The Savage Republican

Just read a great column by Vox Day at WorldNetDaily regarding the Kelso decision (local governments have the right to take from private property and give it to another private party, or, in other words, you don't own it. Period!) (www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44997 ) where he outlines that you and I have no private property any longer. The government has the final say over what you own, if you own it. And what you will do with it, or rather what you'd better do with it...or else. Basically”use it the way we want you to use it or lose it!"
I heard a talk show host make the cogent point that the reason your house or property has value is that it's protected to be used by you. And that that property therefore has value to someone that you'd sell it to as they also would enjoy the protection of use. Not anymore.
Day, in his column makes a chilling, and accurate analysis:
"Merely substitute a few terms in describing the system and it becomes clear that the Supreme Court has established a neofeudal oligarchy, where all land is held in the name of the federal government-king, governed by his local government-nobles and worked by taxpayer-serfs. Should one serf fail to produce a satisfactory harvest of crops-tax revenues, the noble can take the land from one serf and give it to another who promises to produce a more abundant harvest."
I tried to find a silver lining here in that the decision said local government knows best. From there I thought that we could make sure that local government won't do this taking. But on reflection, I'm thinking that that would be just as effective as King John at the water's edge ordering the tide not to come in.
Strange (not really) that the Supremes apply the 14th Amendment construing the FEDERAL Constitution into a NATIONAL Constitution and yet sided with the LGU's (local government units) and trying to make us believe that they really sided with states rights.
And how many times have you heard over the years, decades "The Republican Party is the party of the rich"? And that "Democrats look out for the little guy"? Well, the Supremes in Kelo put a wood stake through that fiction. From Day again:
"Although perhaps the court's actions would be better viewed as a great leap backward. For the Left has always been a fraud, and certainly Kelo serves to shine a bright light on the myth that the liberals on the court actually give a damn about the little guy and the less-fortunate."
The radical left wing jurists on the bench sided with the wealthy developers, the greedy, power hungry LGU representatives against the private property owner.The radical "living Constitution" lefties sided with government at all levels. And found that your only role is to feed the government. You are now the worker bee whose only function is to feed the queen bee.
The judiciary was SUPPOSED to be our firewall against the abuse of power by the government.
Now, the jurists have become the arsonists.

P.S. I noticed in Day’s column he makes a call to become Sons of Liberty (www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm )

It’s the second time in 24 hours I’ve heard a call to physical action to protect our inalienable rights.

Oops...listening to Rush, make that three times.
Plus read this article, then be sure to read the postings following.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1187052/posts

PPS-
Just read this at letters to WorldNetDaily (and there is a firestorm brewing over Kelo):

Property ownership a sham already

Though the recent decision by the Supreme Court shows egregious disrespect for the People, the Constitution and traditions of property ownership in our country, it is by no means surprising.

I recently ask a woman I know if she owned her home. She proudly responded that she does. I gently corrected her that, in fact, she did not and that she was, like me, only a renter. She strongly reasserted that she in fact owned her home and that she and her husband paid a mortgage.

I was forced then to explain that like me, she may own her home, but she is renting her property. If she did not pay her "rent" in the form of property taxes, her "landlord," the government, would have her evicted. If she resisted, she'd be jailed. This is the same thing that would happen if she rented an apartment or hotel room and refused to pay or leave.

She continued to assert that the difference was she was paying for the "right" to do what she wanted with her property. To which I responded by pointing out the numerous housing codes that regulate how tall her trees could be, what "aesthetically" pleasing colors she could paint her house, where her garbage cans could be and for how long they could be at the curb, how much water she was allowed to use in the flush toilet, etc.

The only real difference is that we elect our government landlords based on how little they say they'll raise the rent.

ML Hawk