Author Topic: EE  (Read 147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
EE
« on: November 28, 2020, 07:26:12 PM »
Quote
The Constitution does exactly what it was set out to do: protect private property.
Quote
You are confused, ignorant, or indoctrinated.
The Truth of Government
What our 'government' "IS", will be shown and proven by its actions.
If you want to learn what a person "IS", you only need to observe certain actions by the person in question. You know what the person in question "IS" if you observe this person murder, rape, rob, steal, lie, enslave or terrorize.
Likewise, to learn what a 'government' in question "IS", you only need to observe certain actions by the 'government' in question. If a 'government' murders, rapes, robs, steals, lies, enslaves, or terrorizes, then you know what that 'government' "IS".
The Truth of Government On Protecting Real Estate
How does Eminent Domain protect the property of the people? For those not familiar with Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain is when private property is taken for "public use".
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005); The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of New London taking Susette Kelo's land and giving it to the private New London Development Corporation. The reason stated for the taking; to further economic development; an event that eleven years later still did not happen.
Suzette Kelo and 15 other property owners had their property taken.
Ten years ago today, [June 23, 2015] the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision upholding the City of New London, Connecticut’s “right” to condemn Connecticut homeowners’ properties, transfer them to a state-created entity called the New London Development Corporation, which would then transfer those properties to a private developer of a planned mixed-use redevelopment project aimed at supporting an adjacent Pfizer research facility.
Competitive Enterprise Institute.org
For those who would argue the property owner gets "just compensation" I point out that the owner doesn't really get any say as to what just compensation is. Judges decide what is just compensation and the property owner is stuck with whatever the judge decides. And I also point out that judges are merely men and woman who call themselves 'government' and are paid by 'government' funds.
The properties are still vacant as of the writing of this web page.
The Truth of Government On Protecting Personal Property
Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation.org
The Truth of Government On Protecting Liberty
What is Liberty?
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
-- Thomas Jefferson --
The tyrants who call themselves government have ordered that it is against the law:
to drive without a license;
to drive an unregistered car;
to exceed the speed limit;
to distill whiskey and other spirits without a license;
to smoke marijuana;
to gamble;
to carry a gun without a permit;
to do many things that are actually none of their business.
Whose individual rights are being violated by doing these things proscribed by those who imagine that they are 'government'? Compare that to whose Liberty is being violated by the laws banning all of the above?
Quote
I'm none of those things. In the cases you cited, you neglect to recognize that the government is working on someone's behalf. If you follow the money, you'll find that someone's interests are being served and the violation of a less wealthy/connected person's rights are all done under color of law, underpinned by the most important of our nation's documents, the Constitution.
Quote
➽ In the cases you cited, you neglect to recognize that the government is working on someone's behalf.

What, specifically, do you mean by "government"?

Why, specifically, do you call the CONstitution "the most important of our nation's documents"?

Before I'll even think about the concept of "the color of law", what, specifically, do you mean by "law"?
Quote
Don't be silly.
The rights of those who have much more property than you do far outweigh your rights.
That's how capitalism works.
Quote
Apparently you have not heard of Voltaire's Admonition. If you wish to communicate, define your terms.

I have asked you questions about your terms. Since you have a problem answering, I must, using reasonable logic, assume you do not intend to communicate.

If I am in error, please answer the questions:

What, specifically, do you mean by "government"?

Why, specifically, do you call the CONstitution "the most important of our nation's documents"?

Before I'll even think about the concept of "the color of law", what, specifically, do you mean by "law"?

I did NOT ask you about capitalism, did I?
Quote
I did define my terms.
Read what I wrote.
Quote
What, specifically, do you mean by "government"?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2020, 01:05:19 PM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters