as a 'remedy' for his 'hitting' is indeed hyprocricy- i DO agree with you, that there SHOULD be 'concequences' and that those concequences should cause my child to 'think twice' before 'hitting' again, or to understand that 'hitting' is NOT acceptable. But to use the very same tactic, to stop what i believe is WRONG BEHAVIOUR is hyprocricy- and makes me every bit as wrong-

    The Supreme Court is made up of human beings James- people just like you and i- i'd be willing to wager, the least 'wealthy' or 'connected to lobbiests' among them might indeed be Justice Souter-

    AS to the example i gave about shooting anothers child- it is EXACTLY the right example. Souter, has NOTHING to gain by his ruling- he PERSONALLY did NOTHING to Kelo et al. It is the town of N.L. Connecticut- and the developers who 'shot' them. And you are advocating shooting someone who felt they couldn't stand in the path of the bullet- i can't CONDONE the Eminent Domain law for ANY reason (even what might be deemed 'the public good') but that requires changing the law- OR spelling it out specifically in an ammendment to the constitution- which is the only 'rational' and effective way to address this WRONG that is at present a 'right' in this country-

    i understand what you are saying- and believe it or not we share the same perspective on how wrong this is- our methods of responding to what is happening to landowners who are being 'raped' by CAPITOLISM where we part company.

    Thank you for taking the effort to share your perspectives with me- and for caring enough about others to speak your peace-
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • While I agree that generally two wrongs don't make a right, this "wrong" is for the express purpose of preventing other, similar wrongs in the future.

    One of the reasons Souter, et al are free to make such decisions is that they know the results will never reach them. By having the fruits of his bad decision reach him, Souter will understand the implications of eminent domain in a way he never could before. The next time such a case comes before him on the Court, he will have a different perspective.

    One of the chief complaints I hear about war is that it is always a rich man's war but a poor man's fight. The Lost Liberty Hotel is a way to make eminent domain a rich man's fight. I realize I am mixing scenarios here, but for those who keep railing against LLH and war, wouldn't you support a measure that said "If you are going to ideologically support war (as in vote for it) you must be prepared to send your own sons or daughters to fight"? The point being that if those in power know they have something to lose from the war, they'll be much less likely to support it for any but the most compelling reasons.

    The same principle applies here. If the Souters of the world know that the government will have the power to take THEIR houses (as opposed to just the dirty poor folks who don't really matter) they'll be much less likely to permit such takings for any but the most compelling reasons. And there's nothing wrong with that.
    Scott Markowitz, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Ernest-
    i disagree with the actions being encouraged by this 'pledge' for reasons i've stated repeatedly-
    But you bring up a very salient point- and one i thought had been addressed concerning radioactive waste- We here in NH were to be graced with the first 'dump site' (eminent domain at it's 'finest') i personally FOUGHT against this through protest, writing and editing newsletters, speaking out at hearings held by the Federal Government at a 'local ski area'- and ultimately- we won.
    Seabrook, (NH's only Nuke Power plant) had yet to go 'online' when all this happened- as i understand it, there is a LAW- i believe FEDERAL law which states that the radioactive waste produced in a state must be KEPT in that state (which includes medical and scientific waste) We had hoped, that would help keep Seabrook OFF-line- but it did not.

    There is NO 'good' way to store, or dispose of this stuff- burying it is like ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room, or the lump in your breast, hoping it's benign-
    And Mr. Bush wants MORE Nuclear plants?????-
    If i were of like mind with the methodolgy here, i'd say, lets start building them in Midland Texas-

    but how would that help any of us????
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma. Lets pretend for a moment that your child hit someone and, instead of spanking them, which would be hypocrisy (*rolls eyes*), you ground them. What if your child refuses to stay in their room? Or sneaks dinner? Or watches T.V. even when you tell them to turn it off? What do you do? Because, after all, using force is hypocrisy when punishing the wrongful use of force. What if your child won't obey, and does exactly what you told them not to? You can't touch them, force is wrong. You can't restrain them from doing anything. What would you do instead of forcefully compelling them to atone for their transgressions?

    We both agree that eminent domain is crap, and should be abolished altogether. Where we disagree is what effect the current ruling had on the law. You say that Souter simply interpreted the constitution. I say he misinterpreted and expanded eminent domain. Souter and the other justices in the majority didn't simply step aside and let the local government steal private property, they took an active role in rationalizing, and giving force to, the citys stand. They didn't step aside and let an inevitable bullet stay its course, they gave the guns to the group firing. The local government would not have been able to accomplish this if the justices had said "Eminent domain is against the spirit and goals of the constitution, and should be stricken". Or, hell, even if they had said "No, that's not what "public good" means". Every lawmaker, congressman, justice, or executive who doesn't actively seek to abolish eminent domain is misguided or naive. Every lawmaker who supports it is wrong. And every lawmaker who uses it or permits its use is guilty of theft.

    And I'd like to pick on one minor mistake in your last response to me. You claimed that landowners were being raped by capitalism. In a capitalistic society, property rights are practically holy. Rather, these landowners are being raped by the only vestiges of socialism in our country, which holds that the "public" ("Public good", anyone? That's the phrase that this decision hung on) has more right to your property than the individual who owns it.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Well Earest, Emma B and the rest the fine folks reading these pages, consider the following:

    State's rights no longer exist and most of the decisions made, not only by the Supreme Court but appeals courts are political in nature. All justices, Supreme and appeals, are chosen for their political positions. Be it Roe v. Wade, Dredd Scott, or Bush v. Gore.

    Who made this possible? Our "elected" officials did. With electronic voting machines we cannot be certain anymore that we elect the people of our choice.

    As the head of Diebold said: he would do anything to get Bush elected in Ohio.

    To quote myself earlier "Who ya' gonna' call?" Not your Senator or Congressman or woman. They have too much lobby money stuck in their ears.

    More importantly, "What ya' gonna' do?"

    Thomas Jefferson knew what to do. Revolution. I think he suggested a revolution every two hundred years would be a good thing. Or was that Franklin?

    I think Mr. Logan Darrow Clements had a good idea. But let's take it a step further and have an office center on the LLH's property. One of the offices could house the LLPAC Center. It's purpose: Political Revolution. Peaceful in nature.

    I'll even donate the first $1,000 to start the Political Action Committee.
    This web site is a good start.

    Further more, if 10,000 people showed up at the homes of each office holder and demand they start listening to "We the People" perhaps they will start.

    Dennis Eros
    Dennis Eros, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma quoted: "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

    Exactly. The point here is that those who have worked diligently and built their own houses shall be safe from violence when built. That is exactly what Souter and his fellow judges have violated, by authorizing the state of Connecticut to steal people's houses. That decision is wrong, legally and morally, and Constitutionally, but the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land, and the case cannot be pursued any higher. Each of us in our own states must pursue laws invalidating such takings. The LLH is a fine tool to show the consequences of allowing such takings, in a way that may make an impression on those who support such laws, heedless of the consequences.

    You say that "Being a 'judge' doesn't give you the right to vote against existing laws", but that is wrong. Being a judge, in fact, gives you the *responsibility* to vote against and invalidate existing laws that are unConstitutional or morally wrong; that is what judges are *supposed* to do. Much of the damage that has been done to the rule of law and to the rights of the people in this country has been done by judges who have abrogated this duty, and instead have upheld laws that are unjust and illegal.

    I sincerely wish it was unnecessary, but I applaud this effort to publicize and teach the consequences of bad judicial decisions.

    By the way, I do think that eminent domain is, within strict limits, a valid concept. If a necessary piece of
    infrastructure for an area, such as a sewer line or road, must be constructed, then such can be appropriate. But the proposed project *must* be carefully evaluated to ensure that it really is necessary, and *must* be designed to minimize the eminent domain required. Neither of these requirements is true of the proposal involved in the Kelo decision, or in any other eminent domain proceeding that is based on tax revenues, private economic developments, or even unnecessary "public" ones such as ballparks.

    philb
    PhilB, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Dear Emma,

    Your remarks and comments do not deserve much beyond the recognition that they invite 'more of the same' on the part of the government you would seek to continually validate by way of excuse, ill reason, and outright lie.

    From Geo. Washington:

    "How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

    You seek reason. Well, government is not reason.
    From someone who =knew= what the matter at hand was all about:

    "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your
    countrymen, and then say 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our
    countrymen!"
    --Samuel Adams

    You say you want justice and liberty?
    I think not! I think you =really= want is subservience, and passive denial of what's the truth, in order to garner a less than honorable resolution to all of this.
    E.J.Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Dear Emma,

    Your comment:
    "Seabrook, (NH's only Nuke Power plant) had yet to
    go 'online' when all this happened- as i understand it, there is a LAW- i believe FEDERAL law which states that the radioactive waste produced in a state must be KEPT in that state (which includes medical and scientific waste) We had hoped, that would help keep Seabrook OFF-line- but it did not."

    And:
    "There is NO 'good' way to store, or dispose of this stuff- burying it is like ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room, or the lump in your breast, hoping it's benign-"

    You are so willfully ignorant, it stinks.

    First you dissemble at length regarding what's appropriate regarding theft of other people's property, and =then= you have the temerity to make the comments you have above?!!!

    Disregarding your prior comments concerning the perfidies exercised by your boy friend named 'Suter.' lets talk about your obvious inability to comprehend the matter of =WHERE= nuclear materials come from.

    Where – pray tell – do you suppose uranium comes from? Mars?

    If the materials which have been extracted from THIS PLANET call 'Earth' were there =BEFORE= they were expended, then =CERTAINLY= they are safe enough to be placed right back where they came from =AFTER= they have been expended. Or, are you so dumb that you can't comprehend the obvious?!!!!

    Ya know? My own Mother once told me: "Most women are willfully ignorant, in order that they appear totally innocent of whatever matter affects their lives the most."

    You, my dear, bear complete witness to that statement.

    Now, I suppose that next you'll deliver a lecture regarding PETA, and the eating of animals?
    E.J.Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Phil, and BikerB-

    i apologize- and THANK you for correcting my mis-statement. When you point out that i said a judge couldn't VOTE against a law-
    A "judge" can vote in ANY direction he or she chooses. What they are NOT supposed to do, is 'make' law in their position as Judges.- ESPECIALLY as judges on the Supreme Court level.- and THAT is what i believe some of the SCOTUS judges got 'caught' in-
    It is very easy for us to sit here and say 'he thinks the law doesn't apply to him'- believe me, the David Souter i have knowledge of, knows very well that the 'laws' apply to him.- He may not 'like' those which do, but he's no "fat-cat" above the law fool-
    Is that why HE alone is the target of this action????-

    James,
    i was rasised in a home of much physical violence- (i'm talking OVER THE TOP) foster care necessiary stuff here.- So i see violence as a 'tool' to get your child, or ANYONE to come around to seeing their errors, or changing behaviours to be a tool that only perpetuates itself, or creates submission, fear, and hatred.- When your kids grow up, they will either repeat the injustices done to them, or seek control by 'domination' or fall victim to submission by others- never fully able to interact as a "FREE" person, who can have perspectives, beliefs, and desires that they need not live continually 'defending' (from bullies, who use violence) or surrendering out of FEAR of domination.-

    Abraham Lincoln also said:
    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

    "When I am getting ready to reason with a man, I spend one-third of my time thinking about myself and what I am going to say and two-thirds about him and what he is going to say."

    "Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived."

    No, a 2yr old may have to have time out- and not using violence does NOT mean not sitting with your child while they think about the reasons they are being deprived of their freedom to 'play'- and is NOT using violence to stop violence.
    My kids are older, (thank God) i TALK to my children- and i listen. When i ask them if they "like being hit, or excluded, or mis-treated, or having things grabbed out of thier hands" they ALWAYS say NO- and my response is, "then why do it to ..Zach, or Anna or etc"- If you think it is wrong to have it happen to you- what makes it 'RIGHT' for you to do it to them? Because you are BIGGER? RICHER? OLDER? MORE POWERFUL?- then that says volumes about you- and gives 'them' permission to treat you as you are treating them. i tell my boys that the ONLY 'person' they will ever TRULY have control over, is themselves- and even THAT is beyond 'our' control at times.

    People call me a dreamer- an idealist- a peacenik- a jerk- (and lots of other names i won't bother repeating) but we must ALL answer for our own individual actions- we must ALL live 'with ourselves' at 3am. when the house is still, and our minds replay the 'day'- and i for one, don't like regreting doing things i KNOW are wrong, and living to regret my actions.

    Capitolists are NOT 'out for the little guy" James- Capitolists are the ruling elite in this sad nation. Capitolists in the guise of 'lobbiests' those who financially 'give' to those who run for office both in "above the table" and "below the table" deals-
    PFIZER PHARMACUTICALS wanted this land-
    (the Kelo's) take away the Corporations, and the power that their money gives them, and you'd have FAR FEWER cases like this- like the one
    in Oakland, the 'developers' are capitolists James- their aim, their GOAL is not 'the good of the people' nor do they care about the 'indiviual' who may be harmed by thier "PLANS"-

    GREED- plain and simple is what runs this country right now- not freedom, not 'ideals' not personal 'rights'- but GREED- and if you get your Hotel- you'll be one of THEM who will run over anyone 'even the little guy' to get what you want, with no care about who you screw to get there.

    THAT is what i cannot support about the Libertarian Party- or any party that currently exists- it's all about self- rather than 'others'- and until we care as much about others as we do 'ourselves' we will live in chaos, fear, continual war- and never ending discontent.

    "These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people."
    Abraham Lincoln

    That truism would apply to the owners and operators of the Lost Liberty Hotel as well- especially if they open their 'first of many' by using the tactics they say they will- and are supported by people willing to do what they abhorr, 'as a joke' or 'to prove a point'-

    truth is uncomfortable- but it's still truth.
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B,

    You are disingenuous – in the extreme.

    Quote:
    " Abraham Lincoln also said: "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    Unquote.

    And that self-same SOB was also FOR slavery – if it saved the UNION from disintegration. Or, weren't you aware of that fact?
    Oh, and let's not forget that his wife also had a slave during the entire 'civil war' period – or did that matter conveniently escape you as well?

    Can't wait to hear!
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B,

    Quote:
    "Capitolists are NOT 'out for the little guy"
    Unquote.

    What's a "Capitolists?"

    Are you saying that anyone with money to spend is not for the 'little guy?'

    And, just =WHO= is the "little guy?"

    Enquiring minds demand to know just =WHAT= your politics are.
    Are you a communist?

    I ask that in all honesty, as it =WAS= Marx who coined the term 'capitalist,' and we all know – or should know by now – that the first plank in the communist party manifesto is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

    Or, in other words? If you are alive, you are a slave.

    Is that your credo, Emma?
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Mr Totty,
    i don't have your elequonce- and i may not have your respect, but i DID have a father who had his phd (earned in 1951) He spent 11yrs in 'higher education to get his degrees working before WWII put his life and future on hold, and after returning to his goal. He got his PHD from Rutgers University in Applied Chemestry and Physics, has many patents in his name, and understood science in a way i never will-
    Your assertion that the nuclear waste is not a 'problem' because it is naturally occuring, is pure bullshit-
    Mercury is a 'naturally occuring' element, why don't you break open a few old thermometers and rub them around on your skin- (ever seen someone die of acute mercury poisioning?, hey it's a naturally occuring chemical)
    Indeed Uranium DOES occur naturally in this earth- quite abit of it right here in NH granite- You are not talking about 'naturally occuring concentrations of Uranium, strontium, cobalt and all the other radioactive elements that i don't have time or my late fathers expertice to refrence-
    Where is it that you live Mr. Totty? Using the 'standards' of the followers of the LLH supporters, i suggest you'd be willing to have all that 'harmless waste' buried on the land right next door to you-

    My father, before he died, told me NEVER to apologize for being a woman- and to NEVER AGAIN let a 'man' claim dominance over me simply because he had a penis- While you may physically overpower me, all your big words and fancy language does not make you any more 'worthy' than me-

    The Justices'name is Souter, not Suter- and because i choose to defend his right not to be abused by you or anyone else does NOT make him my 'boyfriend'- nor even my 'friend'- he is no less worthy of my respect and support than YOU are even when you attempt your character assisination and rude and snide remarks to discourage me- i'd defend YOU if they wanted to take your land to bury the 'innocent' naturally occuring refuse from the nuclear power industry-

    Water is 'naturally occuring' Mr. Toddy-
    but did you know that if you drink enough water, it will KILL YOU?

    concentration - refinement- and containment are all problems- Go look at the woods around Chernobyl- Come visit the kids who come to NH from Russia, who are victims of the cancers that Chernobyl blessed them with, and you can tell them how harmless it is.-

    i am not ashamed of being a woman- And your mother's comment is very wise and sadly true one, except it singles out 'women' People CHOOSE to be ignorant- because to be informed FULLY informed, is usually very disconcerting, and often very dissilusioning.-

    Which is it with you?
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Mr Totty,
    you are one angry, bitter man- and i wish i could offer you some solace- i'm sorry for whatever you have experienced in your life that has caused you to resort to your chosen way of 'dealing' with that which you don't 'like'-

    and believe it or not, i wish you well-

    (and YES i know the 'facts' about the civil war, Lincoln's reasons- and i also know that Lincoln, JFK and RFK didn't see the oppression of people based on thier color as a primary 'cause'- for taking many of the actions that they did- but i also know they came to embrace the 'cause'- in thier journey-in other words, they LEARNED and GREW, they didn't cling stubbonly to the old,- but opened their minds)

    May you be as fortunate as them- and may you do so without having to die as a result of your compassion for your fellow humans.
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma wrote: "i apologize- and THANK you for correcting my mis-statement. When you point out that i said a judge couldn't VOTE against a law-
    A "judge" can vote in ANY direction he or she chooses. What they are NOT
    supposed to do, is 'make' law in their position as Judges.- ESPECIALLY
    as judges on the Supreme Court level.- and THAT is what i believe some
    of the SCOTUS judges got 'caught' in-
    It is very easy for us to sit
    here and say 'he thinks the law doesn't apply to him'- believe me, the
    David Souter i have knowledge of, knows very well that the 'laws' apply
    to him.- He may not 'like' those which do, but he's no "fat-cat" above
    the law fool-
    Is that why HE alone is the target of this action????-"

    Response:
    They are not supposed to *make* law, but they are supposed to require law to be (a) clear and unambiguous, and (b) in accordance with the Constitution and the rights of the citizens. They should not be stretching laws into unanticipated shapes; laws should be interpreted according to their clear and strict language. If a law is passed that is too ambiguous to interpret according to a clear and strict reading of its language, then the law should be invalidated and sent back to the appropriate legislative body for another try. If the law is unambiguous, but not in accordance with the Constitution or with the rights of the citizens, then it should simply be invalidated. That is not making law; it is legitimately performing the check-and-balance function that the judiciary has a duty to provide.

    Justice Souter is the target of this effort because he was the lead justice on this unethical decision. It is, in my opinion, entirely just that he should be expected to live under the rules he makes, and experience the consequences thereof.

    ...

