PDA

View Full Version : eminent domain begins



LincolnparkRed
06-28-2005, 11:24 AM
The Floodgates
And so it begins...

Freeport, Texas -- "With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina."

Boston, Mass. --Boston City Council President Michael Flaherty said yesterday that Mayor Thomas M. Menino's efforts to spur development of Fan Pier do not go far enough, and he again called on the city to consider seizing the South Boston waterfront property using its eminent domain power.
Flaherty originally suggested taking the 21-acre property in January. He said yesterday that a recent US Supreme Court decision strengthening the eminent domain powers of local governments puts Boston Redevelopment Authority in a better legal position to seek the Fan Pier land.

New Jersey -- "Englewood, Ridgefield, Passaic - many towns have been adopting plans in the past several years based on economic redevelopment, and I believe this means that it's now full-steam ahead," said Bruce Rosenberg, a land-use attorney for the Hackensack-based law firm of Winne, Banta, Hetherington, Basralian & Kahn.

Brooklyn -- Developer Bruce Ratner visited the borough Friday to talk about his controversial plan to build a basketball arena, an apartment complex and office towers.
Ratner owns the Atlantic Terminal Mall in downtown Brooklyn, but his ownership of the New Jeresy Nets is what's got the neighborhood concerned. He plans to build a 21-acre arena for the team, as well as housing and commercial space.

A ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday would allow Ratner to use the power of eminent domain to get the land he still needs to complete his project. That means local governments would have the power to seize homes and businesses against the will of their owners.

Milwaukee -- Developers, city economic development officials and commercial real estate attorneys - including some involved with eminent domain cases - have been waiting for the decision.
[...]

Negotiations on relocating some of Bayshore's tenants have been delayed lately, Maslowski said.

He believes the attorneys for some tenants were deliberately postponing meetings in hopes of using a court ruling that would have curtailed condemnation powers. Such a ruling would have given tenants additional leverage to negotiate better terms for their relocation, Maslowski said.

The court's ruling to uphold the expanded right of condemnation should "eliminate that cloud," Maslowski said.

The Institute for Justice documented 10,000 eminent domain abuse cases across the country in just five years. Kelo will only embolden local government officials to spring for more land grabs.

You can almost hear the money changing hands, can't you?

Incidentally, an (admitedly unscientific) MSNBC poll on Kelo finds dectractors outnumbering supporters 98-2! That's out of 112,000 votes cast. I don't think I've ever seen an online poll with numbers like that.

Nice to know the courts really have the pulse of the people on this one. 98% percent of people polled can tell you this stinks.

flyer85
06-28-2005, 12:04 PM
"public use" will now mean want any government authority wants it to mean. The term has ceased to have any meaning and is entirely subjective.

flyer85
06-28-2005, 12:05 PM
Nice to know the courts really have the pulse of the people on this one. 98% percent of people polled can tell you this stinks.I don't want to the courts to have the "pulse of the people". I want them to follow the original intent of the framers.

LincolnparkRed
06-28-2005, 12:21 PM
I don't want to the courts to have the "pulse of the people". I want them to follow the original intent of the framers.

I meant that in the case the public know that this stinks to high heaven and how this will play out. People who are friends with gov't officials will use this to pad their wallets while the people that get displaced get screwed.

savafan
06-28-2005, 12:28 PM
Well, we could always set aside some land out west to move all of these displaced people to. We'll call them "reservations".

TeamCasey
06-28-2005, 12:49 PM
Disgusting and unbelievable this whole thing.

It's positively un-American.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 01:14 PM
Well, we could always set aside some land out west to move all of these displaced people to. We'll call them "reservations".
Better check for oil first, though.

Heath
06-28-2005, 01:37 PM
I'd start reading your mortgage clauses concerning 'eminent domain'

There are some people who might be better off with eminent domain - i.e. house has less worth than the property value -

Interesting....its also how the Interstate Highway system got built.....

TRF
06-28-2005, 03:20 PM
I'd like to claim a new house. One that was just built. 3500 square feet would be fine. Can I just claim it? cuz that would work for me.

