I was listening to Dave Ramsey this morning and a young woman called in about her parents. They had been ‘borrowing’ money from her since she was 14. She is older now, on her own, and her parents are still asking for money.

Her father is a signer on her accounts. Those accounts were created when she was younger. Whenever her father needs money, the last excuse was paying his taxes, he takes it from her checking account. She is closing that account and the others.

Her parents have also taken out loans in her name as well. They have always said they would repay her but have not done so. They’ve not repaid a penny since they started taking her money at age 14. She has no expectation that her parents will ever repay her. Her parents, if I remember the conversation correctly, claim she owes them the money because they raised her.

The situation struck me as similar to that of us, the citizens of the United States, to our governments. They take our money, claim it is to be for some service and rarely, if ever, meet the obligations they promised…other than to grow, expand government and demand more money.

The Census Bureau released some data last week that in the United States, 86 million people worked supporting 150 million who didn’t. The government promised THEM goodies and then took our money to pay for those same goodies. In some circles, that’s known as ‘theft by other means.’

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution has a prohibition to the Federal Government from taking property, assets, without ‘just compensation’ for public use. Those last two words are important and, thanks to Justice John Paul Stevens, has been eviscerated in a case known as Kelo v. New London.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]Wiki.

That case was unusual in that the seizure of private property via Eminent Domain, was by the local government for private use by a land developer, not for public use. The developer didn’t want his “project surrounded by tenements.”

Kelo Decision A Rousing Success

streiff (Diary) April 18th, 2014 at 10:10AMkelo2Nine years ago the US Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by noted Second Amendment authority John Paul Stevens, eviscerated the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment. That decision, Kelo v. City of New London, essentially eliminated property rights so long as someone more powerful than the current owner wanted the land.

New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.

So how did it work out? This theory that the state can take a poor man’s house to give to a rich man to make him richer?

The Kelo ruling was controversial and precedent-setting because, under eminent domain, the government may seize the property of a private citizen when it’s deemed necessary for public use — the construction of an airport, freeway, or post office — and they usually do so politely, giving notice and paying out the appraised value, for example, but in this case the private property was being seized not for necessary public use but for commercial development by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

“Pfizer wants a nice place to operate,” a supercilious executive reportedly said in 2001. “We don’t want to be surrounded by tenements.”

But after prompting city officials to pave the way for its new research facility with the promise of tax revenue and new jobs for the city, Pfizer pulled out of New London in 2009, leaving the land undeveloped, the homeowners dispossessed, their homes demolished, the land bulldozed into a vacant lot that still sits empty. After being elected in 2011, New London’s mayor called it “black stain” on the town’s reputation in an apology to the homeowners.

The question, then, is how is Kelo v. New London any different that the seizure of public lands for non-public use? Such seizures that led to the recent confrontations near Bunkerville, NV? To many minds, there is little or no difference.

A late claim by the BLM and the Department of the Interior was that the land was needed for a conservation refuge for the Desert Tortoise. The tortoise had been thriving amid the cattle grazing on the land. The cattle and the tortoise don’t eat the same vegetation. In fact, the BLM had been killing some of those same tortoise and the population of desert tortoises had decreased under BLM care.

The similarities of the two cases, the Bundys v. the BLM, and Kelo v. New London, are prime examples of governmental abuse specifically prohibited under the ‘takings’ clause of the 5th Amendment. Kelo v. New London was crucial because it changed the definition of ‘public use.’ The 5th Amendment ‘takings’ prohibition was eviscerated by John Paul Stevens.

Why do I blame Justice Stevens? He wrote the majority opinion of the case.

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens’s majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court’s trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test. — Wiki.

The purpose of the Constitution is to put boundaries on the Federal Government. More and more, it is being twisted to impose restrictions on citizens.

When the states created their constitutions, many copied the tenets, and often the actual text, of the federal constitution. That’s one reason why every state has a similar basis. For instance, every state has three branches of government, a Legislature, an Executive, and a Court. Most states also have counterparts to the 2nd and other Amendments. When components of the federal constitution are changed, the effects trickle down to the states.

In every case where the boundaries of the federal government are changed in favor of the government, the states, particularly the ‘blue’ states, shift, change accordingly. With each change, the constitutions become more irrelevant. If the governments don’t conform to constitutions and law, why should individual citizens?

That is a question government should fear and its possible answers.