    Emma wrote: "Capitolists are NOT 'out for the little guy" James- Capitolists are the ruling elite in this sad nation. Capitolists in the guise of
    'lobbiests' those who financially 'give' to those who run for office both in "above the table" and "below the table" deals-
    PFIZER PHARMACUTICALS wanted this land-
    (the Kelo's) take away the
    Corporations, and the power that their money gives them, and you'd have
    FAR FEWER cases like this- like the one
    in Oakland, the 'developers'
    are capitolists James- their aim, their GOAL is not 'the good of the
    people' nor do they care about the 'indiviual' who may be harmed by
    thier "PLANS"-

    GREED- plain and simple is what runs this country right now- not
    freedom, not 'ideals' not personal 'rights'- but GREED- and if you get your Hotel- you'll be one of THEM who will run over anyone 'even the
    little guy' to get what you want, with no care about who you screw to
    get there.

    THAT is what i cannot support about the Libertarian Party- or any party
    that currently exists- it's all about self- rather than 'others'- and
    until we care as much about others as we do 'ourselves' we will live in
    chaos, fear, continual war- and never ending discontent."

    Response:
    Capitalism does not properly include government provision and enforcement of favors. I agree that greed has overrun the administration of this country (by both major parties), and that lobbyists and unfair deals are common and a big problem. But to call that capitalism is wrong; it is "crony-capitalism" at best, and simple kleptocracy at worst. Actual capitalism does not, and may not, rely on government favors. It is open competition in the free market, with consequences provided naturally by the free market, and government intervention *only* when someone has committed violence, theft, or fraud (criminal case), or caused harm to the person or property of another (civil case).

    The Libertarian Party (and furthermore, the libertarian ideal) is not "all about self". Most of us are in this fight precisely because we care about others, and are willing to put forth effort and money in the fight for freedom, to the benefit of all.

    PhilB
    PhilB, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Phil-
    Where do you find that Souter was the "lead Justice" on this decision- i've not seen anything, nor read anything to lead to that conclusion- i could be VERY wrong, but i don't see his 'leading' the charge here-

    it is not 'capitalism' that i'm against-it is precicely the abuse of 'capitalism' and the REALITY that once the 'rich' gain power, the poor get poorer- Has it not gone on this way throughout history???-

    i'd LOVE to believe that Libertarians offer a 'better way' i'd LOVE to think that the 'little' guy truly did matter to a Libertarian- that the movement believed that when we all do well, (or at least ok) we ALL benefit- and it brings out the BEST in us- but from what i read, see, and hear about "Libertarianism" through sites such as this, the more i believe it is more a case of the 'haves' wanting to ensure that they will ALWAYS have- and anyone else be damned.

    That may indeed be a very unfair conclusion to draw- but it is what i'm viewing.

    Mr. Totty asked 'what' i am- and i guess, i have no answer for that, other than what i have been for several years now- an INDEPENDENT- i don't like ANY of the options available- and i don't want to 'align' myself with a 'party'- if it means checking my brains, morals, or independent thought at the door.

    My Credo? simple- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". i have no desire to have unlimited wealth- i have no desire to see anyone in need- if i was enamored with my possessions to the point where it did not bother me that others go homeless, starve, and die while i live in luxury, i'd want someone to rattle my cage abit-
    If i wanted to sit back and do nothing and expect that others would take my 'place' in seeing this world become a place where every human being has what they NEED at least, then i'd ALSO want someone to rattle my cage.

    i don't advocate doleing out "one for you, one for me" but there is indeed a problem with inherited wealth- Where people by simple accident of birth, are allowed to 'buy' their way through life without ever having to contribute a thing towards a better society- i don't know what 'system' that is- i believed it was democracy- but when wealth is ammassed, and built upon, and then USED to manipulate the many by 'the few'- something is really wrong.-

    i admire the 'hope' that Anne Frank was able to retain in the 'goodness of people' throughout what she endured-
    Someone said today, Hope is not looking at what today is, it is envisioning what tomorrow may be-

    i'd like a better tomorrow for all this world-
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • This vote by our Supreme Court is clearly pro-capitalist. The definition of capitalist - Those who own the means of production.
    Working Class - Those forced to sell their labor to others to earn a living.
    I doubt anyone that lost their home in New London was anything except working class. In the past eminent domain was used to take property when it was needed for public use, such as a road etc.. The whole reason the Supreme Court even agreed to hear this case is because in recent years about 10,000 cases have been found where property was passed from one private party to another, and not to the govt. entity that took it. It should be illegal for a city, state or federal govt. to seize property from one private entity and give it to another private entity just because the second private party will cause more tax revenue to be generated. If this is the test, then everyone who owns a moderate home is at risk. Wouldn't any shopping mall, condo complex etc.. always bring in more taxes than a private home? Are we at the mercy of the large corporate developers? Can they have any land they choose now? The answer would be yes, as long as the local govt. feels more tax dollars are more important than the protection of their citizens. Mr. Souter and the 4 other justices that voted voted in error in my opinion. One vote the other way and it would be against the law. Did you know that congress has a bill before them now that has already passed the house, that will prevent any federal dollars being spent on property where eminent domain passed property from one private party to another? I applaud them. I believe property should be protected and should not be seized for any reason except non-payment of taxes.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/30/s...

    Don B.
    Don B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I don't know why so many people are wasting time on Emma B. She's clearly made up her mind. She is wrong from a libertarian stance, but she doesn't realize it.

    Two wrongs do not make a right. That much is true. But in this case there is only one wrong.

    If someone tries to stab me with a knife, and I stab them with their own knife, I have NOT committed a wrong. I have used their weapon against them in my own defense.

    Taking the house of those who try to misuse government to take our houses is not a wrong to anyone with a rational mind.

    The Supreme Court members who voted against private property struck first. Striking against them with their own weapon is not wrong. It's not an injustice.

    Let Emma B have her highly flawed opinion, and move on. Those of us who are true libertarians will meet up at the hotel with a clear conscience.
    Paul T. Ireland, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B. wrote: "Where do you find that Souter was the "lead Justice" on this
    decision- i've not seen anything, nor read anything to lead to that
    conclusion- i could be VERY wrong, but i don't see his 'leading' the
    charge here-"

    Response:
    I do seem to have been in error on that. I thought Souter had written the majority opinion, but it was not him. So the reason he is being targeted is likely just that he's the one out of the five that has any property that could be vulnerable to this approach. That is, he's just in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like those people in Connecticut whose homes he voted to allow the government to steal.

    Emma B. wrote: "it is not 'capitalism' that i'm against-it is precicely the abuse of
    'capitalism' and the REALITY that once the 'rich' gain power, the poor
    get poorer- Has it not gone on this way throughout history???-"

    Response:
    It usually goes that way through history because the rich have been able to co-opt government to forcibly preserve their privileges. That's not capitalism; that's bad government. Blaming that on capitalism is like blaming Jesus for the bad things that have been done by church officials.

    Emma B. wrote: "i'd LOVE to believe that Libertarians offer a 'better way' i'd LOVE
    to think that the 'little' guy truly did matter to a Libertarian- that
    the movement believed that when we all do well, (or at least ok) we ALL
    benefit- and it brings out the BEST in us- but from what i read, see,
    and hear about "Libertarianism" through sites such as this, the more i
    believe it is more a case of the 'haves' wanting to ensure that they
    will ALWAYS have- and anyone else be damned.

    That may indeed be a very unfair conclusion to draw- but it is what
    i'm viewing."

    Response:
    Yes, that's a very unfair conclusion to draw. The libertarian concept is that *everyone* gets to be free, *everyone* gets to direct his own life as he sees fit, *no one* gets to force or defraud others. This gives each and every person the maximum opportunity to succeed, and the freedom and capacity to help his fellow man as much as he chooses. This is as compassionate a philosophy as it is possible to have.

    philb
    PhilB, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Thanks Phil B. for your response-

    if my conclusion is wrong- and i'm not covinced that it is, would it be 'typical' of a libertarian to seek to avenge, or incite a kind of vigilante 'justice' towards someone they percieve 'responsible' for wronging them, by doing the self-same wrong to the 'supposed' perpurtrator? The creator of this pledge, is not one of the 'plaintifs' nor has he personally claimed to have fallen 'victim' to this law, yet he has taken it upon himself to use a law he finds "immoral" to destroy the home of a 'fellow citizen' to 'prove a point to the NATION?"
    If THAT is the sort of principals Libertarians will operate by, then believe me, i will never be one, and seek to keep my state from ever being 'ruled' by their form of 'justice'.

    This case wasn't something the SCOTUS 'sought' out, it is a case they were asked to 'hear'. And this ruling has NOT 'set' precident, it is based on the precident that has been active for a very long time-
    PLEASE- read this VERY PERTINENT CLAUSE in the decision written by one of those who said that the state of Connecticut 'should' prevail-

    "In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.21 We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

    The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed."

    These words are directly quoted from the majority opinion, and underscore the honest truth, that this decision wasn't undertaken without alot of thought, and (very likely) with distaste for the 'position' they felt they were obliged to take- BASED on the constitution, and the precidents that have been set long before Souter ever was appointed.-

    EVERYONE (especially Bush himself) complains that it is NOT the Supreme Courts place to MAKE law, but to simply 'interpret' it. The answer here lies in the state and federal legislatures-

    THAT is where all this 'pledging' and energy should be directed- because THAT would make decisions such as this, moot points.

    i appreciate your civility, and discourse Phil- i would like to 'agree' with you on the 'wisdom' or value of this pledge action, but i believe it is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face- and an unfair targeting of 'the messengers' who took pains to try and reach a conclusion that was in keeping with the 'letter of the law' and in keeping with the way the law has been used for a LONG time, with 'little' notice by anyone, except those few who have been directly involved by it's fall-out.

    Emma
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • It's obvious what Emmy's agenda is. She's taken the focus away from what this site is all about and rested the focus squarely on herself. Do you all not see what she's done? Disinformation agent, yes, she's done her job well.
    maggie kaye, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • funny how these things come around to bite the person that wants (and votes for) such... in the ass..so be it.. This is to me another blow to the founding fathers and the very idea of America and what it stands for and why America was initially formed.. Taking a mans property just to make a buck is wrong, just wrong. peopleThat vote or legislate laws like this are NOT Americans in my thoughts. I think right now Jefferson, Lincoln, Washinton, and other greats of past are rolling in their graves over this abomination.
    If this works then there is truly justice and there is an AMERICAN WAY left... so be it.. serves him right..we desearve to take our country back, if it starts here and sets an example for the rest Im for it..
    SGeorge...
    steven george, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma is a nice name. Reminds me of the Emma Peel, the legendary spy, a very good pen name for ... Justice Souter.
    MaryAnn Metzger, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I wish people would stop wasting time arguing with people like Emma, and take the time to visit the Free State Project website at http://www.freestateproject.org, and consider joining, and thus potentially doing something real and constructive, instead of the usual bickering that has helped to cause the slide away from liberty we face now.
  • its about time someone is taking a stand agianst those with the bucks and means to do whatever they what to who ever in the name of "progress" and "community benefit'
    bulshit.. here in Syracuse NY a man named CONGEL ( pyramid malls and developments) are doing just this taking others property in the name of making a few bucks more than what is already there in taxes to develope wha is SUPPOSED to be the largest MALL in the US.. for what??? here we are in a state where the unemployment is higher than the national average, taxes are highest in the nation, and electricity is the highest in the nation and Jerks like this with more money than GOD wants to take property that already employes a good number of working class people to build this mega gienomous mall which we will probably never see.. just so the local govt. can see a few more beans in the pot. but where will these beans be spent on? MAKING THE ROAD(s) TO THE MALL BETTER!! not increasing the community, not inceasing the quality of living here in the city, not improving the parks, kids health, or schools..
    developers like this come in rape the area (much like (wal-mart) all in the name of more money in taxes.. pure bulshit.. now every proposed walmart-,mega mall, strip mine ect site
    that has been voted agianst and protested agianst will be popped in place without consent of the public all in the name of "progress and taxes".
    Makes me sick, might as well go to China, or IRAN, IRAQ, South Africa.
    Its becommeing a country of HAVES AND HAVE_NOTS>>> GREED AND CORRUPTION>>> the American way... sick sick sick..
    hope Judge Souter loses his place ... he voted for this and he should be the first to experience EMMINANT DOMAIN UP CLOSE.. ding dong.. ah Judge, Im sorry but you have to move out.. we are taking you place ... HA!! hope Im around to see it through...
    LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSIUT OF HAPPINESS, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUALL.
    THIS COUNTRY WAS BASED ON THESE TRUTHS
    AND THEY CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY!! take our property away and what are we?? slaves.. we have no rights,, and the SUPREME COURT HAS LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOWN, AND I AM ASHAMED....
    steven george, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I think we could go a step further than the Supreme Court-because so many injustices have been done by most of our govt. reps in Washington I think we could start with the Kennedy's homestead(s) and work our way up (or down) whichever. Think of the $$$ the tax base of the Kennedy's compound could bring in with a new resort built on it??? Think about it...this could ultimately lower all our taxes by hitting the govt. officials who have used us for so many years...yeah, that's the ticket!!! Resorts on every politicians front yard!!! Hey, we're only abiding by the law!!!!!
    Sally, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Seth is correct: Emmy B has hijacked the thread so thoroughly that I'd given up even reading the responses for awhile. Such anger, vitriol and self-righteousness don't add to the general discourse. Rather, they veer it off into the swamps of "yes, I'm right, no, you're wrong".

    It's not only boring, it's counterproductive. And that is the role of the troll: deflect and dismiss and then maybe everyone will go away. Actually, Emmy made the spontaneous offer to go away some days ago but she couldn't keep her word. It's not a choice she has, it's an addiction to being right. When this thread is done she'll no doubt go somewhere else to do the same thing.

    Emmy needs a life and more help than this place can give her.

    Meanwhile, I'll keep doing what I started when I saw that she came back on in spite of herself, guns drawn and shooting at anything that moved: simply delete and keep going to a post that looks reasoned and reasonaable.

    Thanks for the link, Seth.
  • Likely to be overheard during my week's stay sometime in the future:

    1. "The Justice Souter picture in the cafe urinal is a nice touch. The Bill of Rights toilet paper is extra soft."
    2. "After I broke my arm at the Kennedy Compound dirt bike track and water slide (opened in 2008 on the site of Ted Kennedy's former Hyannis home), I needed a place to rest. The Lost Liberty Hotel was perfect."
    3. "Did you hear the last US troops are leaving Iraq next month? What a great success!" -- April 21, 2030
    4. "My son was caught on the street without his national ID and is serving 30 years in prison. But IT'S OK! At least we're all much safer now." -- May 25, 2008
    5. "My mother had her liver siezed under eminent domain and it was given to an alcoholic politician. I'm very depressed, but it's for the greater good! Pass the ketchup, please!"
    Paul Antosh, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • To Dennis Eros,

    Dennis, it was Jefferson, and he said that he thought 20 years - not 200 - was about right for a cycle of revolution.

    I'm leaning more toward his way of thinking all the time.
    Hal Scoggins, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Well Dymphinia,
    it's clear that you care more about finding 'revenge' and perpetuating bad laws than actually doing anything about them-
    Draw your guns all you like- kill me if you want- i'm not a 'troll'- and the hatred and 'vitriol' is comming from those who speak FOR this pledge.
    Enjoy your childish fun- when you get done with playing games and calling names, maybe you'll take the time and effort to actually DO something about this law-
    But that would require more than just casting aspersions, and condemning others who might DARE to hold a view that doesn't match yours- if that is YOUR idea of freedom, than i hope you are also the last generation American,
    because you offer nothing of value other than hatred and knee jerk responses to those you have chosen to blame-
    Live in fear of your home being taken- Your hotel won't end that fear, and even if it did, they'll be other threats to your possesions- which seem to matter to you more than anything else.

    i rock your boat Dymphinia, because there is TRUTH in what i have posted- i'd be surprised if you've even read the rulings, and the cases sighted- you are satisfied to just 'join the herd' and waste time on a fools errand-

    You wouldn't like NH anyway- we arent afraid to think for oursleves.

    Thanks for all your help and kind words- i won't lower myself to talking 'about' you- but speak to you directly.

    Libertarians? if this is your credo- if this is your 'idea' of justice, then you are anything but FREE- you are owned by your posessions- and the 'fear' of ever doing without- THAT is the picture you paint of yourselves in this action- and not only will i not 'join' you- i will actively fight your attempt to 'take over' NH-

    that is a promise-
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • For heaven's sake, Emma, grow up or lighten up. Or take your medication.

    While you're at it, learn to spell my name. Saint Dymphna is the patron saint of lunatics, my dear, and you could use her.

    Jeez.
  • Emma B., read the article at this link. Congress is doing something about this stupid eminent domain ruling. Even they don't agree with it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/30/s...

    Don
    Don, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B., This pledge is a form of non-violent civil protest and is very ethical. It is not revenge, it is evidence that we should be all treated equal. If it is OK to take someone's property then it is Ok to take it from Justice Souter. His property should not be protected any more than anyone else's. Think about it. His is fair game and so is yours.

    Don
    Don, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I would sign up for the FSP, but it looks like I'm not old enough.

    Emma. I've enjoyed the chance to reason with you, and I'm sorry you wouldn't hear it. Enjoy your life.
    James S., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma wrote: "if my conclusion is wrong- and i'm not covinced that it is, would it be 'typical' of a libertarian to seek to avenge, or incite a kind of
    vigilante 'justice' towards someone they percieve 'responsible' for
    wronging them, by doing the self-same wrong to the 'supposed'
    perpurtrator? The creator of this pledge, is not one of the
    'plaintifs' nor has he personally claimed to have fallen 'victim' to
    this law, yet he has taken it upon himself to use a law he finds
    "immoral" to destroy the home of a 'fellow citizen' to 'prove a point
    to the NATION?"
    If THAT is the sort of principals Libertarians will
    operate by, then believe me, i will never be one, and seek to keep my
    state from ever being 'ruled' by their form of 'justice'."

    Response:
    It depends on the situation. For example, if someone steals from you, you don't just steal back, or track him down and beat him up yourself, you report the theft and allow justice to be done by due process. However, if the thief happens to be the brother of the sheriff, and the sheriff's office ensures that he never gets punished for his habitual thievery, then a more direct approach may be warranted, since the legal system has refused to do its duty. In that case, even people who have not been stolen from (yet) may cooperate to stop the thief, and to deal with the corrupt sheriff. This SCOTUS decision is like this latter example. The court has failed to perform its legal duty to ensure that a law is both just and Constitutional, and there is no further legal appeal. If justice is to ever prevail on this issue, more direct methods must be employed against those who have violated both their duties and our rights. Since those SCOTUS justices have solemnly sworn, as a condition of their holding of that office, to protect and abide by the Constitution of the U.S., it would not be unjust to simply remove them from office (along with any of them that similarly voted to ignore the First Amendment and uphold the BCRA). But this LLH effort seems more feasible, more peaceful, and more suitable to gathering public opinion in opposition to government theft (which seems to have been *very* successful so far).