KronoRed
06-28-2005, 03:26 PM
I'd like to claim a new house. One that was just built. 3500 square feet would be fine. Can I just claim it? cuz that would work for me.
Sounds like fun :devil:

CTA513
06-28-2005, 03:32 PM
The government would have to buy my house for 5 to 10 times what its worth to in order to get it.... if not I wouldnt want to think of what would happen.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 03:46 PM
The government would have to buy my house for 5 to 10 times what its worth to in order to get it.... if not I wouldnt want to think of what would happen.Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't work like that. YOU don't set the price in eminent domain proceedings, the government does.

once the government declares y our area "blighted", you then commence the appraisal process. Ultimately, you will receive what is determined to be the Fair Market Value--or, what your property would fetch on the open market. Inconvenience and sentimentalism, unfortunately, are not included.

RosieRed
06-28-2005, 03:48 PM
The government would have to buy my house for 5 to 10 times what its worth to in order to get it.... if not I wouldnt want to think of what would happen.

But that's just it. All they "have" to do is give you supposed fair market value. You literally don't have a choice if the government uses eminent domain.

If a property developer wants you out, they might offer you more than fair market. But if you refuse and eminent domain comes into play, you get what you get. Which is kicked out of your house.

Unassisted
06-28-2005, 04:23 PM
Eminent domain is not always a bad thing. Just imagine how many miles of our interstate highway system were located where they are because of eminent domain.

Sometimes government really does have the best interests of citizens in mind.

CTA513
06-28-2005, 04:37 PM
I know they wouldnt give us 5 to 10 times what its worth, thats why I said I wouldnt want to think of what would happen if they didnt.

They could try to kick us out, but it wouldnt turn out good. :)

KronoRed
06-28-2005, 04:41 PM
Eminent domain is not always a bad thing. Just imagine how many miles of our interstate highway system were located where they are because of eminent domain.

Sometimes government really does have the best interests of citizens in mind.
Yes, those were government uses

To me..a shopping center, no matter how much "tax revenue" it's going to bring in is NOT a government use.

Unassisted
06-28-2005, 04:51 PM
Yes, those were government uses

To me..a shopping center, no matter how much "tax revenue" it's going to bring in is NOT a government use.Nobody wants government to cut their favorite services and every service that government provides is somebody's favorite. Also, most people don't want to pay higher taxes.

In a fully-developed municipality, the only way I know of to increase tax base without raising taxes is to re-develop property into uses that generate more taxes, such as converting houses to a shopping center. Only certain properties are suitable for redevelopment into shopping centers, so if the government has a plan and property owners don't want to sell, eminent domain is now a tool to break the impasse for the greater good of the community.

In addition to our instant-gratification-oriented society, I think term limits are contributing to this. Government officials need to make things happen quickly before they are term-limited out of office. Eminent domain gives them the opportunity to speed up a lengthy and contentious process.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 04:57 PM
In addition to our instant-gratification-oriented society, I think term limits are contributing to this. Government officials need to make things happen quickly before they are term-limited out of office. Eminent domain gives them the opportunity to speed up a lengthy and contentious process.
It also gives the opportunity for widespread abuse and corruption. It's not at all difficult to envision a wealthy developer kicking in a little extra campaign contribution in order to get an area declared "blighted" in order to build his new shopping mall.

I'm not saying that law doesn't have its uses. I'm saying that this ruling opens up a lot of doors for a lot of corruption. I'd be shocked if it didn't happen.

Reds4Life
06-28-2005, 05:13 PM
It would be great if these guys can actually raise the cash and pull this one off, would serve them right! :laugh: :laugh:

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html


For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 05:28 PM
I have no problem with eminent domain. But I believe in greater goods.

flyer85
06-28-2005, 06:12 PM
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44997

The great leap backward
Posted: June 27, 2005

Vox Day

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

It is time to change the national anthem. The land is no longer free. Last week, in an appalling decision that will prove to be every bit as infamous as the Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade decisions, the Supreme Court eliminated the American right to property and in one fell swoop, converted the country into the legal equivalent of a Third World society.

This is not a minor matter, it is a calculated provocation, an insult to the American people and their rights which makes a mockery of them as well as the current administration and its obsession with external terrorists and exogenous threats to liberty. The White House is chasing phantoms of democracy in the Middle East, pretending to bring freedom there even as the most basic freedoms are being methodically destroyed within America itself.

No 9-11 attack, no suitcase nuke exploding in Manhattan or Los Angeles, could injure the nation one-tenth as much as the Supreme Court harmed America in its totalitarian Kelo decision, wherein a majority of the ironically named "justices" declared that a government may forcibly take property from one party and give it to another party, at its sole discretion.

