After the U.S. Supreme Court's chilling ruling on June 23, that your property can be seized, any time, by the government, under Eminent Domain, then transferred to another, readers of this Forum, may now, "Believe it or Not" - that we don't own our property any more in America.
Believe it!
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George "Dubya" Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the onerous provisions of the act could alienate conservatives.
"I don't give a g-d----, Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back, according to DOUG Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue. "It's just a g-d----ed piece of paper!"
And, to the Bush Administration, and other federal officials, the "Constitution of the United States is an outdated document," as ruled by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, who took an oath of office - including the President - swearing to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States," wrote Thompson.
Do we need more convincing?
According to the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" (Editorial, June 28, 2005, captioned "Eminent sense/The court's 'public use' ruling is not Radical." "We make too much of this ruling," it read. "Nobody who is serious argues that eminent domain is itself is unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment. To that extent, all private property has been vulnerable," adding: "Eminent domain was used profitably in the development of the Pittsburgh 'Renaissance' -- and it gave birth to a fine park and a new engine of commerce in the Gateway Center buildings. To be sure, the area affected was deemed blighted ---," concluding, "The wisdom of the court's ruling ought to resonate in Pittsburgh, where the understanding of 'public use' long ago brought public benefit."
That's interesting.
Then why does Pittsburgh, now, need state money to bail it out? If I recall, that metropolis was, or is now, facing bankruptcy.
The finding of that Court, from the caring, compassionate, goodness of their hearts, said, the home you planned on living in - the one you hoped to leave your heirs - or that the rental property - held for an owner's pension - (or for income, or speculation - the American way, by the way) -must give way to a private developer, (following payment, of course).
Of Just Compensation or Just Compensation (first determined by the government, doing the "taking?"
In expectation of increased tax REVENUE.
Friends (if I have any), the right to property, promised by the founding fathers, under our Constitution, was just trashed.
It's now the "Art of the Deal" ... by Government!
Which consists in taking as much from one class of citizens to give to the other.
Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, explained it this way: "You need a magician to reach the conclusion reached by the Court's majority ['Kelo v. New London, Conn.' case]. I think the socialist attack ... in their interpretation might also explain their attack on our Second Amendment 'right of the people to keep and bear Arms.' Why? Because when they come to take our property, they don't want to risk buckshot in their butts."
Observe MY Odyssey, if you will.
Which is distinguishable from the homeowners in the "Kelo" matter.
City Hall of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania is an institution of PLUNDER.
The city expropriated (stole) property, consisting of real estate, personal property, business records, bank accounts, current court records, and evidence (needed in lawsuits against the City, and others, after invading my home and offices, by forcible entry (without authorization by Court Orders).
Property owned by George Miller, individually; and cash and property, owned by corporations (of which I served as CEO), were seized, and confiscated.
The city claimed it OWNED them, in public documents.
Taxes were NOT owed; and there were no notices, hearings, trials, court orders, consents, transfers, or Deeds, given to the City. There were no "Tax Sales," at the time of the "takings."
That municipality didn't act under State, Federal, Local, laws or codes.
And local government didn't proceed under "Police Power" or "Eminent Domain;" or even offer to settle, for Trespass, Theft or "Inverse Condemnation."
In other words, the owners didn't receive "just"- or unjust - "compensation" for injury, theft, or "Takings."
"Asset Forfeiture" was not because the owners were "users" or "dealers" in the drug culture; or because laws were broken, by the owners, directly, or indirectly, by others, who implicated the owners.
The CAUSE - was because - Lock Haven was, and is, addicted to OPM.
A drug, called "OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY."
This disease began during the Nixon administration.
A malady (spelled "melody") named "entitlement."
Consequently, City policy became: 'What's ours is ours; and what's yours is ours!'
Really?
Why?
Are we living under Socialism or Communism?
A distinction without a difference?
Our community has been, and is now, on a "life support system."
Called GRANTS.
Our state and the federal government, through sharing of "Community Development Block Grants" (CDBG program), perpetually provide the City of Lock Haven, with largess, of your taxes.
To feed a fever!
Millions of dollars were bestowed on Lock Haven for over 30 years.
From generous taxpayers of Pennsylvania, and the rest of the United States.
Our daily newspaper runs banner headlines, ('Read all About It'):
Of our 'COMMON WEALTH.'
And in glowing prose, publishes editorials, and reports, of our "Proud past and Promising future!"
I'm in litigation, however, with the City Hall gang, and with others.
Concerning "Property Rights."
Now that five black-robed Godfathers ruled our "American birthright" no longer guarantees our RIGHT to own property, what is there left to decide?
That "eminent domain" should now be abolished? By removing that clause from the 5th and 14th Amendments?
Because it's unconstitutional (which seemed suggested by the Pbg Gazette, who may not have been "serious," but flip)?
So that, now, the courts can proclaim:
The government has the "POWER" (not the 'right') to STEAL?