    Emma wrote: "This case wasn't something the SCOTUS 'sought' out, it is a case
    they were asked to 'hear'. And this ruling has NOT 'set' precident, it
    is based on the precident that has been active for a very long time-"

    Response:
    As with most cases the SCOTUS hears, yes, it climbed the ladder up to them and asked to be heard. That does not absolve them of the responsibility to hear it and judge it fairly and according to the Constitution. Yes, there has been a long history of aminent domain abuse, with many precedents. This only adds to the need for SCOTUS to have correctly judged such abuse as not consistent with the Fifth Amendment, and put a stop to it.

    Emma wrote: "PLEASE- read this VERY PERTINENT CLAUSE in the decision written by one
    of those who said that the state of Connecticut 'should' prevail-

    "In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we
    do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail,
    notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.21 We emphasize that
    nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further
    restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States
    already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the
    federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a
    matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in
    state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon
    which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and
    their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent
    domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of
    legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends
    only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a
    "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal
    Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that
    provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not
    grant petitioners the relief that they seek."

    The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed."

    Response:
    So the SCOTUS essentially said that since many people's property has been stolen by the government before, and we've never stopped it before, we shouldn't do so now. The court's authority (and responsibility), as they said, "extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a
    "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal
    Constitution". Agreed. They just determined incorrectly, based on the success of previous injustices. Forcibly taking someone's property to give to a "better taxpayer" is not a public use under the Fifth Amendment, or under any other rational definition.

    Emma wrote: "EVERYONE (especially Bush himself) complains that it is NOT the
    Supreme Courts place to MAKE law, but to simply 'interpret' it. The
    answer here lies in the state and federal legislatures-

    THAT is where all this 'pledging' and energy should be directed-
    because THAT would make decisions such as this, moot points."

    Response:
    Well yes, they shouldn't make law, just interpret it. But they should interpret it correctly, with proper regard for people's rights. That is where they have failed here. Yes, we now need to work on the state and federal levels to make this sort of theft expressly illegal. But if the SCOTUS had done its job, that wouldn't now be necessary. And this effort to publicize the injustice of the Kelo decision will help in those efforts. And if Justice Souter suffers inconvenience in the process, as a result of his accordance and assent in this decision, I have little sympathy. Odds are he's got plenty enough pull to keep his home, unlike those he voted to steal from. He's also plenty wealthy enough to weather such a loss without severe hardship, again unlike those he voted to steal from.

    Emma wrote: "i appreciate your civility, and discourse Phil- i would like to 'agree' with you on the 'wisdom' or value of this pledge action, but i believe it is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face- and an unfair targeting of 'the messengers' who took pains to try and reach a conclusion that was in keeping with the 'letter of the law' and in
    keeping with the way the law has been used for a LONG time, with 'little' notice by anyone, except those few who have been directly involved by it's fall-out."

    The SCOTUS justices were not mere "messengers". They are empowered to make these sorts of decisions, and have the responsibility and duty to make them in accordance with justice, citizens' rights, and the Constitution. Many many people have been fighting this fight for a long time, in the hopes of getting this type of theft stopped, and the SCOTUS has said tough sh*t. It is entirely appropriate to target those who consciously rule for oppression; especially by using the tools approved specifially by those oppressors. Similar efforts should be directed toward the other four who voted in the majority of the Kelo decision as well.

    It is clear that you disagree, and that you have limited regard for the rights of the citizens and for the need of people to speak up when their rights are violated. We, as a country, have let this sort of thing go on without effective protest for far too long. It's way past time to wake up and take a firm stand for our remaining rights. And to follow up by actively reclaiming the rest of the inherent rights we have but are no longer are allowed to exercise.

    PhilB
    PhilB, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • James,
    i've also enjoyed the opportunity to exchange views with you- and honor your right to hold a viewpoint that i don't share, without thinking ill of you-
    i hope you enjoy your life too.

    Don,
    Thank you for your civil response. While i don't agree with you either, i also appreciate the lack of sarcasm and disrespect you've left out of your interactions with me.
    i also know that congress IS doing something about the eminent domain issue- but would encourage you to press those in your state to ALSO work on legislation, because as i posted above from the SCOUTUS majority opinion, they would have not ruled as they did if the state had statutes in place prohibiting this use(mis-use) of eminent domain laws.
    A far more appropriate, and fair use of this kind of 'civil dissent' would be for the people who actually TOOK the action against the Kelo's to be the target of this 'action'. Namely the Councilmen in the city of N.L. Connecticut- (it is already established that THEY believe this is a GOOD law) and one that should be used to 'get what they want', but it is easier to attack those who deliver the 'ugly truth', especially when you plan to 'move here' anyway, which the petitioner of this pledge is said to have plans to do.

    The justices ruled as they did, based on the 'takings' clause of the fifth ammendment, and the PRECIDENTS that had come to courts long before this case. As i've said time and again, it is NOT the 'job' of the Supreme Court to create laws, but to interpret, and 'judge' based NOT on their own 'personal desires' but on established laws, and precidents of said laws, to determine which party should prevail-
    i DO believe they did their job, without any 'joy' or delight- AND CLEARLY with compassion, and regret for those who were going to suffer the loss of thier homes for the monetary benifit of the state- But it IS the 'rule of law'- And they all but TOLD us all to be sure and get laws established in out states to protect this from happening to anyone else.
    You, Don, have not been personally harmed by this decision, and justice Souter is not the person desiring to deprive these folks of their homes, he has NOTHING to 'gain' in this unpopular decision (and is one of 5) so, i cannot see this petition as anything other than a publicity stunt, and a personal vendetta against those who were doing what they were appointed to do, even if it wasn't popular, or comfortable.

    and Phil,
    i truly appreciate the time and tone with which you chose to interact with someone who shared an opposing view. If you, are a Libertarian, you represent the 'better' side of them- as for what i've read and experienced here, i can't ever imagine the 'movement' taking hold- especially in NH. And i plan to make sure those i know who have expressed curiosity about the "FSP" to look hard and long into the character, and M.O. of the sort of folks they would be aligning themselves with- i'm glad to have learned so much here.

    And wish you all,contentment, and peace. it is also my hope that you be treated as INDIVIDUALS, in civil, and respectful ways by others that cross your path in this world, be they friends, or strangers. Independence is a valuable 'right' but can be corrupted, and taken to the extreem, just as any 'right' can.

    Emma
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma wrote: "If you, are a Libertarian, you represent the 'better' side of them- as for what i've read and experienced here, i can't ever imagine the 'movement' taking hold- especially in NH. And i plan to make sure those i know who have expressed curiosity about the "FSP" to look hard and long into the character, and M.O. of the sort of folks they would be aligning themselves with- i'm glad to have learned so much here."

    Response:
    Thank you. I am a libertarian, as well as an actual Libertarian Party member. I also am a member of the FSP and plan to move to NH next year. I can imagine the movement taking hold, and hope very much that it does. I will be putting forth my efforts toward that end. If you were to talk to the average libertarian, I think you'd find they're likely to be more like me than not. Basing your opinion of any group upon your impressions of whoever from that group shouts the loudest is unlikely to give you a clear or accurate picture of that group, whether it be liberals or Christians or libertarians or whatever.

    I must end this conversation here, as I have a trip to take. Good luck to all and sundry. I do hope the LLH succeeds. I think it already has in the most important ways. If it succeeds all the way. I'll see some of y'all there!

    PhilB
    PhilB, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Logan Clements is a Free State Project member ( http://www.freestateproject.org ) and will be moving to New Hampshire no matter how the Lost Liberty Hotel progresses. It is good to see that a fellow FSP member is taking the lead and making a stand for liberty. NH is the "Live Free or Die" state, so it makes sense that this hotel is being built in NH.
  • Isn't it obvious to everyone that Emma is just a trust fund liberal? I mean, who else has nothing better to do with her time than to post on a site such as this fourteen times a day for a week? Yeesh.
    Scott, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • eww, Scott. You'll be lucky to escape with your head for that one...

    Golly.
  • No, Scott, i'm not a trust fund anything-
    Liberal? perhaps, if that means 'free' from thinking i have to have to adopt the opinions of others, regardless of what my concience might dictate.
    But, it appears that you folks who are so 'caught up' in preserving your freedom, most ESPECIALLY the preservation of your possesions- to the extent that you would KILL to have them,- are not free at all- you are owned by your posessions.
    Guess you've never heard of a vacation? But, that would mean you'd be one of those 'workers' not the 'Capitalist' who live off the 'workers'-
    There is not one possession i have, that i would kill to keep- i feel great pity for those of you who have yet to learn that people are far more important than 'things'-
    My father was a man who was extreemly generous to anyone in need- he would have never made it in 'your' book- but he was a person many knew and everyone respected.-
    i wish you all well- your demeanor, agression and selfishness, as well as your pre-occupation with wanting to keep as much money for yourselves as possible, (yes, i read the FSP link) is 'ironicly' the desire to become what you so foolishly accuse me of 'being'-
    i DO have a 'trust fund' but its not a 'tangible' one- my trust lives in the knowledge and experience that bad things will happen to us no matter what we do, or how well we 'protect' oursleves,- that 'things' mean nothing if you sell your soul to attain them, and that being poor, (toilet paper or milk) is a very valuable lesson, to learn.
    My TRUST lies, not in the money i lack, or the possessions i may or may not have but in the KNOWLEDGE that there DO exist, many good people who would never dream of participating in your self orentied display of greed-vengence and gluttony - 'disguised as a 'noble' effort, or 'just' desserts that you've pledged your souls to.

    The love of money, is IN DEED the root of all evil.

    And sadly,your name fits you Dymphna, tho, i'm sorry to see that evidenced in your words and deeds- Sorry i 'mis-spelled your name'- i've never been very good at spelling.
    You aren't my saint- but you are a fellow human, and as such i wish you well, and that you grow in wisdom and compassion.

    Emma
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Hello all,

    I have to admit that I'm new here. Just read all your posts this evening--interesting stuff. I'd just like to say that I'm a reformed-liberal-turned-libertarian who has lived in NH for the past twenty six years, and am now a 'friend of the FSP'. For all you fellow porcupines out there, I believe you'll find a pretty warm reception should you choose to make the move. The folks here generally tend to be very liberty-conscious--we take our license plates seriously :-)

    In response to Emma, first of all, Hello. I don't really want to get involved in a heated debate here about this--it's not really the proper forum--but in defense of the ideals of libertarianism, I feel the need to point something out. I can't speak for every libertarian, but I think it's fair to say that most folks would not be comfortable with the idea of killing another person solely for the preservation of material possessions. In my opinion, the use of deadly force is only justified if your life (or anyone's life for that matter) is in danger. I'm also not sure exactly what you meant with your reference to "greed-vengence and gluttony". Are you referring to this particular pledge, or libertarianism in general? If you have some time off this week for your vacation, and would like some interesting reading, I would suggest you check out:

    http://www.libertarianism.com/ and
    http://www.capitalism.org/

    Oh, and by the way, I live about 17 miles from the proposed site of the LLH, and I'd still pay for a 7-night stay...
    Brian, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Wow - almost a whole hour before Emma responded with another long post. Workin' hard to contribute something to society, I see. Very impressive.

    I find it interesting that, as with most lefties, Emma apparently believes that she is the only one capable of free thought - everyone else, particularly if they happen to come to the same conclusion, must be engaging in groupthink.

    Try to see if you can go an hour or so without responding. ;)
    Scott, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I've got bad news for you, Emma. Phil really responded to your point about most of the believers in Libertarianism being unbalanced, vengeance driven wackos pretty well, but I must say that most followers of most "isms" who are passionate enough to take action for their beliefs are not great salesmen for their beliefs. That's probably the first thing new converts need to get to work on. The Advocates for Self-Government focus on that particularly.

    Libertarianism is based on the non-Aggression principle, which I'll define with the clause from the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." We would like to see this clause raised to a higher status in American jurisprudence.

    But violators of others must be stopped, hence the remainder of that amendment. I think it needs to be clearly stated that the first part defines "probable cause" and that protection of that security is the only excuse for any seizures or "takings."

    I don't find this debate boring, I probably wouldn't have read many comments without it. Personal attacks don't advance one's position. Drown your opponents with your constructive views if you think they're full of it.
  • Emma B sez:

    "But, it appears that you folks who are so 'caught up' in preserving your freedom, most ESPECIALLY the preservation of your possesions- to the extent that you would KILL to have them,- are not free at all- you are owned by your posessions."

    Well now, the fellow traveller communist has exposed herself at last!
    Remember her remark: "But, it appears
    that you folks who are so 'caught up' in preserving your freedom, ..."

    You bet, Emma! I'll do whatever it takes to defend that liberty – even if it means my own death.

    Then she goes on:
    "Guess you've never heard of a vacation? But, that would mean you'd be one of those 'workers' not the 'Capitalist' who live off the 'workers'-"

    Notice the thinly veiled accusation: You're all a bunch capitalists!

    Get real, Emma!
    Everybody is part 'capitalist,' and part 'worker.'
    Anybody who has any money at all, and who invests it in whatever endeavor, is a capitalist.
    And, by direct association, anyone who endeavors to make money by exchanging whatever kind of labor – be it intellectual or manual labor, is a worker.

    To wit: Anyone having more money than me is monetarily wealthy, and it matters not a whit whether it's a mere penny, or very much more than that.

    Your communistic assertions delineating the differences between those who have =more= of something than most people is both intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • i just wanted to thank you Old Whig-
    regardless of whether we may share the same perspectives on what is 'right or 'wrong', you have spoken to me with respect and kindness-
    i do feel my position here is clearly spelled out- not as an 'agenda' against person, but as an agenda that says doing bad to stop bad leaves us with alot of bad- and i have to admit the personal attacks are begining to feel like enabling people to continue to behave in ways i feel are rude, childish and a waste of time.
    i used to 'look' for people to tell me i was a jerk- i used to look for opportunities to be a 'victim'- because that was just SO familiar, even if they made me feel like 'shit', it was what i knew. But doing that is ALSO wrong,because it gives folks reason to continue to do something i believe is not good for them, OR 'their cause'.

    i've been back at work since tuesday, and just don't have the time, or energy to invest in doing what i 'SHOULD' do,- (speaking out for what i believe in regardless of the response) but i'm tired, and to be honest, pretty discouraged by the attitude of the majority (but very honestly not ALL) those who care to speak out here.
    Thank you for pointing out that i shouldn't judge a 'movement' by the loud voices of a 'side' movement. And your point about Phil, is salient, and probably very true.

    i wish you well-

    Mr Totty,
    i do pity you. Call me all the names you like- you clearly need somewhere to vent. My response about being a worker, if you actually read the posts, was as a response to someone claiming i was a trust-fund liberal which i am very much Not! i have no problem with those who have more money than me, but when they value their money and posesssions over human life, then YES i will speak out- If you choose to call that communisum, than feel free- i would call it humanitarian.- But you clearly don't care what i think or say, except as tinder for your rage.

    And Scott,
    i sure hope you don't work in accounting or mathmatical fields- If you aren't simply being sarcastic, your ability to count posts, or tell time, is pretty far off the mark- But you don't want to discuss the 'right' or 'wrongness' of this proposed LLH- you want dis me, rather than support your view. Sorry to disapoint you, but i'm not playing- life is too short, and precious for that kind of B.S.-

    Enjoy your lives-

    none of us knows when our 'time' will come- and nothing we 'accrue' in this world, will go with us when we leave.

    Emma B

    (Sorry Brian,
    i meant to say to you i live just shy of an hour north of Weare, and my people have been here since (in NH) since 1920's moving east from Vt./Petersberg Ny area.

    My views on the greed, and possessions over life stem from conversations on this site, and from looking at the conversations on 'Libertarian' or 'FSP' message boards- but as Old Whig, and Phil pointed out, it isn't fair to judge the movement by the loud voices- i was somewhat intregued by the 'platform' of the Libertarian 'ideal'- but haven't seen the fruit of it in the majority of it's followers (which i admit, is NOT a fair sampling,but very discouraging to anyone who is curious, but not able/willing to dig deeper)

    Glad you like NH if you've spent over 20 yrs here, you've seen some of what the state can ask of a person, though, winters of the sixties and seventies were pretty extreem.


    i wish you well, and no worries, i won't let the door hit me on the way out.-
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Well Emma, you kinda sorta recognized sarcasm. I didn't bother to count the number of posts you made - I just know it was a lot.

    Actually I did make a comment about the "rightness" of taking Souter's house. I wrote about how this act was to help Souter (and others like him) understand the implications of his decisions - to make sure the "law" (as Souter would call it) applies to everyone, not just the "dirty poor people" like Kelo, et al. (I know on paper it does, but we all know that money/celebrity buys justice - see Michael Jackson, OJ, about 1/2 of Hollywood, etc.)

    I also drew an analogy to war - that this is akin to making sure that those who vote to go to war have personal stake in it (by making sure they have a son/daughter/some other close person in the fighting). But I guess you didn't see that one. It's no longer in the most recent 25 posts, so I can't point it out to you.

    At any rate, it's fine to disagree, but recognize that for some, this is just a cathartic exercise - a place to vent. You made your point, now let us be.
    Scott, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I see we have hit upon an unintended extension of the checks and balances built into the constitution.

    If I haven't joined the Free State Project by the time the hotel is built, I will spend my week seeking employment in the area, but I suspect I will have already signed up since it is becoming more and more obvious that our freedoms are on life support and it's time for the defibrillator, not aspirin.

    Dave Barry for President? Drew Carey?
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I just read some of the other posts and wanted to add something. If you read the 5th amendment you will notice that the due process mention has to do with life, liberty and property. You will notice that property is given equal footing with life and liberty. The due process required to take someone's life (aka the death penalty) is quite high indeed while the due process required to take someone's liberty (aka imprisonment) is also quite high. Neither can be justified because it would be economically beneficial for the community. If that were the case, sickly senior citizens would be hauled off to be euthanized.

    The reason life, liberty and property were given equal footing is because they are all different aspect of the same thing. Life is you in the present, Liberty is you in the future and Property is you in the past. To take your life is to deny your right to your future self. To take your liberty is to deny you your present and to take your property is to deny you the evidence of your past efforts.

    If you decide to trade your property for value received, that is your choice. It is not the government's choice. The process of eminent domain was meant to allow for public projects such as roadways that cannot be feasibly located elsewhere, not commercial buildings and private owners.

    I sense a series of Constitutional amendments coming rapid fire in reaction to Lost Liberty. Even so, I will happy to see the LLH built. I would love to attend the meeting where the project is considered but I live on the other coast so that might be difficult. I suspect seating at the meeting will be a hotter ticket than anything since the Michael Jackson trial.

    If I were you Justice Souter, I'd start packing now.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • B.K. Jone,

    You've hit the proverbial nail on it's head!

    Exactly! All rights are indeed equal, and the taking of any one of those amounts to the taking of all of them, or more succinctly: To affront any single right, is to affront all of them.

    Now, I suppose that the entity who refers to herself as 'Emma B' will 'ring in' here and hope to dismiss all of this.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Does anyone notice how "emmy/emma's" language usage and content has changed? She is no longer the "entity" that began to post. Her language gives this away.