This is a major expansion of the eminent domain concept, and I can confidently predict that the redefinition of the constitutional term "public use" will soon be as stretched beyond recognition as the now-meaningless phrase "interstate commerce," the Orwellian term that now covers things that do not cross state lines (and thus are not interstate) and have not been sold or exchanged for other goods (and thus are not commerce).

The poisonous and contorted logic used by the judicial fascists is childlike, only no parent with detectable brainwave activity would accept it from his child. Consider the paper-thin veil of words with which Stephen Breyer attempted to cover his tortured reasoning:

... there is no taking for private use that you could imagine in reality that wouldn't also have a public benefit of some kind, whether it's increasing jobs or increasing taxes, etc. That's a fact of the world. And so given that fact of the world, that is law, why shouldn't the law say, OK, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit which there always is ...

So therefore, public is private, black is white, war is peace and Kelo is constitutional. Q.E.D.

Clearly, Joe McCarthy didn't know the half of it. Seizing property from one party and giving it to another is a hallmark of communism (as well as other left-wing variants on socialism such as Maoism, Nazism and fascism); the fact that the Supreme Court did not follow its decision by bursting into song with a lusty chorus of "The International" should not cause anyone to miss the significance of this latest step toward the United Socialist States of America.

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.

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.

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 06:19 PM
"left-wing variants on socialism such as Maoism, Nazism and fascism"

Nazism and fascism are extreme forms of conservatism, not liberalism.

Whoever wrote this is an idiot.

flyer85
06-28-2005, 06:23 PM
Nazism and fascism are extreme forms of ... socialism. Socialism is simply government taking control of capital and the means of production. Which is exactly what Hitler and Mussolini did.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 06:23 PM
"left-wing variants on socialism such as Maoism, Nazism and fascism"

Nazism and fascism are extreme forms of conservatism, not liberalism.

Whoever wrote this is an idiot.
Yeah, the nazi or fascist would encourage you to arm yourself and fight off those meddling government officials who are trying to take your land.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 06:24 PM
... socialism. Socialism is simply government taking control of capital and the means of production. Which is exactly what Hitler and Mussolini did.
But the article said "LEFT WING variants..." Neither Nazism nor Fascism is left wing.

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 06:25 PM
... socialism. Socialism is simply government taking control of capital and the means of production. Which is exactly what Hitler and Mussolini did.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Grab a history book. Please. Communism is extreme liberalism. Socialism is fairly extreme liberalism.

Fascism and Nazism are conservative extremes.

But you know what they say about facts and a good rant. ;)

flyer85
06-28-2005, 06:26 PM
Yeah, the nazi or fascist would encourage you to arm yourself and fight off those meddling government officials who are trying to take your land.One of the first things the Nazis did in Germany was to attempt to restrict private gun ownership.

flyer85
06-28-2005, 06:30 PM
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Grab a history book. Please. Communism is extreme liberalism. Socialism is fairly extreme liberalism.

Fascism and Nazism are conservative extremes.
While Facism and Nazism could be viewed as nationalist extremes they were socialist in their very nature. Grab your dictionary and look up socialism.

Socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

In the end the Soviets, Nazis and facists ended up exactly the same in practice. Totalitarian regimes who controlled the means of production

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 06:42 PM
While Facism and Nazism could be viewed as nationalist extremes they were socialist in their very nature. Grab your dictionary and look up socialism.

Socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

In the end the Soviets, Nazis and facists ended up exactly the same in practice. Totalitarian regimes who controlled the means of production

If your point is to say that political extremes end up in the same place, totalitarianism, then yes. But historically, it's the means of getting to totalitarianism that marks an ideology as left- or right-moving in nature. The economy controlled the government in Nazi Germany, and the government smashed the press, the unions, so on down the line. Nazism was sometimes referred to as anti-Communism.

There's a reason so many Jewish Americans are liberals and left-leaners.

MuEconRedLeg
06-28-2005, 07:54 PM
Some of the developers and local elites gearing up for eminent domain proceedings better check up on their state laws before they move.

Technically, SCOTUS did not rule that authorities are free to undertake eminent domain at their will. They ruled that this is an issue not protected by the Constitution and consequently devolved final power to the states. Some states have strong laws against eminent domain others do not.

I highly doubt there will be massive movements to seize property, simply because this ruling does not do anything new. Eminent domain has always been primarily a state/local issue this only clears that up. Most likely anything that happens now was in the works before.

