Steal From The Poor - Give To The Rich

One aspect of the tremendous beauty of the United States Constitution is its incredibly simple language. In a similar manner, the first ten Amendments (that are an insoluble part of the Constitution, implicitly part of its ratification), known as the Bill of Rights, are really easy to read and understand. That is, unless you happen to be an activist jurist who doesn't believe in the Constitution and instead wishes to unilaterally and tyrannically impose Socialism on the people of this great nation. (It takes the equivalent of a third-grade reading level to grasp it completely.)

Consider the Fifth Amendment and its simple way of explaining personal property rights: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Now, I know it's not just me, because the phrase "public use" is pretty darn explicit and not open to any interpretation. Either some item of property is being used by the public, or it is not. Nowhere does this Constitution give one or more governmental tyrant the power or authority to take anything away from party 'A' in order to give it to party 'B'. No matter what! Under highly regulated processes, a jury may do that, but never the government.

So what's with the Supreme Court of the United States? Well, they've been cruising toward socialist oligarchy for some time now. Long ago, they forgot that all "rights" come from God. They don't seem to understand that only people have rights, individually, never collectively. And they have no power whatsoever to either legislate or mandate legislation. Read it for yourself - it's all there in Articles One through Three; and it's really simple.

So yesterday's ruling on the legalized theft of property with collusion by the government came as little surprise to me. With several hard-core socialist operatives on the bench whose ultimate objective it is to overthrow the people of the United States, it makes perfect sense. Notwithstanding the efforts of James Madison and the Federalists who encouraged the establishment of a Constitution that would empower the government to be responsible for "common good" of society, they lost. In the end, it was decided that the government should never be trusted with such power. Had the Federalists had their way, this Nation would have collapsed almost immediately!

Back to the subject in the 21st century. It's a rare day that I agree strongly with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; but in this case, I do. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

In case you have not had the pleasure of appreciating my views in the past: I don't like big government, I don't like big business, and I don't like big education. But I do like you. What we have here is the orchestrated authorization of power politics. We have lost our rights to life and to liberty and now it's property.

Lastly, what surprised me about it? I would not have expected Justice O'Connor to be so adamant about it, nor would I expect Justices Kennedy and Stevens to buy into the idea of granting so much power to local governments. None of the others surprised me; not because of division of governmental power, but because of Socialist - Individualist ideologies. Maybe the biggest surprise was who wrote each of the opinions. That caught me totally off-guard.

Right Wing Nut Job