    In the beginning, she gave one impression of herself. The entity speaking now is not the same person, according to the language usage and word density. In other words, "she" uses a lot of words, but says little of importance. No facts, and the ones presented are twisted to represent a subjective view of her own reality... or perhaps the reality that this "person" wants us to have.

    Emmy, give it up,... it's not working.
    Maggie Kaye, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • wow. some really strong words and feelings associated with this. When I first read about the LLH, I said, where do I sign up? What a great idea to make a point! I fervently believe that the ruling in Kelo was wrong. After reading the postings here, some valid points were raised that I had not considered, but my orginal belief remains unchanged. (BTW, I would sign the pledge if I knew I could afford the stay, but being on a limited budget I do not want to commit to something I may not be able to afford.) As to all the comments: I agree with everyone posting to some point or about some things. Thank you all for a lot of interesting ideas.

    It is true that the Supremes are simply interpreting what the Constitution allows in this one instance. And we have been sliding down this slope of lost liberties as a nation for several years now. Everyone remember the ruling last year requiring a person to identify themself to a police officer? Where has the right to remain silent gone? Now we may be even closer to the Nazis or Stalinists with the national ID. How long will it be before we will be required to show "our papers?"

    The Supremes have been the final word on issues, the final nail in the coffin, (please forgive the cliche`) so of course they are most obvious target. But let's not forget that our law makers, lower courts and law enforcement and other government agencies are the ones whose acts the Supremes are judging. The Supremes are not the actors.

    It's the corporate mindset of the Kelo ruling that disturbs me. Taking my property so a private person or corporate entity can make more money off of it than I can is just fundamentally wrong. And I am appalled that the highest court in the land, the court of last resort, does not find that.

    I have to agree that property should never be worth the same as a human life. After all, we can buy and sell property, we can destroy it if we want, things I think we all agree one could not do with human beings. Property should be protected and valued, no question. And we should remember that the framers of the Constitution were all property owners--they had to be to be allowed to hold office or even vote. So property may have meant even more then than it does now. NO one should be able to take it from me by force or coercion. However, anyone willing to kill to protect their personal property put yourself on the other side: if your son or daughter were doing something illegal and stupid like stealing, would you support the right of someone else to kill them for that? I understand that possiveness, that territorialism because I feel it myself on occasion, but there is very little that gives one the right to cause physical harm or death to another human.

    I certainly see the value in the type of protest being planned with the LLH. If the Nine had believed that they would have been personally affected by the ruling would it have been different? only they know that.

    It seems that many have gotten so carried up personally in these postings that they're missing a very big point: we need to start with our state legislatures to make sure that this kind of taking cannot happen in our respective states. But why not protest with the LLH and lobby too? They are not mutually exclusive, a point that some seem to miss. One may put energy into a protest without losing it in lobbying power. so what's the problem? contact your legislators on the state and national level instead of expending all of that wonderful energy here!
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Carole Anne,

    You discuss some interesting points and obviously have given this subject a lot of thought. I know what you mean about property not being the same as life, but in many respects our property is our life... our life in the past tense that is. If you work all your life for your property and that property is taken from you, in many respects you have lost a portion of your life.

    If you've ever had anything significant stolen from you, or destroyed in a natural disaster or accident, you know how devastating it can be and it isn't all just about money. When that property is something like a house, people can have strong emotional ties; each room filled with memories. People have memories of children sitting on the stoop, a first kiss, how a deceased loved one used to push them on the tire swing.

    No property isn't on the same plane as life, but it certainly is more than just numbers on an accountant's spreadsheet and certainly the founding fathers knew they were risking life and property when they signed the Declaration of Independence. They certainly meant to provide strong property rights for the generations to come when they drafted the U.S. Constitution.

    I thank them for their best attempts and I for one won't sit around and watch while people piss on their graves by making a joke of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Brian Jones--

    What you so well described could be called "the pursuit of happiness." The latest fool ruling by the Supremes tramples that right into the ground.

    That's why the Lost Liberty Hotel is such a fine concept. It's an example of "the mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine."

    May the good Justice's house be grist for that mill.

    ~D
  • Carol Anne,

    You make some interesting comments here.

    Quote:
    "It is true that the Supremes are simply interpreting what the Constitution allows in this one instance."
    Unquote.

    I consider that you may be terribly wrong with that comment.
    What the Constitution - allows - is one thing thing, but what that court has allowed is quite something else.

    What they 'gave' wasn't an interpretation, but rather an edict.
    If a municipality decides that it will sell every square inch of itself in the name of the tax motive, then every person - or other entity, may be made to leave that place, in the name of more taxes.

    That is =exactly= what the USSC has rendered.
    A town, or city, may declare E.D. over all other owners of whatever land, and proceed to allow the business interest having the greatest to acquire that land for whatever business interest.

    Take that further into the future:
    If a city decides to annex adjacent lands, and if a sufficient number of voters declare a majority decision to be annexed, then everyone who own lands in that annexation may have their properties declared to be less than at fair market value, and subequently have their property taken by E.D. at a very much lesser value than they might be worth, merely that the value of the municipal had been increased by way of taxation in the interim.

    Now, regarding your statement:
    Quote:
    "However, anyonewilling to kill to protect their personal property put yourself on the other side: if your son or daughter were doing something illegal and stupid like stealing, would you support the right of someone else to kill them for that?"
    Unquote.

    Put =yourself= in the place of the person or persons whose property was being stolen.
    What if =your= son, or daughter was stealing the last meal from another person's mouth? Would you agree with that?

    What if =your= son, or daughter, had deprived someone of a thing that would have kept them alive through a freezing cold winter?
    What if that person died as a result of that theft?
    Would you still agree with that theft?

    Is =your= son – or daughter's – life, worth =more= than someone elses life?

    You seem to want to be shying away from responsibility here.

    So, who's life is =more= important? That person whose property was being stolen, or the one doing the stealing?

    Now, I grant you, that simple theft =might not= be a case for instant death, but then? S/he who goes intentionally about the land to steal from others is asking for misery – first hand.

    Please: Don't make excusese for thieves, as the US Congress is full of them!
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Brian, I was in fact the victim of a burglary. I understand completely the feelings of anger, no rage, at being invaded and violated. And I lost some things that had great sentimental value in that burglary. I wanted to see the perpetrators drawn and quartered and hanged at the cross roads! But realistically I know the difference between emotional revenge and appropriate sanctions and settled for some jail time.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you about the emotional ties with property. In fact, I gave up the right to equity in my house in my divorce so that the only home my children had ever known would not be sold. I must say though that some of my very close friends could not understand that, stating "it's just a HOUSE." Obviously, people have many different ideas and interpretations of what is important. To some people, people with families and possessions just like you and I, property IS simply numbers on an accountant's sheet. And to some it's even less, to some, it's just "stuff" and the more you get rid of it, the better off you are! None of us have exactly the same values I guess is what I'm trying to say. If the city decided to bulldoze my home to make way for a shopping mall, I would chain myself to the front porch and would fight every way I knew how to prevent it. I would be as heartbroken about it as I was about my grandmother's necklace being stolen when my house was burglarized. Just as I would be heartbroken about either the necklace or the house being lost in a fire or tornado. Things with emotional attachment are priceless and irreplaceable, no question about it. But some of us just don't have that emotion and will never understand it.

    The real point I was trying to make though, was that we have to start at the bottom. Throwing rocks through the window at the top of the parapet is not nearly so effective as undermining the foundation of the castle. Several states have laws that prevent what happened in Kelo. We have to work to make sure that ALL states have those laws. We have to start with the law makers.

    And EJ, No one's life is more valuable than anyone else's. Or at least I am not qualified to judge if it is and would say that you are probably not either. And I am not making excuses for anyone. I agree with you that the people who took Ms. Kelo's home are wrong, and the law that allowed them to do it and the courts that upheld the laws are morally and fundamentally wrong. It is tantamount to theft. The point is, the lawmakers who passed those laws to begin with, along with the City and State officials who enforced them and the lower Courts that upheld them are truly to blame. What the Supreme Court said, and remember that it was 5-4 so virtually half did not agree, was that the LAW in CT that allowed this to happen was not UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is not the same as saying that it can happen anywhere at any time. They did not rule that any municipality or government entity at any time may take anyone's property. They ruled that a law that says they can is not in violation of the Constitution. I think that they are WRONG. But, it is not likely to be revisited any time soon so States just have to pass the laws that say it can't happen and it won't. That's the point I'm trying to make. We can prevent this on the state level.

    The Supremes are in the parapet. They're the most obvious target. And while the protest would be most obvious against them, the real action has to begin at the state level.
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Carol,

    While I agree that we should be active in making sure each state has protection against Kelo-style takings, that does not mean that the Lost Liberty Hotel project is not appropriate. The Supreme Court is directly if not solely responsible. I will explain further below.

    The fact of the matter is the law is unconstitutional if you read the Constitution in context as I describe in an earlier comment comparing life, liberty and property protections. I was thinking about the way I worded that message and I would like to apply a little more clarity to it.

    In the cases of life and liberty, you not only need to follow due process, you also have to prove a wrongdoing, a crime if you will. Except in cases of public use, eminent domain should never be used to take personal property without conviction of a crime. This is the law that makes it legal for things like drug bust takings (we could talk about that some other time and place.)

    Owning property where a business desires to build their property is NOT illegal and therefore no amount of due process could justify the taking.

    Although I agree that state action must be taken, I would like to qualify that by pointing out it is only necessary BECAUSE of the Kelo decision. The reason the states should not have to pass their own law protecting personal property rights is the 14th amendment. To paraphrase, "No state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It can be argued and certainly the Supreme Court has in the past, created precedent that this phrase does not actually refer to the Bill of Rights or the other amendments or for that matter even the Constitution. I cannot believe this to be the case. If you look at the words of the people who drafted this amendment and look at it in the context its framing, following on the heels of abolition, I think it is clear the intent was that those rights given the people in the Bill of Rights are not subject to subrogation by the states. If you want to read more about that, pick up "No State Shall Abridge" by Michael Kent Curtis.

    The fact that the Supreme Court has ignored and eviscerated the 14th amendment in the past is not justification for ignoring it yet one more time. It is cowardice.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Carol--

    Your instincts regarding the importance of place are not over-stated. After a bankruptcy imposed by my former husband we moved to another state where said spouse eventually abandoned us. Of my three children, only one was ever able to truly make a home...

    Follow your instincts on that one. Keep your children in the home of their hearts and they will grow strong and true. I didn't know that and my children have suffered. One died early, and I will always think it was of a broken heart. She could never find a home she felt safe in again.

    Good for you!
  • For B.K. Jones:

    Your comment:
    "The fact that the Supreme Court has ignored and eviscerated the 14th amendment in the past is not justification for ignoring it yet one more time. It is cowardice."

    Well, actually, no. It was entirely a case of perfidy, plain an simple.

    Do not excuse as cowardice, that which is plainly a breach of trust.

    Honest men (and women) make mistakes.
    Those whose intent is entirely dishonest may be described as nothing less than treacherous.

    Know your enemy, and you will know his/her intent.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • EJ Totty: This is succinct and brilliant:

    "It was entirely a case of perfidy, plain an simple."

    For some reason, that word occurred to me, too, but I didn't use it.

    Thanks for bringing it up.

    The perfidious Justice Souter. Yep.

    ~D
  • E.J. Totty,

    You may very well be right.

    First, let me explain my statement regarding cowardice. Although not an attorney or constitutional law scholar by any means, I have been doing a lot of reading recently regarding the constitution. That said, here is what I see. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens makes numerous citings of precedent cases. But most significantly, he states, "Because over a century of our case law interpreting [the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment] dictates an affirmative answer to [the question of public purpose], we may not grant petitioners the relief they seek."

    Thus the use of the term cowardice was meant to signify their unwillingness to overturn precedent; their unwillingness to assert a proper reading of the Fifth Amendment. Of course this assumes they are acting honorably and making that assumption may very well be foolhardy.

    I believe the perfidy comes into play in regards to the continuing acceptance of the use of eminent domain to justify anything but strictly public projects. It is clear in reading the majority decision that the path that led us to Kelo has been one well-intentioned taking after another.

    Not taking of property, but taking of rights.

    For some reason, (socialist sympathies) there has been a trend toward ignoring personal property rights under the assumption that without the government's intervention, commerce and the good of the general public would deteriorate beyond repair and that these sentiments supercede personal property rights.

    When you combine this attitude with the sentiment expressed in Stevens' opinion that the Supreme Court can't be bothered to determine the validity of each and every case, thus letting states rights rule the determination of public benefit, they have effectively delegated the enforcement of the Fifth Amendment to the states which may or may not have an interest in upholding it.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Brian,

    You make good points, and I concur that what has tranpired in the legal sense is nothing short of a degree of cowardice – in the respect that those justices refuse to address the wrongs of the past.

    I liken the matter to the statements of Chief Justice R.B. Taney:
    From the American Heritage Dictionary (V4.0)
    1777-1864 1. American jurist who served as the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1836-1864). In the Dred Scott decision (1857) he ruled that slaves and their descendants had no rights as citizens.

    Talk about perfidy!
    In this case, he wasn't a coward, but instead was merely are real arse who couldn't seem exticate his head from his behind.

    Taney's remark – in the words alone, was intended to address Black slaves, but the specifics were not – to my knowledge – addressed in just that way.

    So, Taney's remarks would have made almost a quarter of the American White population at the time people without legal residency, because the ancestors of many men and women were indentured servants, and English slaves at one point.

    The decendants of those people held high office in both the US, states, and territorial governments.

    Critical thinkers would have caught on to that real quick, because it would have invalidated their standing as citizens.

    In any case, what the court has done – by following precident, is – as you say – escape making the real decisions over a matter.

    But then? We get into that territory called 'legislating from the bench' where an accepted ruling is overturned by a subsequent court.

    This is what it's really all about: If the legislature decides that a ruling is faulted – but does not a thing to correct that ruling, then by way of legal workings, the decision is for all intents and purposes valid – even though it is terribly wrong.

    See above concerning Taney.
    Taney's ruling was overturned by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment.

    So, if the US Congress is =really= interested in correcting an odiously onerous decision from the bench, then all it need do is legislate an amendment to the USC to shove the court's opinion back where the sun don't shine!

    I say that because the court is required to rule on the law as it is written, and if the law is written with such emphasis as to clearly state – in no uncertain terms – precisely what is meant, leaving no room for equivocation, then the court must find precisely for the word of the law, and not some 'penumbra of the emanations.'

    The USC was written in plain English, clearly understandable by most of the citizens of the period. There is, however, that aspect which I'll refer to as sloppy construction which allows any number of legal interpretations – given that what was meant =then= has changed in character.

    The founders said what they meant using the fewest words possible, while making clear the intended meaning, at least as they understood it.

    The 'slop' happens when there are no emphatic delimiters regarding what is =not= to be inferred.

    But then, the USC was supposed to be a document specifying just =what= the government had the power to do. If the permission wasn't there, then there was no legal authority to proceed.

    Finally, and tangentally speaking, the ruling in question here is yet another example of equivocation by the SCOTUS.

    To wit: The USC (Constitutional law – the law of the land) says one thing, but the SCOTUS says the states are free to make their own rules – regarding E.D.

    YET, the ruling on Medical Marijuana (Statutory law being inferior to Constitutional law) allows the states no such room to maneuver.

    Say what?
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • You make a great, no, =excellent= point in bringing up the medical marijuana ruling, Gonzales v. Raich, which was handed down within days of Kelo.

    Gonzales relies on the commerce clause to justify federal involvement where individuals used marijuana grown within their own state to treat a medical condition.

    When the Supreme Court wants to, they can find the most circuitous, tortured logic to support the commerce clause's use. To wit, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), they ruled that the government restriction limiting farmers' wheat production applied to this case because even though the wheat in excess of the quota was to be used by the farmer, and therefore, not involved in commerce, they ruled that if he had not grown the wheat he would have had to buy wheat and therefore affected commerce. Examples like this abound. The effect has been, as witnessed in the Gonzales case, the SCOTUS can find justification for extending federal jurisdiction into just about any facet of life by finding something about the case that is in some tiny way connected to interstate commerce.

    Using this as perspective, we see that the criteria used in the Kelo case had to do with the level or respect, or lack thereof, given to the original intent of the fifth amendment (property rights), the tenth amendment (federal jusrisdiction) and the fourteenth amendment (restriction on states against violating constitutional rights of individuals.) It also had to do with the statist, general welfare leanings of the justices joining the majority opinion.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I would like to make one more point related to Kelo.

    Senator John Cornyn (R-Tx) has made lots of noise about his Senate Bill 1313 and how it corrects the injustice of Kelo.

    I think it does very little indeed to reverse the effects of Kelo and here is why; his bill only affects projects with direct federal involvement. This only includes federal eminent domain exercise and state or local exercise in projects using federal funds.

    The vast majority of takings under Kelo, will not be of this variety. They will be local developers convincing local governments to exercise eminent domain on their behalf. At the very least the politicians gain by increasing the tax base, but it would be naive to think the potential for corruption would go untapped.

    It is reprehensible for Cornyn to use the public outcry against Kelo to make it appear as though he is coming to the rescue of his constituents. I would have been much happier if he had proposed a constitutional amendment banning the practice completely.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Brian,

    Good points all around!
    I don't know Cornyn, and I can't speak for his politics. But, I agree that his attempts at employing statutory law to correct this egregious mess, is about like telling a joke to your executioner.
    Who gets the last laugh?

    The court will, because they will then refer to their decision, and call it 'settled law.'
    And they will be correct, seeing as how they ruled on the matter 'constitutionally' and referred to federal aspect when they did.

    They will also dismiss the power of the Congress to employ statutory law as a remedy, seeing as how the Constitution itself is supreme to all other law – including laws made in its name.

    There really is only one recourse: Constitutional Amendment.
    Fat chance.

    This is why Souter's house should be taken.
    When enough people get ticked-off and red-in-the-face over this mess, then maybe things will happen.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I couldn't have said it better, EJ.

    Welllll, hehe... I disagree on one point. Fat chance re: constitutional amendment?

    I think there is a great chance.

    I think the country, with the exception of certain developers and local elected officials would get behind an eminent domain reform amendment like they have gotten behind few in history.

    I think any elected official who got in the way of it would be putting his job in as much jeopardy as Souter's title to a certain property in Weare, N.H.

    What do you say, we start a new petition to get Dr. No, aka House Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R-Tx) to write and sponsor the amendment, with each pledge promising to not vote for any legislator who does not support it?
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Brian,

    Thanks! You are too, too kind.

    Now, regarding the good congressman from Texas?
    That's a thought ...

    Maybe he already has something in the works.
    I have nothing but the highest of regards for Ron Paul. It's a real tragedy that there aren't more office holders as he.

    However, and not to seem like a wet dishrag, I don't know that a lot of people would be enervated enough to follow that idea you propose.

    See? It's like this: Action is predicated upon perceived pain. It =is= the essence of why so much stupid law has been snuck into the law books.