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 08:49 PM
Some of the developers and local elites gearing up for eminent domain proceedings better check up on their state laws before they move.

Technically, SCOTUS did not rule that authorities are free to undertake eminent domain at their will. They ruled that this is an issue not protected by the Constitution and consequently devolved final power to the states. Some states have strong laws against eminent domain others do not.

I highly doubt there will be massive movements to seize property, simply because this ruling does not do anything new. Eminent domain has always been primarily a state/local issue this only clears that up. Most likely anything that happens now was in the works before.

True enough.

GAC
06-28-2005, 09:28 PM
I don't want to the courts to have the "pulse of the people". I want them to follow the original intent of the framers.

I agree. But do you think that "intent" meant to seize people's homes/property to put up strip malls?

CrackerJack
06-28-2005, 09:51 PM
Some of the developers and local elites gearing up for eminent domain proceedings better check up on their state laws before they move.

Technically, SCOTUS did not rule that authorities are free to undertake eminent domain at their will. They ruled that this is an issue not protected by the Constitution and consequently devolved final power to the states. Some states have strong laws against eminent domain others do not.

I highly doubt there will be massive movements to seize property, simply because this ruling does not do anything new. Eminent domain has always been primarily a state/local issue this only clears that up. Most likely anything that happens now was in the works before.

Yeah I am much more concerned with the abuse and interpretation by law enforcement and federal agencies of things like the Patriot Act than I am the court ruling in favor of something that already existed.

CrackerJack
06-28-2005, 09:53 PM
I agree. But do you think that "intent" meant to seize people's homes/property to put up strip malls?


Unfortunately, Cooter will have to give up his shack so that road can go through at some point, but I guess he can grab his gun and start a'shootin everyone if they come for him. :)

The Ronald Reagan Highway was a good example of this when it was finally built - it took years for some people to finally allow the government to buy their homes away, but as the homes change hands and people want to move - they finally give in - so it's just a big waste of time any ways usually.

TeamCasey
06-29-2005, 07:34 AM
We aren't talking about condemned properties for highways.

We're talking about farms and entire neighborhoods being plowed for Walmart and their ilk. Money talks.

We're talking about lakefront cottages that have been passed through generations being stolen away for luxury condos.

You know what? "Cooter" has every right in my opinion.

Unassisted
06-29-2005, 10:17 AM
We're talking about farms and entire neighborhoods being plowed for Walmart and their ilk. Money talks.I like farms and neighborhoods too, but Wal-Mart pays taxes and brings jobs. (Relatively low-paying jobs, but let's not derail the discussion by going there.) Taxes and jobs are awfully appealing to city government officials looking at thinning coffers and growing unemployment. Plus, there is a segment of the population afflicted with tunnel vision that sees nothing but the low prices that WM brings to town.

flyer85
06-29-2005, 10:21 AM
Nazism was sometimes referred to as anti-Communism. Nazism got its name because it was the Nationalist Socialist Party.

flyer85
06-29-2005, 10:25 AM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20050629.shtml

Confiscating property
Walter E. Williams

June 29, 2005

Last week's U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. New London helps explain the socialist attack on President Bush's nominees to the federal bench. First, let's look at the case.

The city government of New London, Conn., has run upon hard times, with residents leaving and its tax base eroding. Private developers offered to build a riverfront hotel, private offices and a health club in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But there was a bit of a problem. Owners of 15 homes in the stable middle-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood refused the city's offer to buy their homes, but no sweat. The city turned over its power of eminent domain -- its ability to take private property for public use -- to the New London Development Corporation, a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. The city condemned the homeowners' properties. The homeowners sued and lost in the state court, and last week they lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The framers of our Constitution gave us the Fifth Amendment in order to protect us from government property confiscation. The Amendment reads in part: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Which one of those 12 words is difficult to understand? The framers recognized there might be a need for government to acquire private property to build a road, bridge, dam or fort. That is a clear public use that requires just compensation, but is taking one person's private property to make it available for another's private use a public purpose? Justice John Paul Stevens says yes, arguing, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, saying, "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public." She added that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power." In other words, state and local officials can now take your home for another private person to use so long as they can manufacture an argument that the latter use is more beneficial to the public.

Let's look at a few examples of how this might play out. You and your neighbor have two-acre lots. Your combined property tax is $10,000. A nursing home proprietor tells city officials that if they condemn your property and sell it to him to build a nursing home, the city would get $30,000 in property taxes. According to last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, this plan would be construed as beneficial to the public, and you'd have no recourse. Similarly, an environmental group might descend on public officials to condemn your land and transfer it to the group for a wildlife preserve. Again, a contrived public benefit for which you'd have no recourse.