Acts of Defiance

noun: defiance
open resistance; bold disobedience.
“the demonstration was held in defiance of official warnings”


resistance, opposition, noncompliance, disobedience, insubordination, dissent, recalcitrance, subversion, rebellion

The country has been watching an act of defiance in Nevada for the last week. That confrontation between citizens and members of the federal government has subsided…for now. There was another act of defiance occurring in New York. That one received little attention from the media.

The state of New York requires gun owners to register certain firearms. Compliance to that law, known as the SAFE Act, has been low. Protesters to that law met outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti to protest the act.

Shredding SAFE Act Registration Forms In New York

Caleb Howe (Diary)  | 

On Tuesday in upstate New York, outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti, gun owners gathered in protest. Together they shredded their SAFE Act registration cards to signify their non-compliance with the controversial new law. Grisanti is a Republican who helped to pass the SAFE Act, including by offering up changes to the bill to make it bipartisan.

Human Events wrote last week about a recent SAFE Act protest that had a huge turnout, and involved many of the same people and groups as the rally on Tuesday, where gun owners intend to shred their registration forms as a form of protest. One of the organizers, Rus Thompson of TEA New York, was recently interviewed about this event, and discussed in depth the reasoning behind the shredding.

Gun owners across the state have been speaking out and protesting the SAFE Act from the beginning. As Bearing Arms reported yesterday, as many as one million are refusing to register their weapons.

Non-compliance of the ban is expected to be between 90%-99%, but a provision in the NY SAFE Act prevents registration data from being shared with the public.

Non-compliance in the neighboring state of Connecticut is thought to be in excess of 85%, with an estimated 80,000-100,000 gun owners refusing to register their firearms. Connecticut State Police have made no move to enforce their law four months after their registration deadline, fearing possible armed resistance.

Conservative estimates are that at least 300,000 and as many as one million New Yorkers will likewise practice civil disobedience and refuse to comply with the registration requirement.

The Shredding Registration event has a Facebook page here, and was covered live by a local Buffalo talk radio station here.

The defiance in New York isn’t limited to gun owners. Some officials—county Sheriffs, have declared they won’t enforce the law, either.

Despite deadline, protesters ‘will not comply’ with SAFE Act

Registration deadline for law was Tuesday

on April 15, 2014 – 8:30 PM, updated April 16, 2014 at 2:04 AM

Rus Thompson, a tea party activist, shreds the state assault weapon registration form during a rally Tuesday outside the Mahoney State Building.

Rus Thompson, a tea party activist, shreds the state assault weapon registration form during a rally Tuesday outside the Mahoney State Building. Harry Scull Jr. /Buffalo News

Owners of assault-style weapons were supposed to have registered their guns by Tuesday.

But there is no way of knowing exactly how many of these weapons there are in the state and how many were registered under the NY SAFE Act.

The state refuses to say how many were registered, claiming it is confidential information protected by the law.

Gun-rights advocates estimate compliance will be less than 10 percent.

And in Erie County, the sheriff says he will not force his deputies to enforce registration.

“Theoretically, any law enforcement officer who encounters anyone with this type of gun at a minimum is supposed to record the serial number and the individual’s identity and report it to Albany,” Sheriff Timothy B. Howard said.

But will his deputies do that?

“I don’t know. I am not encouraging them to do it. At the same time, their own consciences should be their guide. I am not forcing my conscience on them. That is a decision they should make,” Howard said.

The sheriff’s opposition sits well with roughly 70 opponents of the law who gathered outside the Walter J. Mahoney State Office Building in downtown Buffalo late Tuesday afternoon to shred State Police registration forms for assault weapons.

It was seen as a form of civil disobedience to a law that opponents say was hastily drafted some 16 months ago in response to the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn., where 20 elementary school children and six adults were slain by a heavily armed gunman.

But rather than make the public safer, opponents contend the law’s main accomplishment has been to create a new classification of criminals – individuals who out of conscience refuse to register their assault weapons because they believe the law overstepped their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The column continues at the website. The Erie County Sheriff echoes the sentiments of many law enforcement officials across the country. “Will…shall I comply with a law that is clearly unenforceable and does nothing more than make criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens?”

The New York Sheriffs Organization has examined the SAFE Act and has found a number of flaws and inconsistencies. They noted these flaws on their website and point out that a number of the Act’s provisions are unenforceable and produce undue burden of their offices and other agencies and institutions.

Three acts of defiance with days of one another: the Bundy Ranch vs. the BLM, gun owners of New York vs. the SAFE Act, and the NY Erie County Sheriff versus that same SAFE Act. When you add the defiance of many states against Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, the refusal of those same states to create state exchanges, a person could reasonably expect more acts of defiance to occur at any time, any where.