    If the law that's been made doesn't affect you, likely you won't care.
    People are largely reactionary animals. Actually, most animals are that way. If you don't bother someone, likely they won't go out of their way to bother you – politicians excepted.

    Most people who have read the Med. MJ ruling, could care less about someone =else's= pain.
    If it's your next door neighbor, you might empathize. But if it's someone a county away?
    They can't be bothered.
    You've probably heard that old saying: Cry me a river.

    That's the essence of most American's thinking I've known. That might seem unkind, but it's the truth.

    I would think that in order for a constitutional amendment to survive and be ratified, that a massive education campaign would have to be undertaken to warn the American people that monied interests have it in mind to relieve them of their real estate.

    Now, you know? An awful =lot= of Americans don't own their own homes, and simply rent from someone else. It's those people that you are going to have to get to understand the implications of all of this.

    Most of them don't =directly= pay any tax at all.
    They certainly don't pay any real estate tax, and they don't receive any kind of tax bill for sending their offspring to public schools.

    These people form a majority of the city dwellers, and the city dwellers are a majority of the voting public.

    The =only= time most of those people get enervated over a matter is when they are going to be directly affected by something.

    Maybe when a large housing project is to be destroyed to put in a business producing more taxes, then maybe they might get off the sofa and declare war against the status quo in city hall.

    But, unless, and untill that happens? Don't expect much support for an amendment.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • E.J.,

    But I can count on =your= support, right?
    Brian Kent Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Brian,

    Hell yes!

    My only problem is that most the state of Washington's Congressional delegation is composed of people too intellectually myopic.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Our ENTIRE band will pay to spend 7 nights there AND we will play for free every night!!!
  • To: Renee Daphne Kimball:

    We ought to start a thread of song requests -- 7 nights is a lot of time to fill.

    I'll start out with an oldie. How about a rendition of "It's a Sin to Tell A Lie"?
  • RE: Song Requests...

    How about "This land is your land, this land is my land?"
    Hal Scoggins, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I think revolutionary war era music might be appropriate. I imagine there are a lot of entertainers who would be happy to perform for free at this place. BTW I think the LLH is a great idea. But if it's to raise tax revenues, I'm afraid it may be out of my price range, which is pretty much Holiday Inn. Will they have discounts for true believers? Or maybe a hostel type program where we can work off our bill? or would that be too socialist?
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Carol Anne--

    You just reminded me: the Lost Liberty Hotel will be a great source of jobs for Weare's teenagers. That will cut down on adolescent vandalism, saving the town further monies which they can invest in beautifying the town, which will further increase traffic and decrease crime, in a downward spiral of prosperity and good deeds.

    Souter's gotta go, for the greater good of the town.
  • Hey, you guys are great! I never thought of doing oldies in our sets. Any more suggestions? - I'm all ears.

    We do libertarian content with a touch of the polite "R" word and some enviro things. We call it "social commentary without the hatred".

    We do 3 hours worth of stuff with the gammet going from Steve Voss (FAR right) to Anne Finney (FAR left) but it's ALL good libertarian music believe it or not. The enviro stuff is GENUINE enviro, not "use the state to do my dirty work and get my way no matter the cost" enviro.

    We live in the "People's Republic of Portland OR" where environmentalism REALLY IS a state sponsored religion.

    You think I'm kidding - move here!!!

    kindest regards
    Renee
    Enuf!
  • Renee D--

    You could do that libertarian special "I Did It My Way"

    ~D
  • >>We ought to start a thread of song requests -- 7 nights is a lot of
    time to fill.<<

    How about a Janice Joplin night. Can you all do those well?

    BWS
    Boyd Smith, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Ok, only been doing this a short time and hate to show my ignorance, but what, pray tell, is "the polite "R" word?"

    Would a magician be appropriate entertainment? making things disappear seems to go right along with the theme. David Copperfield makes great big things like the Statue of Liberty disappear. Wonder what he could do at LLH?
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • No Janis Joplin - just libertarian social commentary and environmental. Isn't that enough? I think maybe people have been going to too much karaoke LOL :-)

    kindest regards
    Renee
  • HEHEHEHEHEHEH
    The songs we do "politely" reference the "R" word. It's that word regarding events in 1776, usually comes attached to the word "War" and has to do with that silly little document called the Bill of Rights. :-)

    kindest regards
    Renee
  • Regarding the suggestion for a magician - I LOVE IT!!!!!! How truly appropriate at the LOST Liberty Hotel. You're a genius or as near to it as I'll ever get anyway :-)

    kindest regards
    Renee
  • I'd just like to note that magicians were extremely popular in the pubs back then.
  • you might learn something from these folks who were over a YEAR ahead of you fools-


    Passed by New Hampshire Democratic Party in May, 2004
    Editors' Note: Introducing positions into any local or state political party's platform is one effective tool for broadening awareness of important issues among politically active citizens. Here's one example from New Hampshire. Related platforms and resolutions have been passed in Washington, Oklahoma, and Maine.
    Resolution - Corporations

    Whereas,
    Interpretation of the US Constitution by federal judges to include corporations in the term "persons" has long enabled corporate directors, managers, agents and attorneys to act to nullify the fundamental and constitutional rights of human persons;

    The illegitimate judicial and legislative designation of corporations as "persons" and the bestowal of constitutional power and authority upon corporations enables corporate directors, managers, agents and attorneys to sue municipal, state and federal governments, resulting in both corporate intimidations and frequent judicial nullifications of law that are contrary to the values and desires of the people; and

    Said designation compels local, state and federal governments to recognize corporations as legitimate participants in the fundamental mechanisms of self-government (e.g., legislation, elections, education, regulation and administration, jurisprudence and public policy debate) and since corporations are legal aggregations of property and wealth, corporate participation in the mechanisms of self-governance overwhelms, overpowers, and essentially denies the participation of natural human beings;

    Public officials, hence, enable corporate managers, directors, agents and attorneys to wield the federal and state constitutions - to levy the coercive force of law - against the people of the United States, despite the fact that history, tradition and state constitutions declare the sovereign people to be the sole source of governing authority throughout the nation.

    Therefore, The New Hampshire Democratic Party declares its unwavering support that:

    Corporations shall not be considered "persons" protected by the Constitution of the United States or by the Constitutions of the states that so declare; and

    The rights of individual, natural persons shall be privileged over any and all rights that have been extended to artificial entities.

    The New Hampshire Democratic Party pledges its good faith and labors to make this resolution a reality.


    They didn't just sit around and bitch-
    Emma B., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Once again, 'Emma' rears her head... and she's wrong as usual.

    If you tally the most pro-liberty and anti-liberty people in New Hampshire, and the NHLA (http://www.nhliberty.org) does, you'll find that the Democrats tend to cluster near the bottom of the list, being against both personal freedoms AND economic freedoms. A good chunk of RINOs are there also, but luckily the more libertarian minded Republicans tend to support both sorts of freedoms. (Yes, this contradicts the traditional Nolan chart wisdom)

    There are a lot of us working hard in New Hampshire already... and making progress... and Emma's not too happy about. Help make Emma even more unhappy - sign up for the FSP (http://www.freestateproject.org) today, and join us for Liberty in your Lifetime.
  • No Seth- you have failed to show in ANY way that I am wrong-

    Where is the legislation, or even the attempt to legislate against the corporate take over of private land you "hard working" libery lovers claim to support? (your own liberty at the expense of anyone and everyone else)

    Where is your progress?? You don't have a chance of taking over NH Seth- and we're not stupid 'hicks' here either.
    Interesting article about the libertarian influence in the Winchester area of our state-
    If those of you who talk so much about individual freedom, actually embraced the 'credo' of libertarianism and not some abortion disguised as Libertarian- you might actually have a following- but from what i've seen, read, and met the sad reality is you are a motley crue at best-

    Which is a shame for those who actually are 'sane' and serious about making some necessiary changes.

    i'm not unhappy- come on ahead, you won't last long here unless you are independently wealthy. And in the mean time, you'll have to help pay our taxes.
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Well, Emma B shows her true colors:

    "you might learn something from these folks who were over a YEAR ahead of you fools-"

    Calling people fools is a sure sign one lives under a bridge and jumps out when people go by. So I had it figured out right the first time: The Troll runs out and yells "fool" occasionally just to let everyone know *she's* still in charge of the bridge.

    Meanwhile, Renee, came up with another oldie for your band: Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
  • my colors have been revealed since i was born Dymphna-

    And calling a spade a spade is speaking truth, not hiding behind screen names, and playing games-

    FOOL- acording to Houghton Mifflin:
    noun

    1. One deficient in judgment and good sense: ass, idiot, imbecile, jackass, mooncalf, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal dope, gander, goose. Slang cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, schmuck, turkey. See ability/inability.
    2. A person who is easily deceived or victimized: butt3, dupe, gull, lamb, pushover, victim. Informal sucker. Slang fall guy, gudgeon, mark, monkey, patsy, pigeon, sap1. Chiefly British mug. See wise/foolish

    Lunatic (same source)
    noun

    A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy: crackpot, crazy, eccentric. Informal crank, loon, loony. Slang cuckoo, ding-a-ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo. See wise/foolish.

    Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the greatest fool of all? The one who sees the 'folly' of this, or the one who participates in it and defends it, believeing herself to be the "Saint" ?

    The point of the post is to show there ARE constructive REAL things that can be done to stop the abuse of government DYMPHNA- rather than play the fool, and foolish games-

    i call you what you are, while you decieve yourself into believing you are the 'saint' who protects others from your own downfall.

    Your morph into "oh let me help" should have shown me how gullible i still am-

    i believed you were genuine. Foolish me. You don't want to change things, you just want to play-

    go for it, - if that is all you have to do with your life, i honestly pity you.
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma B,

    I consider that you have very seriously underplayed the Libertarian position.

    You would demean 'dymphna' because she would hold your feet to the fire.

    Well, see here: The current political system pretty much negates the ability of any third party candidate from actually getting into high office, by dint of the major two parties doing everything in their power to make it next to – if not actually – impossible to get on the ballot.

    And, that the Demo party of NH – and a few other places – has managed to hijack a Libertarian idea, and call it their own?

    Your New Hampshire Democrats are nothing other than theives in the night. In fact, I could call them 'intellectual rapists' and be spot-on.

    The problem with you, Emma, is that you want the rest of to play your all-encompassing government game, in order that nothing ever changes for the better of individual liberty.
    Status Quo.

    You would lambast us for not 'getting involved,' when all we =REALLY= want is to just be left alone.
    Why should we participate in your nanny state?
    Every time we turn around, there's =YET ANOTHER LAW= which has been instituted by you brand of whatever party you happen to claim membership in.

    You say we should participate.
    Well, get this: Why should we participate in =your= game, when all it will do is validate your egregious ideals of how to stuff it to your fellow citizens?

    Everytime I've turned around, all the Demopublicans say is: 'Well, you voted, and you lost! Now you have to abide by the results.'

    There's going to come a time in this nation, where those who have oppressed the people – who just wanted to be left alone – will get their just comeuppance.
    The statues and 'memorials' of their oppressors will come banging down upon the ground, and be melted down to make bullets.
    I hope I'm alive to witness the whole shebang.

    You want participation?
    Come the next revolution, I'll participate to erradicat corrupt triumvirate which has infested these lands for far too long.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I'm not hiding, Emma T. I'm using my name, and Saint Dymphna, patron saint of lunatics, is quite amenable to my having been named after her.

    I meant my offer of help and still do. You turned it down and that's your perogative. Your negativity -- which has been cited over and over and over again on this thread by many people -- is your burden, not mine. I offered to help and you said no. Good enough. So why are you bringing it up now as some kind of character attack? Are only the perfect allowed to offer you their help? Well, heavens, woman, no wonder you feel so burdened.

    If fools we are, then fools we be.
    So why do you stoop to our company?

    See, that's what no one understands, Emma T. Why you'd keep coming around when you (a)say you're not going to, and (b)when all you do is complain about our efforts and (c)it's obvious that your complaints/insults/and holier-than-thou self-righteousness have won you no converts. Not one.

    Now Renee Daphne wants to sing with us and for us and notice what joy she created? People got enthusiastic and some logged on to her website to learn more about enufwaste. Look at her picture, Emmat --she's laughing. As Hafiz says, you might as well laugh all the way to God's house or cry all the way to the crazy houe. I'm with Hafiz.

    So the offer is still open, Emma. It's just that you're not woman enough to accept it. Hard to make room for a gift from someone you consider a fool, isn't it?

    Ciao, baby.
  • I will gladly spend 7 nights at the LLH. But this should be a chain -- build one on the other four justices' land who spat on the Bill of Rights. Then build on each mayor's or city councilman's land who initiated such eminent domain actions for private gain.
    Bad Bigdog, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Dymphna,
    Your offer of help, came after some pretty sour and tart smart ass replies to me- by you and others- Anyone is welcome here, IF they want to complain about this country, and play games- rather than doing anything of real effect and that takes more effort than signing a petition for an imaginary "hotel rawanda" The town of Weare (by the way) just passed an article limiting 'growth' and Souters home is in a 'rural-non commercial' area of town. Not only that, you completely ignore the FACTS about the Kelo decision.

    1.- the supreme court didn't target the Kelo's- or claim that New London was economically depressed- the state of Connecicut did.

    2.-The supreme court didn't say the only way the 'development' could be situated was on property that contained houses of people who had NO DESIRE to leave- or sell, the City of New London did-

    So, your anger, and retrebution is MISPLACED- But then, you don't want to build in Connecticut, because that isn't the state chosen for the "Free State Project"-

    The fact that you went from a mouthy sarcastic attacker to a suddenly 'caring compassionate person wanting to help' was like Dr.Jeckel Mr. Hyde.- and took me by complete surprise.- (yeah, i'm gullible enough to believe in the goodness of people- stupid me) i replied to your offer with appropriate and justifiable courtesy and politeness.

    What then followed was more of the childish bull-shit, that this site seems to revell in- which included YOU- (compassionate caring Dymphna dissapears) judgements about my sanity, my authenticity, my 'entity' interspersed with some admittedly KNOWLEDGEABLE and polite, while opposing views, from those who i believe truly DO embrace the 'vision' of the Libertarian perspective.

    Sadly those responses were few, and far between, but a refreshing change.

    If you have the humility, go back, read what i wrote from the begining on, and the responses i was met with- if you look at the 'big picture' you might learn something.

    This is a clique, and a 'game' for you folks- Life isn't a game for many people Dymphna- many of us don't have the luxury of playing "imagine we screw this guy for doing something we don't like, and while we're at it create alot of paper work for the town clerks, and puff ourselves up with our 'righteous indignation' in jest, hey it's fun, and make up menu's and schedules of 'games' we'll play and songs we'll sing-

    If you want to play games, play them with your own life- what you are doing is hating and abusing a man who has done YOU- DYMPHNA absolutely NO HARM- i would defend you against a similar group of FOOLS just as i defend justice Souter- i carry no torch for him- and wish he didn't feel compelled to uphold the precidents, and the Constitution in the manner he did- but he is far more learned in law than i,- or ANYONE here.

    And your time might very well be better spent worrying about the 'new' Justice who has a penchant for choosing the rights of corporations ABOVE those of individuals time and time again. He also doesn't believe that state's rights should 'trump' federal law- so you'll be screwed no matter what-

    Mr. Toddy, i won't bother to reply to your verbal diatribes- i don't want to enable you- and it is clear that you have as closed a mind as you do a heart.

    I came across the FACT that NH had seen this Kelo action coming, and with forsight and creative energy had acted PRE-EMPTIVLY against it- using the only means that will have any hope of changing anything- the Law-

    I've stayed away from this site- and conciously chose not to reply to posts which sought to 'bait' me- into worthless personal attacks- i even deleted the site from my bookmarks-


    My post about the Democratic proclamation against Corporate takings DID come off as angry- and for that i apologize- i came on here and read all the foolishness that masquarades as 'doing something'- and it angered me-
    and i replied inappropriately.

    But i won't stop hope ing that you will stop playing around and DO something constructive with your energy other than fantisize.

    laughter is good- but foolishness (and no one in their right mind can defend this site as anything but exactly that) has a point at which it becomes pointless-

    Emma
    Emma B, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • hmmmm...emma, you make a good point about corporations, however, it certainly is not productive to start out by name calling. I agree that the corporate mentality and the giving of personal rights to corporations just as though they are citizens, i.e. people, is a big problem in our nation. It is fostered by the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, and now, our last hope, the judicial branch has backed it up too. Shades of the industrial revolution (oops, I used the "R" word again) when people were cogs in the machines and what was good for GM was good for America. One example is the insurance industry. Look how many bills and laws are passed benefitting the insurance industry at the detriment of the private citizen--subrogation for instance. At least it's that way in my state, can't really speak for others. But Emma, you're never going to convince people to listen to you if you start out on the attack. And Emma, why shouldn't we laugh and joke at the same time as we organize and rebel (oops, did I use the "R" word there?)or display civil disobedience? Just because one has a good time does not mean that she is not serious about her beliefs. As someone has already said, Lighten up. I will add you'll never get out of this alive, don't take everything so seriously.

    One of the reasons (I believe anyway) that a third party candidate can't get elected in the big race is the factionalization that I see right here. I think everyone here (including Emma) agrees that the the Kelo decision was wrong. What we may disagree with is what the best answer is and who to blame. Rhetorical question, how much does it matter who left the gate open once the horse is out? Isn't it more important to catch the horse?

    Instead of real discourse, what I hear when people disagree here is fighting, name calling, finger pointing. We all have our opinions about what is best. EJ just because I don't happen to agree with everything you say doesn't make me wrong, it just means that I have a different opinion. Who was it who said I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it? One thing we do still have a little of here is freedom of ideas and freedom of expression although that is being eroded every day. Is your ideal country going to consist of only those people who hold exactly the same beliefs as you? Does this sound like other places most of us would not want to live?

    My ideas and attitudes change because I listen to people and give serious condsideration to everything that I hear, unless of course it is totally off the wall :) I feel I am a better person, more informed because I do not just toe the party line. I have learned a lot just reading all of these posts, for example. Several years ago I was a dyed in the wool liberal. Now I don't claim any label, and I think that is true growth and progress. Labels are not only unfair they're unproductive and keep true discourse at bay.
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • afterthought: question to the organizers or others who may know: Why Souter? Why not one of the others? And as bad bigdog said, why not all of the bureaucrats that started this whole mess to begin with?
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • sorry, just can't resist one more thing about singing and joy and protest all at once, anyone else old enough to remember Arlo Guthrie? Alice's Restaurant was a great protest song and at the same time one of the funniest darn things I've ever heard. How about an Alice's Restaurant at the LLH?
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma,

    I am not dymphna, but couldn't help myself replying to your email to her. All past history and personal matters aside, let me address the larger picture regarding the LLH, Souter and the Kelo decision.

    I could really care less what the town of Weare passes, the state of Connecticut decides or the City of New London did or did not do in the context of this discussion. They are simply background which led to what the Supreme Court did by way of a split decision.