The Court's decision helps explain the vicious attacks on any judicial nominees who might use framer-intent to interpret the U.S. Constitution. America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance. There is nothing complex about those 12 words the framers wrote to protect us from governmental property confiscation. You need a magician to reach the conclusion reached by the Court's majority. I think the socialist attack on judicial nominees who'd use framer-intent in their interpretation of the Constitution 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.

NJReds
06-29-2005, 11:18 AM
Well...it looks like someone's going after a Justice's home...


Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com

savafan
06-29-2005, 11:20 AM
You know what? "Cooter" has every right in my opinion.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.

registerthis
06-29-2005, 11:20 AM
Unfortunately, Cooter will have to give up his shack so that road can go through at some point, but I guess he can grab his gun and start a'shootin everyone if they come for him. :)
Nah, Cooter owns a very nice piece of property in the Shenandoah...I don't think he owns any guns, but he has a couple of dogs that are quite nice. They come over to play every once in awhile.

Some of you may new Cooter by his Christian name, Ben Jones, who also was a Representative from Virginia for a number of years.

registerthis
06-29-2005, 11:21 AM
One of the first things the Nazis did in Germany was to attempt to restrict private gun ownership.
I was thinking more in terms of the neo-nazi/militia-types that hole themselves up in their compounds a declare themselves a sovereign nation.

Unassisted
06-29-2005, 12:19 PM
http://www.bradmesser.com/cartoons2005b/eminent_domain.gif

Redsfaithful
06-29-2005, 01:44 PM
Nazism got its name because it was the Nationalist Socialist Party.

The Nationalist part of that name is a lot more accurate than the Socialist part.

Ricardo, you're wrong on this one, although I understand why you think the way you do. There were certainly socialistic elements to Nazism, for sure, but they were greatly outweighed by the fascist elements. Hitler had to present something other than communism to appeal to the working class, and his socialist programs were devised to win them over. The people around the world who supported Hitler were overwhelmingly right wing (to be fair I'm sure the lefties were thinking Communism looked good), because they felt that he was saving Capitalism. Anyway this is all off topic, so I'll stop, but here's some linkage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi


Many historians, such as Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest, argue that Hitler and the Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-Communist movement and, eventually, of the German state. Further, they assert that fascism and its German variant, National Socialism, became the successful challengers to Communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base with its own version of socialism, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (the lumpenproletariat). The Nazi's incorporation of socialistic principles appealed to those disaffected with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "Soviet socialism" of elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 03:20 PM
The Nationalist part of that name is a lot more accurate than the Socialist part.

Ricardo, you're wrong on this one, although I understand why you think the way you do. There were certainly socialistic elements to Nazism, for sure, but they were greatly outweighed by the fascist elements. Hitler had to present something other than communism to appeal to the working class, and his socialist programs were devised to win them over. The people around the world who supported Hitler were overwhelmingly right wing (to be fair I'm sure the lefties were thinking Communism looked good), because they felt that he was saving Capitalism. Anyway this is all off topic, so I'll stop, but here's some linkage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

Exactly RF--the Socialist part was a ploy to win the "volk" or the common people over to the side of the military and industrial ruling class. It was a term of propaganda. In some ways similar to how blueblood Bush and his ruling class war machine chicken hawks get the common folk up in a lather about blowin' up Arabs. Honestly, it's no different.

Chip R
06-29-2005, 04:12 PM
Nah, Cooter owns a very nice piece of property in the Shenandoah...I don't think he owns any guns, but he has a couple of dogs that are quite nice. They come over to play every once in awhile.

Some of you may new Cooter by his Christian name, Ben Jones, who also was a Representative from Virginia for a number of years.Georgia, actually.

RedsBaron
06-30-2005, 11:59 AM
I just read that a California businessman has written a letter to the government of Weare, New Hampshire, urging it to seize the property located at 34 Cilley Hill Road, so he can build a hotel there. The businessman wrote that the proposed hotel would "serve the public interest", would boost Weare's economic development, and would increase tax revenue. The hotel would be named "The Lost Liberty Hotel."
The owner of the property located at 34 Cilley Hill Road is named David Souter, whose present occupation is Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Souter was part of the majority of last week's decision.