    Justice Souter’s house is not being targeted because he took Susan Kelo’s or Mr. Corcoran’s home or even because he is making an 87 year old woman who spent her whole life in house, move. The big picture you are so fond of referring to is the overriding reason 1300+ people took the time to sign this petition. What the Supreme Court did in this case is exactly the kind of government abuse that George Washington risked his home, his status and his life for. It is the reason George Mason wouldn’t sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. It is contrary to the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and all the rest of the founding fathers.

    Although we feel great empathy for those misplaced by eminent domain, we are not protesting this particular taking. We are protesting the stamp of approval five of the Supreme Court justices put on governmental theft. We are protesting on an even larger scale the loss of liberty and the constitutional protections designed to protect them of which the Kelo decision is simply part of.

    We are sick and tired of watching people declare “free speech zones” within a country where the FIRST amendment grants us free speech.

    We are fed up with our SECOND amendment rights being given a “hunting and sporting” litmus test.

    We are disgusted by the abuse of the FOURTH amendment in the name of protecting us. It was Ben Franklin I believe that said that those who give up their freedom for a little security deserve neither.

    We are appalled by the lack of consistency applied to the TENTH amendment so that what is deemed states rights is dependent on the mood of the court.

    We can’t understand how interstate commerce should be applied to medical marijuana rulings but not eminent domain rulings.

    We are tired of living in the shadow of the stitch in time that saved nine, reversing years of SCOTUS rulings indicating there was no provision in the constitution allowing for public welfare; a fact supported by James Madison, the principle author of the constitution, having rejected public welfare on constitutional grounds as a member of Congress.

    So you see, we aren’t upset about the background details in this case, we are upset about the ramifications of this case and all the other attacks on our rights, our constitution and our liberty which are all integrally related.

    You can apologize for your anger all you want Emma. I won’t apologize for mine.

    Brian Kent Jones
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • carole ann,

    The quote about defending your right to speak your mind is commonly attributed to Voltaire. If you appreciate the spirit of the Lost Liberty Hotel, I think you would enjoy reading "Candide", his book about the political and philosophical atmosphere of his time. It is one of those few books for which I recommend reading the Cliff Notes as a companion to the real thing.

    I used to have "Alice's Restaurant" on vinyl and I love listening to it from time to time. I can't say I really agreed with the entire message at the time, but the way he pointed out the absurdity and pretentiousness of the draft was priceless. I kinda hear a guitar strumming in the background now as read about people getting involved in their government again and pointing out when the emperor has no clothes.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Right on, about all of it, Brian!
    carol anne, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Poor Emma.

    I would no more scroll back through your verbiage than you would accept help from me. I find it equally tainted.

    I offered help because you complained about being poor and because I have been in the situation you describe, with young children and having the expense of counseling. Your story touched me.

    But you refused the help for whatever your reasons are, which is fine...

    Then you attack me for offering the help because I think you act like a troll on this thread. You can jump up and down yelling I'm a fool and you're not a troll, but it doesn't change anything. I'm still a fool in your eyes and you're still a troll in mine,
    ____________

    Here's one working definition of a troll:

    "The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the early 1990s. It is widely thought to be a diminutive of the phrase "trolling for suckers," itself derived from the sports-fishing technique of trolling.

    The word likely gained currency because of its conveniently apt second meaning, drawn from the "trolls" portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, which are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on wickedness and mischief."
    ______

    Does that fit you, Emma T? You and others can decide. You already know my opinion.

    And, yes, the offer of help is still open. You're in a tough position and I appreciate that. But you're still not woman enough to accept it -- and you prove this when you attack my character and trash my offer of assistance. That's all it is, an OFFER. All you needed to do was say no thanks and leave it at that.

    But I don't think I've ever encountered anyone less able to "leave it at that" than you, Emma. Anyone who says, as you did -- and says it more than once:

    "I've stayed away from this site- and conciously chose not to reply to posts which sought to 'bait' me- into worthless personal attacks- i even deleted the site from my bookmarks-"

    and yet finds herself here again -- did that mean old bookmark suddenly pop up and MAKE you come over?? -- needs some help. You "consciously" chose not to be here and yet here you are, still huffing. Guess your unconscious chose for you, huh?

    As I said, poor Emma T...
  • oh, and I should add that although the particulars of this case such as the Kelo family and their story are not really what this about in my opinion, I don't mean to imply that what they are going through is not important.

    I also do not mean to imply that everyone here agrees with my every word when I refer to "us" and "we."
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Brian Kent Jones--

    You should be someone's speech writer. You are eloquent and succinct: excellent qualities in a thinker and an author.

    If you're not doing it professionally, I hope you consider doing so.
  • Carole Anne:

    Maybe Alice's Restaurant could be the name of the hotel restaurant. That would be fun.

    Why Souter? In the long run, probably because he was simply the lightning rod. That happens with public figures. Have you read "The Wisdom of Crowds" or "The Tipping Point"? They both go a long way toward explaining aggregate opinion and how it can move issues along. And how it is very often "right."

    Jude Wanniski's book "The Way the World Works" is probably the best introduction to the subject of markets and property rights and taxes. He's a social democrat with libertarian leanings re economics. He wrote it on the high school level so we could *all* understand it.
  • Carol Anne-
    you bring up some very true points- And i hope you get some honest answers about your questioning of why Souter?

    I never did, no matter how many times i asked.

    And you are correct, anger never solves anything- And having fun is crucial for everyone- some people just have different 'senses of humor'.

    I didn't originally come to this site angry- but i cannot align myself with people who on the one hand say in effect,
    "it is wrong to rape", and then when someone they don't even know is raped,
    and a Jury finds the rapist innocent.
    Then someone from the group who was NOT raped, but fears rape says "I'm gonna rape that guy- HE was on the jury and let the rapist go, as a matter of fact, lets make it a GANG rape- who'll join me?" and all sorts of people line up like a hatefilled lynch mob.- and joke among themselves about how they'll do it. And i come into the middle of it all and say.... NO!- stop! if it is wrong to do- how can you justify doing it yourself? Only to have the viscious anger and hatred turned on me-

    Now, honestly, does that seem like adult, rational behaviour to you? it doesn't to me-
    i LIVE in NH- i've been in the Weare Town Offices- they don't need all this crap- I've been in several town offices- i also lost a friend who worked for the town office when an irate taxpayer went on a rampage and shot up anyone who moved in a Town Hall a few towns away from where i live, about 10 yrs ago.
    So, maybe i'm not all that innocent, or tolerant of the mess that is caused when you do crap like this- to folks that are just doing their job- Folks who don't need any more 'make work' or hassles.
    Weare isn't a city- it isn't a very big town, though it's alot bigger than mine. Believe me, it's not a joke to the Town Clerk, and to the police department, who have to pay for the media, and the 'people from away' who come to gawk, and joke, and play games.

    For a group who promotes freedom, and liberty, this group has cause alot of hardship for innocent bystanders in the town of Weare.

    but thank you for your reply Carol Anne-


    Dymphna,
    if you 'offered' help because you cared- then my expressing gratitude, and appreciation while declining your offer should not be held against me- Other wise you were not 'offering' anything - you were demanding i 'accept' your help or be villified by you- and told i was in effect 'a fool' and 'a troll' and a shriveld up prune- because i declined your kind offer.- thinking (stupid me) that i had that 'right'.
    I sincerly appreciated your offer, and said as much- It IS hard to live as a single mother with no one to lean on, but my 'trust' humanity is very fragile, especially strangers bearing gifts- and i've been burned too many times to 'trust' that those who offer kindness, often want blood in return-

    I will admit, it IS my issue- and my battle, but your demeanor towards me, since then has only proven my fear and insecurities true.

    And, it's Emma B Dymphna- i spelled your name wrong and you took great offense- citing my stupidity- it was not intentional on my part. i ignored your mis-spelling of my name thinking it was a slip of the finger, but it is B, not T.

    As for being a troll- i am not- and never have been one. My goal is not to stir the pot- or cause trouble, or "play" with people- My goal was (and IS) to try and get people to look twice at what they are advocating in this action- it was to bring a bit of 'reality' to this 'joke'- to put the human face on it-

    Have i failed? Clearly- do i like being treated as i have been here? maybe in some sick corner of mu subconcious i do- but consciously, my only goal is to stop people from hurting someone, who has done NOTHING other than what he felt was his 'job'-
    AND done nothing that has not been done by the Supreme Court before. This was NOT a precident setting case- the precident had already been done SEVERAL times before, and he was one of FIVE who ruled as he did, not even writing, or commenting on the decision. Yet HE, a man who calls my state home, is your target- chosen 'randomly' it is claimed-

    I'll suggest to you Dymphna, that you don't want to 'go back and look' because you know what i've said has merit- But you are a 'free person'- and if you choose to refuse to 'look back' then that is your business- Just remember, that many of us don't fear looking back, even if it is a lesson we don't really relish learning- if we don't learn from the past, we'll contunue repeating the same mistakes over and over again-

    i wish you well- and hope you never become the whipping boy of anyone's 'cause'- or the 'scape-goat' or'sin-eater' for your cause.

    Emma B
    Emma BBBBBB, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Dymphna,

    Thank you for the kind words. I never really considered that before but considering I seem to be writing one essay after another in online forums all for free, maybe I should consider checking the color of my parachute.

    Without going into endless details, I thank my 9th grade English teacher, Miss Alice Krumenacher. She was a dedicated teacher who took the expression, "college prep" seriously.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma,

    The ultimate precedent is the U.S. Constitution. It is not an intellectually challenging document. It is written for the general public in the most concise, unambiguous language possible. Please tell me what part of it you find difficult and I will be happy to point out to you what the words mean. I will also be happy to point out how taking someone's property, paying them a fraction of what it is worth, and handing it over to another private party using "economic development" as the sole justification for this grand larceny disguised as proper governmental process violates the fifth amendment.

    Then, assuming we can come to the logical conclusion that the entire process is rotten to the core and violates our Bill of Rights, you can tell me how it is you count Souter as an innocent bystander. Maybe you think Souter can't quite comprehend the difficult words like "private", "public" or "just compensation." I tend to think differently.

    In fact, all this talk about the injustice of it all and concentrating on the matter at hand has really made me think hard. It has made me reconsider my commitment to liberty and I want to thank you Emma for giving me the inspiration to join the Free State Project instead of just being a volunteer friend of it.
    Brian K Jones, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Poor Emma.

    Maybe we need to sing a chorus of "Nobody Knows The Troubles I've Seen."

    Bye, Emma.

    You may have the last word. Lord knows you've earned it, girl.
  • Brian Jones--
    Your teacher may have inspired you, but the nascent gift was already there. I hope you have lots of opportunity to practice; you never can tell when you'll get the chance to use it.

    I became a free lance editor for several authors when I became too ill to work anymore. It's "work" but very engaging.

    Good luck with it!

    PS If you get the chance to go back and thank your teacher, do so...that's sooo rewarding. My 8th grade teacher inspired me -- she is a Sister of St. Joseph and now in her 80's -- and that lasted me all these years. It's the zeal for laughter and life that makes one live so long. We still stay in contact.
  • It is much better to bring the court to its senses by a string of hotels than let it continue to deteriate to the point of needing to follow Federalist 28 to restore Constitutional government.
    Bryan W., 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I've just tuned in, but couldn't leave without commenting back to a post by Emma T. (Emma B at 22:19, Thursday 21 July) I realize this is way late, however Emma DOES need to be corrected. I have become so angered - as have so many Americans - by the spread of government and how they are taking over our lives.
    Justice Souter did not vote WITHIN THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION! The Constitution states very clearly that any eminent domain takeovers MUST be for public use, NOT to benefit individual developers - and NOT for corporations, etc. to build higher tax-producing properties. That being the case, ACLU et al can start suing to have every CHURCH, every VFW Hall, EVERY PRIVATE SCHOOL to be demolished to make way for tax-producing properties. And don't think that this is not already on the minds of many DAMNOCRATS, and SOCIALISTs in this country.
    I strongly recommnend to Emma T. and the rest of her cronies that you get yourself a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....read through it carefully. If you are really interested in the meaning and intent of the Founders, you can also read some of the Federalist Papers. But the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be the minimum. These are easily available on the net. I downloaded both in pdf docs within a few minutes.
    litl bits, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Litl bits,

    You are wasting your 'key strokes' attempting to get emma to listen to reason.

    Her mind is made up, and it's 'cast in stone.'
    And, while I would agree with some of her assertions, I see the rest as as a waste of time.

    Suter is from N.H., and it's up to the residents of that state to make a point – by using his land in that state to drive that point home: If it's just okay to steal land from anyone for tax purposes, then the very first person in New Hamphire whose land is to be taken for that purpose should be the one person who signed-off on the idea.

    Suter signed-off on the majority opinion, and so therefore – and therefor – should suffer the first insult of that opinion.

    May the SOB find himself homeless– forever.
    E.J. Totty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I agree. If I could afford it, I would pledge to stay there for 7 days myself! I do have family in NH (grew up there) and if and when Lost Liberty Hotel is built, I would certainly visit.....and family would definitely go to the Just Desserts Cafe!
    Crow anyone?
    litl bits, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I want to send some money. Do you take amex? if not what do I make a check out to?
    bob dockerty, 12 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Emma wrote - "my only goal is to stop people from hurting someone, who has done NOTHING other than what he felt was his 'job'-
    AND done nothing that has not been done by the Supreme Court before. This was NOT a precident setting case- the precident had already been done SEVERAL times before"

    I realize I come to this battle late in the game. Heck, it has been a month since anyone posted. I went back to the beginning because I wanted to see what set this whole battle off. Emma, I started out fascinated by some of the things you had to say. Your eloquent writing and apparent intelligence & knowledge make a strong argument for your case. Shoot, my high school graduate-carpenter father and high school graduate bookkeeper mother don't match the education in your late fathers pinky finger. And for what I am about to say I will undoubtedly be verbally flogged by you and your supporters here, of which luckily there are not many.

    Emma, your facts seem to be correct, at least those of which I have some knowledge. It is your "feelings" that are disturbing. Above I grabbed some of the last things you wrote. To be honest there were many other things you wrote that I wanted to comment on. It was like watching a train wreck unfold in slow motion as I read your responses to "their" responses to your responses..... In the end though I think your comments above truly highlight the folly of your argument. You kept saying that two wrongs don't make a right. That was arguably the underlying theme of your whole message and yet in the end you blew it by bringing up precedent. I know that this was not the first time. But of all that I read, in the context you said it you opened my eyes to the error of your argument for protecting Souter and his cohorts. According to you all he did was what he "felt" was right according to things that the courts had done before..."Precedent". First, you acknowledged many times that judges aren't supposed to feel, though maybe not in those words. Politicians feel, judges interpret the law. The LAW, not precedent. You will also admit that you acknowledged that the "precedent" in this case is wrong. You said many times that eminent domain laws were bad law. Therefore precedent is "bad law". "Two wrongs don't make a right". What happens when WE THE PEOPLE get our politicians to enact laws that the Supreme Court finds to be "Unconstitutional" according to their "feelings". They overturn it. What happens in states where the poeple vote......THE PEOPLE VOTE to enact a law and the Supreme Court deletes the law as "Unconstitutional" according to their "feelings". It is exactly what will end up happening in the case of gay marriage. People in states all over the country have and/or will enact laws banning gay marriage and my bet is they will be stricken by a left leaning activist court system, all the way to the top. You keep talking about "fight it another way" or some such drivel. Last I checked there is nothing after the Supreme Court, and last I checked they have no problem striking down laws that they don't "feel" fit their reading of the Constitution.


    Of all the things you said from the first NOTHING stuck to me like your use of the word "nothing" in the lines I copied above. No, Souter did not act alone. I am no fool, though I am obviously younger, less educated, and less worldly than you, and even some of the poeple on this list that I agree with for that matter, but I am not stupid enough to believe that he did "nothing" wrong. When I read what you wrote above I wanted to THROW UP! God, what a disgusting point of view. Don't protect that dirty politician/judge, any more that the others. It doesn't matter if the hotel is right or wrong. The protectors of our rights....OUR RIGHTS have become the thieves. It is not the law that they protect but lawlessness that they practice. When those judges upheld precedent, changed the meaning, voted their "feelings" they did the very thing you are convicting these people of doing, they commited "two wrongs"...or ten....or 100....or however many it took to get to this point. "Well, my predecessors did it so it must be right". That was his "feeling", the one he used to STEAL those peoples homes for another private citizen. Emma, I hope someone finds some economic use for your property, I fear they might find one for mine some day. Emma, I FEAR they might take my property to give to someone else. I have never feared living in my country. And I never, NEVER thought it would be the court system as the root of that fear.

    Emma, don't bother correcting my grammatical or spelling errors. It is 12:30am and I am tired. And unlike you Emma, this will be my last posting, I promise, even though it is only my first. I am afraid I have seen about all I care to and you don't have anything to offer but condemnation to those who would "DO" something other than write letters and march and call people. Cause we all know how effective that has been recently.
    Jason R, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Jason R. you are absolutely right. Good comment.
    Bryan W., 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Jason R. - Please don't stop posting. You have been quite eloquent in combatting Emma's erratic thinking....I would say reasoning, but I can't see real reason in her comments.
    You are absolutely right! Because it was done before doesn't make it right! The Supremes - indeed all judges - are SUPPOSED to make their decisions based on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - not on feelings. They can take precedent into account, though they (precedents) should be used only as a FACTOR - NOT a deciding one!) I can only suggest to Emma, and others who may share her views, that she re-read the Constitu-tion and some of the supporting Federalist Papers, which give us a good idea of WHY the Founders worded the Constitution the way they did. This country was founded in order that those who came here would NOT be under the thumb of government as they had been in England (and elsewhere in the "old country"). Private property was sacrosanct in their view. But our Activist judges today see the Constitution in a whole new light. Our Constitution actually forbids de-cisions based upon International Law, but present-day judges could care less. There are some who are actually working on completely re-writing the Constitution. I believe it was John Adams, but feel free to correct me - who said to the effect that no Democracy lasts forever - they always end up committing suicide. THAT is what is happening today in this country!
    Americans had better wake up and start protesting a lot louder if they wish to remain under Democratic rule. There are many who want no more American sovereignty - they see this Utopian "world community", in which the "elite" class will rule - and then the rest of us paeons will serve. I know how far-fetched that sounds, folks. But that is the ultimate goal of many, many loonie liberals (and even some RINOS) They are all right now jockeying for position in that ruling elite class.
    And we, the paeons, go about our merry way -
    Let's see who has the last laugh here!
    Litl Bits, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Bryan W,

    You're right on that score!
    Jason R definitely put the truth to the matter.

    And, Litl Bits:
    Concerning your comments above:
    It's not so much a matter of 'activist' jurists, as it is more the matter of trying to read something into a simple sentence that simply isn't there.

    Now, that might be a description of 'activist,' but not in my book.
    Actually, I call them as I see them: Intellectually dishonest, and they fall on all four sides of the political 'ring,' Left, Libertarian, Right, and Totalitarian.

    Actually, our problem – yours and mine, has more to do with the amount of power allotted by the USC to the federal government, and by extention – to state government.

    If government had not been given the power of ED, likely none of what we suffer would have ever come about, and that includes every external war ever waged by the US Gov., and those wars fought against the Indian Nations.

    But, then? Our government is patterned after what was then in existence: The British Empire.

    Our only =realistic= hope here, is to attempt change by the amendment process to remove those powers from =all= government. Only then will the people get the fairest deal – or no deal at all if they so desire that.

    The upside is that it =can= be accomplished; the downside is the matter of convincing a whole lot of people that the change is necessary to protect private property.
    E.J. Totty, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • On the face of it, Mr. Clements' campaign flies in the face of libertarian principle or go against the golden rule....'two wrongs don't make a right', and all that sort of thing. However, this is not just about the Kelo decision. For many years, politicians - be they judges, district attorneys, special prosecutors, councilmen, mayors, senators, ad nauseum - have been insulated or immune from the very laws the rest of us have to live by. They pass these laws without any regard to the ill effects for those without deep pockets. Well, it's time to bring those politicians down in the trenches with everyday people - make them experience the ramifications of their decisions. The laws that we ordinary mortals have to live by should apply to everyone else. Pure and simple. Many should be concerned as to the direction this country is headed in. One wonders if we just shouldn't put away the American flag and raise the hammer and sickle in its place. What is even more frustrating is the number of people who don't seem to care. The same folks who would think nothing of waiting in line all night to get tickets for a rock concert or special event are the same folks who don't vote, engage in letter-writing campaigns or any activity to make their voices heard on important matters.
    Regardless of any hidden agendas on Mr. Clements' part, I say more power to the people who will brave the tough January winter to help him gather the needed signatures to take Souter's land. The Supreme Court has lost its bearings and its credibility as defender of the Constitution's original intent. It's time for the American people to act. We need a second American Revolution, and this time, the enemy, sad to say, is not England.
    Estelle Edwards, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • I wish I had made it in by the deadline to sign up for a week at Lost Liberty hotel. If it opens I will do my best to have a stay in it anyway. I strongly believe that this is a necessary move to make it clear that americans won't stand for having our liberties taken away any more now than in our past. I am a disabled veteran and fought to preserve our rights not see them lost!!!!!
    Christine Jones, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Months later I return to see that Emma is still picking arguements with everyone on the board. Seems like the Cointelpro guys just can't leave it alone when they see original thinking going on. Gotta get a mole in there somewhere :)))
    maggie K, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • hey, Ohio is trying to do the same thing in Norwood as in the Kelo case-- taking a private property for a developer. Anyone game to try it there if the Ohio supremes rule in favor of big money?
    carol anne, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • If that is happening in Ohio, you need to take action to change your laws. In California, we have 4 potential ballot initiatives aimed at reforming eminent domain abuse. Hopefully, only one will make it onto the ballot; not none and not more than one. I don't know what kind of provisions Ohio has for ballot initiatives.

    Good Luck
    Brian Jones, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
  • Actually, a bill is before the Ohio legislature as we speak to limit the eminent domain powers so that this will not happen. But the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on the Norwood case so by the time the legislature gets done with it, it may be too late for this case. What's really appalling is that the city says it is a declining neighborhood because of the poor infrastructure! Can you believe that? They won't fix the roads and sewers AND they can take the property because of that. I don't live in the area, just heard about it from some friends recently then heard a news report on a cinci radio channel (Norwood is a city surrounded by Cincinnati).
    carol anne, 11 years ago. Abusive? Report it!
This pledge is closed for new comments.

Current signatories (Green text = they've done it)

Travis J I Corcoran, the Pledge Creator, joined by:

  • Frank Williams
  • Louis Odette
  • Radley Balko
  • Joe Sebelin
  • Jason Bauer
  • Troy Messer
  • Marc Cofer
  • Dan Foskett
  • Robert Hoffman
  • Preston Hartman
  • Keith Panik
  • Paul Wittkamp
  • Devin Branstetter
  • Libby Spencer
  • Tony Henke
  • Bronwyn Ramey
  • Kirk Boston
  • Kelly Cosman
  • Michelle Short
  • James A. Donald
  • Lee Franke
  • Joseph A. Sliman
  • Tom Kraus
  • Jimmy Middleton
  • J.R.Hopper
  • Kevin B. O'Reilly
  • James M. Brittain
  • Kevin Thurston
  • Mike Sanchez
  • John Cregan
  • Michael Dunn
  • Paul Gessing
  • Corinna Cohn
  • Abhy Mars
  • Noah Yetter
  • Chris Clifford
  • Tom Pearson
  • Amy Elizabeth Ross
  • Steve Ecklund
  • Benton Harris
  • Bray
  • Robert Parker
  • Courtney Knapp
  • Scott R. Keszler
  • Jim McCarthy
  • Joseph Sims
  • F. W. Ballou
  • Daniel Butler
  • John W. Jones
  • Dick Clark
  • Gregory Howard
  • Brian Stringer
  • Michelle
  • Bryan Maloney
  • Andrew Clift
  • Daniel Waechter
  • Janine Peterson
  • Michael O'Brien
  • Jeanne Williams
  • Don Watkins
  • Christopher McNabb
  • Andrew Posteuca
  • Meredith Curcio
  • Jon Smiley
  • Phil Rader
  • Glenn Bonnell
  • Garrett Glass
  • Chip Fussell
  • knamiproko
  • Rachel Balsham
  • Josh LaShells
  • Fred Ochsenhirt
  • Johnathan Reale
  • Theresa McMahon
  • Robin LaShells
  • BLair Anderson
  • T.J. Brown
  • John E (Fark)
  • William Wardwell
  • Chris Riera
  • Christopher E Bennett
  • Herb Nowell
  • Dominic Fiorello
  • Justin W Thornton
  • Eric Froeming
  • David De Michele
  • Joe K (Fark)
  • Jason Charnov
  • Brinck Slattery
  • Mark Eckman
  • Bart Pair
  • Matt Kross
  • Karl Misselt
  • Matt McLellan
  • Lori Townsend
  • Isaac Bergman
  • Eric Husman
  • Robyn Mainor
  • Garo Eldemir
  • Andrew
  • Christopher David Cobb
  • Randy R Cooper
  • John Hamilton
  • Jon Kantor
  • Clay W. Ginn
  • Heddy Carr
  • Tristan Zimmerman
  • Ben Thomas
  • Bobby Martinez
  • Timothy C Eisenacher
  • Nicholas Cote
  • Edward Price
  • Joey Amherst
  • Matthew Edgar
  • Austin Bragg
  • John Durant
  • alexander parish
  • John Hankins
  • Darrell Carden
  • Julian Rinaldi
  • Scott Ellis
  • Jacqueline Passey
  • aaron kneile
  • Bryan J. Maloney
  • Chris Wahlberg
  • Michael LaVoie
  • mAss Backwards
  • Mikko Aaby
  • Chad Smith
  • David Byrne
  • Andrew Meyer
  • Arthur Daniel(Artthehypnotist on Fark)
  • David Ermer
  • Dan Murphy
  • Omar Zaki
  • Thomas L. Harper
  • Nicholas Dodd
  • Ben Dover Wrights
  • Jim Book
  • Dale Rogers
  • Michael Kopp
  • Gloria Greiner
  • Jason M.
  • Carl L Steplock III
  • Tamara Elizabeth Larr
  • Frank McPeek
  • Joseph Valentino
  • Britton J WIngfield
  • Ian Weiner
  • asylum23
  • art bjornestad
  • Harold O. Koenig
  • Jalpesh Patadia
  • Mike Siers
  • Richard M. Hohm
  • Barry J. Middlebrook
  • Sean Ryan
  • Daid Inskeep
  • Susan Chasnov
  • Bill Brittain
  • Ed Batista
  • Tom Sullivan
  • Jacob Grier
  • Eric F. Richards
  • Jon Carl
  • Robin Vey
  • Nicholas Cottrell
  • Robert A Ortmann
  • Jon H. Byrd
  • Ethan Hobart
  • Robert McPheeters
  • Wes Wagner and Andra Wagner
  • Sean MKinney
  • David G. Cunningham
  • Ian Ameline
  • Lloyd Barnhill
  • Mark Nau
  • Aaron Ximm
  • Timothy Adamec
  • Brian W. Doss
  • Martin Devine
  • David Watkins
  • Hashmat Sayed
  • Jacob Glatz
  • Chris Walters
  • Brandon Jordan
  • Matthew Brooks
  • David Charles
  • Matthew Bell
  • civan93
  • Bill Williams
  • Andrew Brooks
  • Marie A. Engberg
  • Chris Bales
  • Justin Asquith
  • Michael Rivero
  • tootsie
  • Brian T. Traylor
  • Warren Manley
  • Grant Jones
  • Coleen Voeks
  • Curtis Maynard
  • Linky (Pledge Responder)
  • Roger Kern
  • Edward J. Zaborowski
  • Glynn Pennington
  • Robert Braun
  • Brian Morris
  • J Sullivan
  • Babak Khaghanabbasi
  • Jeff Flowers
  • Caleb R. Palmquist
  • Americus Fernando Henshawe
  • Douglas Lincoln Rhiner
  • leslie maynard
  • Ashley Dowling
  • Aaron Whitman Smith
  • Jason VanBruaene
  • Deborah Simon
  • Josh McCabe
  • Scott Pettigrew
  • Petra Perkins
  • Paul Andrew Mitchell
  • Shannon Molloy
  • Stephen Roy
  • Jessica Richman
  • Moses Freeman
  • Steven Tursi
  • Benjamin Lee
  • James McConocha
  • Michael Singleton
  • Christopher Price
  • Brian M. Lovett
  • Michael Canterbury
  • Rand Fanshier
  • James Baccus
  • Connie Larr
  • Lisa
  • Mark Van Derbur
  • Andrew Wilford
  • David M. Brown
  • Joe Williams
  • Debbie Davis
  • Stuart Davis
  • Michael D. Miller
  • Rob Paige (from fark.com)
  • Mike Rice
  • David Junah
  • Mohammed Shaikh
  • Eric Peirce
  • doug conrad
  • Lee Carter
  • David Gerow
  • Jersh Jershowitz
  • David Villemuer
  • Joseph J Plumley
  • Chuck Surette
  • Tristan Clark
  • steve laubly
  • Gregory N Love
  • Jerry L.Tobey,Sr.
  • eric oden
  • Scott Solmonson
  • Tony Torres
  • David R. Aton
  • Jolene Howard
  • Ian Brown
  • Brandon Taylor
  • Albert H. Gilmore
  • Jessica McLaughlin
  • Greg Roberts
  • paul sapienza
  • Christine Boyle
  • John Galt
  • Scott Miller
  • Justin Cook
  • ray schwartz
  • Brian A. Courts
  • Joe Patrick
  • Kelly Flanagan
  • Shay Fowler
  • Guy Jones
  • Richard Hall
  • Karl Drummond
  • Christopher Jacob
  • Audra Jacob
  • Laure Chipman
  • Chris Barber
  • Michael S. Kornacki
  • Meko Kofahl
  • Gretchen Steckel
  • Russ Friend
  • Stephen P Dickson Jr
  • Eric Farrow
  • Joe Moorman
  • Garry Seman
  • Donna Young
  • Alex Windsor
  • Brian Gore
  • Rich Baillie
  • Jesse Loewen
  • Jonathan Gluckman, J.D.
  • Hannah Kenny
  • Robert S. Moore
  • Kevin Holmes
  • Luc Pisau
  • Glenn McBride
  • Barbara Branden
  • Dennis Wilson
  • heidi nielsen
  • Baylen Linnekin
  • Coreen Dandurand
  • Mike Kelley
  • Kaitlyn D. Hanka
  • Lesley Peter
  • Mr. L
  • David Kay
  • Lawrence Wolf
  • Peter T. Banos, MD, MBA
  • Rick Pritchett
  • Jim Crooks
  • Matthew McClendon
  • S. Forest King
  • David Tesla
  • John Hynds, Former U.S. Marine
  • Dan Geer
  • John O,Neill
  • Dean J. Birinyi
  • Matthew Brock
  • Kristine A Hoggatt
  • Kevin Probst
  • Herbert Graff
  • Jaime Frontero
  • Jim Patton
  • Richard Hall
  • Toren Smith
  • david olsen
  • David
  • William Heald
  • Jules Marsh
  • Edmund Peter Walsh
  • David Schoonover
  • Denis Jones
  • Jeff Clark
  • Mike Spalding
  • Bruce
  • Jonathan S. Haas
  • Kyle Boddy
  • James M Bean
  • D. Leon Rupe
  • Russell MacDonald, DC
  • C. Scott
  • lucmic1000
  • Laurie Martin
  • Bradford James Morris
  • Richard West
  • Philip L. Welch
  • Jamal Taylor
  • angie moorman
  • Graham Cohen
  • Dean Disharoon
  • Kreg Kiggins
  • Justin White
  • Andrew Berg
  • Marc Hannah
  • Kyle Kepley
  • Dan Tinianow
  • David Hasselhoff
  • James Sokoll
  • Joe Moore
  • ken negran
  • Sven Hanson
  • Sally Vaci
  • Patrick Mahoney
  • Gary Crum
  • Scott Kee
  • Matthew Lawson
  • Andrzej Suda
  • Toby Hancock
  • James Kenefick
  • Jesse Michael
  • Bjorn Amundson
  • David Johnson
  • Vinnie Chieco
  • Gerald A. Nygaard
  • TwoWeebles
  • Hank Zevallos
  • Nathan Wallwork
  • Gordon Mohr
  • Marsha McClelland
  • Chris Willard
  • Woody Short
  • Rob Delano
  • Christopher Buginas
  • Michael J Hargrave
  • Darrin Babin
  • Arthur Moore
  • henry balfour
  • Audie Gaddis
  • tim calmes
  • Margaret Elliot
  • Michael Fisher
  • vince goetsch
  • Tony Penachio
  • Donald L. Eheman
  • Miriyam Nitzberg
  • Mike Burgher
  • Richard Fye
  • Chris Wysopal
  • Vaughn M. Bard
  • Gordon Strickland
  • C.M."Orion" Hatem
  • James R Margrave
  • Walter Augustine
  • Retta Fontana
  • James Fulks
  • christie walker
  • Neal M. Cohen
  • Margaret Olsen
  • Duane Sites
  • Richard Harrison
  • Richard Carpenter
  • Matthew Lawrence
  • Dr. Sandy Beech
  • JEFF TURNER
  • Barbara Frances
  • Michael G. Comperda
  • Kenneth W Johnson
  • Marina Surette
  • Robert Sherrill
  • James Splaine
  • Mary E. Sherrill
  • Elizabeth Campbell
  • Dallas LaRose
  • Larry Newberry
  • Charles Scott
  • Jason Cann
  • Robin Bobula
  • Dagu 2
  • Andrew Roth
  • Charles Lynn Young
  • Bernard Booth
  • Gail Rampke
  • Michael F Dickey
  • Gary Anderson
  • Rhonda Pina
  • Alexander Shapiro
  • Karen Mikels
  • Brenda Cahall
  • Rusty Shackleford
  • Dymphna
  • Eve Thomas
  • Kim Beaney
  • Steve Welborn
  • Kate Byrd
  • Francis X. Dillon
  • Shane W. Gibson
  • Kathryn Freed
  • Laurie Holtz
  • gary lineberger
  • Tyler M. Moore
  • Leo Carpathian
  • Matthew Sowers
  • Alan P. Anderson
  • David A. Lord; Ontario, Canada
  • Polter Guis
  • Jessie Worsham
  • michael connolly
  • Glenn Mazzei
  • Dave Mendelson
  • Edward LaBudde
  • Scott L. Bach
  • Christopher Bowns
  • Timothy E Hook
  • Woody Carlson
  • Josh Van Swearingen
  • Emily Polatas
  • Clifford Wildman
  • Chuck Burleigh
  • Peter Osterhoudt
  • Andrew Ruef
  • Jeffrey T Eaton
  • Bruce Chesley
  • bill farrah
  • John Acor
  • Nancy Masse
  • Jim Godawski
  • Eric Karich
  • Scott Strattner
  • Roger Reyes
  • Karen Snowdon-Way
  • Daniel Davis
  • dashing dasher
  • Michael Love
  • Andrew Wold
  • joel stewart
  • Karl Kleinpaste
  • Luis Hernandez
  • Neil Bapst
  • JoAnna Frazar
  • Mara & Richard E. Recker
  • Christa Stewart
  • Alexander M. Constantopoulos II
  • Travis Snyder
  • Francine Raley
  • C. Graham Meinert
  • Sara Hinson
  • Justine Lam
  • Giles Thomas
  • Brent Wagner
  • Jaime McGrath
  • Michael M. Todd
  • Chris Souza
  • Valerie Calley
  • Seth Hensarling
  • michael kitchen
  • Jake Day
  • Scott Javoroski
  • Mike Cress
  • Paul Schmidt
  • Tim Cuffel
  • Robert Bjerke
  • Jennifer Nichols
  • David Bohannon
  • Michael Wasielewski Jr.
  • R. Greg Crews
  • Devin Whiting
  • Ross Rankin
  • Paul Dickson
  • Dr. John C. K. Daly
  • Brian Bernardini
  • Mary Thomas Watts
  • Reed Thomas
  • Michael Gamber
  • Marilyn Lapidus
  • Charles Smyder
  • Michael Shaon Williams
  • Ken Gibson
  • Les Dabney
  • james biskey
  • Cassie Hart
  • Chris Newell
  • Joseph Mackey
  • Kevin Castleman-Perry
  • Boris Karpa
  • Derek Colanduno
  • Alex Parise
  • Thomas R. Ryder
  • Jeremy Frazar
  • Scott Ryder
  • Todd Fletcher
  • Walter Ramer
  • Rocky Wynne Hampton
  • Henry Cate
  • Heidi Hill
  • Helen Nayfeld
  • Elayne Glantzberg
  • Erik Sentell
  • Guy Knipe
  • Brian Turney
  • Joe Lemyre
  • Joël-Alexis Bialkiewicz
  • Lori Andrews
  • Matthew Zornig
  • randall frazier
  • Laura Kirmse
  • Kenneth J. Hendrickson
  • Mad Wet Squirrel
  • Douglas Lorenz
  • Matthew Kiely
  • Seth Asa
  • Deborah Satterlee
  • Paul Satterlee
  • Joe Conklin
  • L L Bennett
  • Steven Gallant
  • Jack Mayne
  • Julie Willing
  • Sarah Selvaggio
  • Shawn Kent
  • Matthew Peck
  • Jazzery Jaapar
  • Ryan McIntosh
  • Paul Riever
  • James A. Hall, III
  • Mike Walsh
  • Carol Spencer
  • Alexander Louis
  • Mike Murray
  • Natasha Varnovitsky
  • tom
  • Brian Brumfield
  • Seth Wharton
  • Nick
  • David Johnson
  • Rick Ulrey
  • Jay Gardner
  • Tim Duggan
  • Jason Ford
  • C. Jeffery Small
  • Eric Kuszewski
  • Adam Hersh
  • Harvey Wharfield
  • Tally Eddings
  • Steve Buck
  • Chris Stearns
  • Jason Alexander Medeiros
  • Alan Prochazka
  • Jocelyn Langlois
  • Robert M Perkowski
  • Waco Glenn
  • James Henry Graf
  • Miguel Mesquita de Sousa
  • Bryan Williams
  • Jeffrey Casale
  • Jeremiah Elfers
  • Tim Moreau
  • E. C. Winters
  • Ryan Patrick
  • Chris Brown
  • Mr Ison of Great Britain
  • C.D. Harris
  • glen smith
  • Charles Parker
  • Mary Smiler
  • Benjamin Vierck
  • Jim Strathmeyer
  • Heidi Daniels
  • Adam M. Montoya
  • Jack Walker
  • Rachel
  • Anthony Lannutti
  • Pam Gotcher
  • Rick Veregge
  • Mary
  • Matt Lewis
  • Jack Janisch
  • rob ratliff
  • Logan DeAngelis
  • Thomas D. Kimball, Ph.D.
  • Bill Bereza
  • Gisela Macedo
  • William Lefebvre
  • Catherine Bishop
  • Laura Conners
  • Michael Blair
  • Hank Heidt
  • Anthony A Korves Jr
  • Josh Davis
  • Christine Berggren
  • kevin buoren shiue
  • Debi Kiontke
  • James B. Punch
  • William Cunningham
  • Tatiana Covington
  • Scott Williams
  • Tina Bell
  • Rodney Caston
  • Daniel Barry
  • Bill Walsworth
  • Michael leDoux
  • Jeremy Cope
  • Catherine Reilly
  • James Lawlor
  • Edward Nowak
  • William A. Nevin III
  • Don and Traci Hoeting
  • Alex Gadea
  • Gordon & Lili Cassells
  • Jonathan Mangin
  • Rick Raymond
  • Douglas Hammer
  • John A. deLaubenfels
  • Samuel King
  • Mark Herrick
  • Don Michaelson
  • Benjamin White
  • Chris Brody
  • Lois Shea
  • Judith Flaxman
  • Christian DiStefano
  • Grant Warrington
  • Steven Roland Drury
  • Walter Mahar
  • Scott Hume
  • dm sears
  • John Quixote
  • edward helms
  • Richard Sears
  • Frank Lopez
  • Claudia and Brad
  • Alfred Hogan
  • Carole Eisner
  • Pat
  • Jason Witt
  • John Pitts
  • Daryl W. Kaytor
  • Amy Badurina
  • Andrew Olmsted
  • Beau Davis
  • Nicholas Charles Caruso
  • Richard Cohn
  • E.J. Totty
  • A. Robert Malcom
  • Karl Ian Sagal
  • Leif Thorvaldson
  • Will Kirchanski
  • Dwayne Stangle
  • Doug Sitkin
  • Richard deRay Walker
  • Shawn O'Ferrall
  • Eric Norris
  • Hal Scoggins
  • Dan Santel
  • Kristopher Lynch
  • Scott Lange
  • Peter B. Krarup
  • Bruce Black
  • Frank Altschuler
  • James Roe
  • Christopher Plumb
  • Gary Christopher Gaines
  • george button
  • Dennis Pilger
  • Steven L Dye
  • Claudia S. Lum Clark
  • kenneth berkov
  • Leah Kelley
  • Cindy Jones
  • Ron Loutzenhiser
  • Sean Smith
  • Christopher Fuller
  • Mary Baker Blades
  • Melissa J. Kelley
  • Emanuela Kelley
  • Thomas Dean
  • Chris Rasch
  • Alexander Rice
  • Colleen C. Mahoney
  • Tina Long
  • Keith Ian Price
  • Patrick E. Whalen
  • Kevin Baker
  • Damien Gerhardy
  • Keith Carlsen
  • Elias F. Saba
  • Patrick Buryk
  • Joe Arshawsky
  • Dean Gorsuch
  • Gerd H. Groenewold
  • Jeffrey Palmer
  • Kevin Buck
  • Peter H. McCandless
  • Lucy
  • Mrs. Johanna Stephens
  • Jason Pace
  • Patrick H
  • Randy S. Nielson
  • Rob Adams
  • Brad Hendrickson
  • Gabriel McCall
  • George Sullivan
  • Fred Moore
  • Michael La Mesa
  • Robert P. Buffington
  • Sameer Parekh
  • Bob Ream
  • Carson Smith
  • Harry Heymann
  • Ted Gav
  • Brett Henry
  • jerome Healy
  • Robert M. Waterson
  • Andrew Hatch
  • Stuart Gebhardt
  • Mark Hammitt
  • Steven Bassion
  • Roger Jolly
  • John Asbury
  • RKI Cole
  • C.W. Peck
  • Tom Sparks
  • Beverly Wilcox
  • Robert Dietrich
  • Carl Key
  • Howard G Walker
  • Jack Mitcham Jr.
  • Keetz Mulgreavey
  • Dale A. Kordes
  • William Caldwell
  • Brian Farmer
  • Robert Barnhart
  • Michael Scottaline
  • Boyd W. Smith
  • Eric Fusselle
  • James M. Hajjar
  • zachary hosack
  • Kent Finnell
  • Peter
  • Keith Brennan
  • Joseph Kusar
  • Michael Shalen
  • Joel W McAllister
  • Peter B. Thorp
  • Daniel M. Henry
  • Patrick Morrissey
  • Gary Ricard
  • keith sanderlin
  • Jason R. Murad
  • David Pedini
  • H Ghattas
  • Keith Hedger
  • Maureen Muncy
  • Dan Kent
  • William Greene
  • Robert Goldberg
  • Marcia Bernet
  • Jill Barrs
  • Chris Neitzert
  • Brian Stack
  • Bob Black
  • Dan Alban
  • Theresa Manchester
  • M Ritchie
  • Keri Anderson
  • David Rehm
  • Ed Wildermuth
  • Shannon
  • Robert Salvaterra
  • Dr R. Charles Busch
  • Gregory McClay
  • Lexi
  • Brooke Hollak
  • Bob Smith
  • Paul T. Ireland
  • Ryan Layton
  • Eric Kervina
  • Roxanne Alvarez
  • Alan Michael Kuhn
  • Craig Perry
  • Yag Si Op
  • Chris Lucas
  • Victoria Hamm
  • Jim Mattison
  • Ivy Baremore
  • Stephan J. Florman
  • Mark Vernon
  • Joshua Thompson
  • Mark Chellis
  • Bob Roland
  • steve turner
  • Jonathan Berry
  • Peter Eyre
  • Karl Maher
  • A W Fisk
  • Frank Dean
  • T. Stephens
  • Tim & Starr Bragg
  • Tim Coll
  • Steve Hansen
  • Heather Resh
  • Paul Gracy
  • Walter Stratton
  • Jim Zerkel
  • Carolyn Breen
  • Lex Berezhny
  • Tim Randolph
  • Gregory Gerig
  • Gretchen Hubinger
  • Frank R. Smith
  • Jason S. Walters
  • Darryl Humber
  • Michael De Armond
  • Dan Terrill
  • Stan Drew
  • Todd Kratz
  • Laurie Smith
  • Jimmy Antley
  • Karina Dolehide
  • Brian Corner
  • Larry A. Houghton Sr.
  • greg shows
  • Valerie Schmidt
  • Paul C. Mackney
  • Dave Sanders
  • Brad King
  • Sandee Enriquez
  • Tim McNabb
  • Jennifer Wright
  • Patricia A. Brown
  • Ocelot Wreak
  • Robert Hayes
  • Brian T
  • Diane Noland
  • Ryan C. Cleveland
  • Ron Braithwaite
  • Rob Boyer
  • Denis W. Luken
  • Fo Jammi
  • Carrie Duvall
  • Darren Brooke
  • Janet Marshall
  • Rochelle Aylworrth
  • Gary Williams
  • Eugene Callahan
  • Linda Norris
  • Gerald Armstrong
  • Sarah Bartlett
  • Donald Wilkinson
  • RyanFelder
  • ric garcia
  • David Steinberg
  • Sarah Kukhahn
  • Perry Pilson
  • Phillip A. Green
  • Matthew Newberg
  • Al Land
  • Cynthia Young
  • Jim McMahon
  • Kurt Josef Tischer
  • Eugene Ruschenberg
  • Christopher Drum
  • Caleb Johnson
  • Rich Erickson
  • Larry Martin
  • Anne Keckler
  • Michael davidson
  • Susan E. Anderson
  • Douglas Mock
  • Diane Toth
  • Cat McKenna
  • Steve Stephens;West Jefferson Ohio
  • Mike Linksvayer
  • Rocky Eades
  • Jay Heller
  • Gayle D.
  • Edward E. Jones, Jr.
  • D.Scott Gresham
  • David & Tami Harrison
  • Michael Currie
  • Michael Edwards
  • Jeffrey V. Olbrys
  • Mike Dugger
  • Alan R. Weiss
  • Edmund HIntz
  • Neil Carpenter
  • Raymond M Bechel
  • Jonathan S. Motta
  • Brian W. Clark
  • Rob Snell
  • Chris Strong
  • Jim Burrows
  • Tim Kindred
  • Michael Stone
  • Joseph E. Kean
  • Todd E Thorp
  • Eileen Orzoff
  • Nadyne Mielke
  • Anthony Wolaniuk
  • Vickie Richard
  • Adam N. Dalke
  • Elizabeth Johnson
  • Andrew Sundberg
  • Victor Mergard
  • Alicia Large
  • Dan Kilo
  • Roger Riling
  • Gary D. Bender
  • Steve Saddington
  • Terry Rock
  • Seth
  • John C. Schumacher-Hardy of Lancaster, MA
  • James Brink
  • Shari Putnam
  • Hugh Brown
  • James D. Huggins
  • Robert Hull
  • Jeffery Brown
  • Merrick Raye
  • Benjamin Irvin
  • Varrin Swearingen
  • Jon Hancock
  • Stephen Cobb
  • Maureen Venditti
  • graham gregory couzens
  • Josh Burk
  • Jon Jerome
  • Kara McLeod
  • Jill Czarnecki
  • Carl Christensen
  • John Haumesser
  • Charles W. Wilson, Jr
  • sally middleton
  • Amanda Kelley
  • Jonathon Lamon
  • Jonathan Reiter
  • Alena Hubbard
  • Benedict Gatherer
  • Scott Burtrum
  • Steve and Sylvia Campbell
  • Marie Watkins Crocker
  • Matthew Crandall
  • Liz McInnis
  • Thomas B Crowther
  • Mary Mulcahy
  • Dan Dougherty
  • JohnLittle
  • Craig Bossie
  • Steven M. Baker
  • James N Davis II
  • Victor Mircea
  • Beth A Davis
  • Dr. PJ Murray
  • Alex Downs
  • Allen Engebretsen
  • Laurie Moran
  • Andrew Meggs
  • Louis J. Hooffstetter
  • Heather Glenn
  • Stephen D. Hawks
  • Blake A. Willey
  • Shelley Collett
  • Michael Condrey
  • Keith Murphy
  • Shaun Leiker
  • David Stehnacs
  • Free Soul
  • Rob Cheng
  • John Bond
  • Carlos Alvarez
  • Shawn Flugel
  • dann
  • Earnest Beardslely
  • Randy B. Vogt
  • Matthew Wayne Selznick
  • Craig Westwood
  • Richard J. Taylor
  • Michael Benoit
  • J.M. Luchansky
  • Karl Reitz
  • Katherine Lyons
  • Arthur F. Smith Jr.
  • Tom Capawana
  • Jonathan K. Smith
  • Andrew and Darlene Borland
  • JOHN C. JOYAL (JJ)
  • Billy The Blogging Poet
  • Jan Camden
  • Brian Davis
  • Warren Eastham
  • Davis Burnette
  • Tim Bauman
  • Mike Cornelison
  • Daniel McGuire
  • Bruce W. Morgan, Jr.
  • Tim Condon
  • Thomas R. Simmons
  • Valeryia
  • Anthony C. Burger
  • William F. Hamilton
  • Daniel Stein
  • Alexandra Fiona Dixon
  • Michael White
  • Eric Miller
  • Gary and Suzanne Triestman
  • Diane
  • Morey Straus
  • Glenn Boice
  • Ted Whittenkraus
  • Erica Tesla
  • Robert Kubitz
  • Juliette Nguyen
  • KarenBeth Tilden
  • Todd Day
  • R. Kleinman
  • ivan santana
  • Robert Williams
  • Matthew Boerwinkle
  • Clementine D. Carr
  • Wade Bartlett
  • Mark James
  • Arthur C Krepps III
  • Ernest Law
  • douglas cushman
  • Scott Markowitz
  • Aaron J Williams & Annette L Williams
  • Jacob Lyles
  • Brian Hightower
  • PhilB
  • Randen Leigh Pederson
  • Allen V. Burnsworth
  • nivek_001
  • Bill Melms
  • Randolph Hill
  • Daniel Derenski
  • Michael Kielsky
  • Sean Flynn
  • Carol A. Wilcox
  • Chris Klick
  • William H Hughes
  • Frank Findley
  • Goldie Barrett
  • Karen A. Moore
  • John Chien
  • Fred Zinkhofer
  • Rick Allen Carlson
  • Diane Coulombe
  • Andrea Walden
  • Eugene Bernstein
  • Sandy Pierre
  • Gary O'Brien
  • Mat Bacon
  • John D. Koch
  • Matt Arnold
  • Hardy Machia
  • Kenneth McQuade
  • Gerald F Anderson
  • Ross Brown
  • Paul Antosh
  • samuel cross
  • Roxanne Clark
  • Babette Daugherty
  • Chris Daugherty
  • James Verbunk
  • Troy R Rowley
  • Jennifer L. Verleger
  • Matthew Verleger
  • Bryce Jasmer
  • Kyle Davenport
  • Robert Lombardi
  • Frank Ney
  • GARY BROWN
  • Michelle Otterson
  • Sisi Jung
  • Carlton W. Ulbrich
  • Brian McReynolds
  • Isaac Van Sligtenhorst
  • Robert Schrader
  • Stephan Freymuth
  • Marji Freymuth
  • Ronald Baccus
  • Scott Hollenbeck
  • Bob Leet
  • michelle luetge
  • Amelia Opperman
  • Mike Ruff
  • heather clark
  • Donald Martin Criss
  • David Graetzer
  • Brian Richards
  • John Kaster
  • Nathan Weller
  • Ben May
  • David Andersen
  • Jefferson Malone
  • Lauren Norcross
  • Alan Home
  • Dayna Ford
  • George Rupert
  • Cody
  • Joshua Whitley
  • Ex Elwood
  • Peri Dwyer
  • MARGARET WIED
  • Jonathan Cook
  • Mitch Covington
  • Jason Meadows
  • Brian K Jones
  • Thomas H. deSabla
  • Al Erkkila
  • Bob Kay
  • Ryan Eury
  • Rebecca Lively
  • Vincent Woolf
  • Peter
  • Kenneth E. Nahigian
  • Michael McMahon
  • john antanitis
  • gregg french
  • Stephen Fotos
  • Yuri Waldo
  • Beth A. O'Connor
  • William and Jennifer Howey
  • Ron Stringfield
  • Carisa Trapp
  • Mark Larson
  • Jason Schackai
  • Carolyn Schackai
  • Beth Cundiff
  • Rob Lewis
  • Sala E. Chapman
  • Robert B Davis, Jr.
  • Karie Barter
  • Jonathan Lee
  • needforlove_2005
  • John Clennan
  • Marie Withers
  • Philip A Denisch
  • Toni A.
  • Suzye Marino
  • Matt Vest
  • Michael K Cullen
  • Mike Saxton
  • Jack Shimek
  • James E Cecil
  • Tim Friendshuh
  • Mark Reynolds
  • William V Kone and Rev. Katie Kone
  • Benjamin E Carter
  • Bev Simmons
  • Glenn Winstead
  • Patrick Adams
  • ronald heiman
  • Kelton M. Baker
  • Aleisha Baker
  • Ken Donnelly
  • Jeff Zimmermann
  • Mark Brickner
  • David Middleton
  • Denison E. Smith
  • Chris Maden
  • Walter Berg
  • Janice McAlister
  • Patricia White
  • Barry R. Brown
  • Kevin Peters
  • James Schiller
  • Jason Song
  • Jared Wolfe
  • Thomas M. Huff
  • Andy Guess
  • Thomas Cook
  • Eli Harman
  • David Grose
  • Mitesh Damania
  • Federico Han
  • James Milton Ray
  • Thomas Costanzo
  • Michael Spears
  • Jeremy MacKinney
  • Michael Kelty
  • Debra Schaefer
  • Bruce W. Krafft
  • John M Taylor, MD
  • Edward
  • scott arnett
  • Laura Kirkvold
  • Timmy Snow
  • Michael Peck
  • Eric Mast
  • Benjamin Atkinson
  • Donald E. Pauly
  • Graham Picklesimer
  • carla aitkin
  • SSG Todd Poulton, US Army
  • C. Leigh Culver
  • Amy Phelps Bonner
  • Mary Szelistowski
  • Susanne M. Stewart
  • T.P.Smith
  • Brittney Kohler
  • Denise Rhiner
  • Gene Cothron
  • mark nicholls
  • Daniel Black
  • Jerry Wares
  • David Goodwin
  • Brandon Mills
  • Larry and Marie Meshkin
  • David Edel
  • Jim Schrader
  • Richard Allan
  • Fred Aron
  • Sumner Parker
  • John K. Ross
  • Michael Benecick
  • Emily Howard
  • William Carpenter
  • Thomas Rodgers
  • David Wethington
  • Nelson Skinner
  • Ann Knudson
  • Denise Staley
  • David Nash Goodspeed
  • robert duke
  • Jackie Danicki
  • april johnson
  • S John Massoud
  • William Stegmeier
  • Howard T Smith
  • Paul M Campbell
  • Joan W Brodhead
  • Ashley Frazier
  • Peter Cresswell
  • John Cooper
  • Richard Baumann
  • Ken Fichtner
  • Brian Bishop
  • Kyle Harley
  • John Mangeri
  • Stijn De Ruytter
  • Robert Wilson
  • Sherri Rosedahl
  • Daniel Smith
  • James Grebe
  • Carrie Finch
  • Daniel L. Ricklefs
  • Jeffrey B. Letoski
  • Gerald R. Gerbrands
  • John Hawkins
  • Germaine Cloninger
  • Douglas A. Hall
  • Carolyn Nadeau
  • Mel Moth
  • Margaret L Castelluccio
  • Sean E Hagstrom
  • Roger Poehlmann
  • John LaBounty
  • Mark Mattocks
  • Ed Winstead
  • Rita M Ingram
  • Ian Beck Downie
  • Betsy Brookshier
  • Robert Ehrhart
  • Janet Laufenberg
  • Ray Myers
  • Timothy Shaub
  • Craig Peterson
  • Bob Rahm
  • 89 people who did not want to give their names

View signup rate graph


Navigation

Sign up for emails when people make pledges in your local area — Works in any country!
Email: Country:  Town: