<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Thursday, June 30, 2005


A Few Thoughts Over At Blog Spectrum

In response to this week's question I have suggested a few things that I think might help with respect to eminent domain. Check it out and watch for responses from the many stalwart members of BS.


Wednesday, June 29, 2005


The States’ Rights Tradition Nobody Knows

Including yours truly. Read this great piece by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and lament the loss of our Rights to the overwhelming power usurped by the Federal Government!

I thought this portion was particularly relevant to the Kelo decision:

"When the general government encroaches upon the rights of the State, is it a safe principle to admit that a portion of the encroaching power shall have the right to determine finally whether an encroachment has been made or not? In fact, most of the encroachments made by the general government flow through the Supreme Court itself, the very tribunal which claims to be the final arbiter of all such disputes. What chance for justice have the States when the usurpers of their rights are made their judges? Just as much as individuals when judged by their oppressors. It is therefore believed to be the right, as it may hereafter become the duty of the State governments, to protect themselves from encroachments, and their citizens from oppression, by refusing obedience to the unconstitutional mandates of the federal judges."
Apparently the Court's outrageous actions are nothing new. They've been ongoing since at least 1825.

(Of course, I must mention that I take issue with the concept of “States’ Rights”. States, like any other governmental organization, may have powers but never Rights. Only individuals have Rights.)



Apparently the Mayor of New London and some of the Counil members have recieved death threats via email. This is not a good thing for anyone involved. Obviously, no one should be making threats against anyone. Less obviously, threats like these might just give the City an excuse to, shall we say, 'increase security' and stifle protests:

"We're going about the business of government, and work as usual, but we're a little more cautionary," said Mayor Glover.

City Council members say they're prepared for next Tuesday's meeting and will take appropriate protections.
I'll be there, and I will be peaceful. I just hope that random threats (coming from a porn site) do not interfere with a legal, peaceful and reasonable exercise of our 1st amendment rights in furtherance of our (now defunct) 5th amendment rights.


The Betrayal Continues

The trend started years go. It was brought to a head recently by the Supreme Court. Now Connecticut Democrats have done their part to continue the betrayal of their countrymen:

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Republican leaders in the state Senate have called for another special session to consider legislation limiting Connecticut's eminent domain laws following its defeat in the General Assembly on Tuesday.

The proposal, offered in response to last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing New London to take homes for a private development project, was killed on a mostly 22-11 party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The House of Representatives, which also is run by Democrats, defeated a similar proposal 82-50.
"I just don't believe that we should be in the business of taking a family's home away from them for private interests," said Sen. John McKinney, R-Fairfield. "I don't believe we should stand up and say private corporate needs, private development needs, trump individual rights."
"We ought to study this more carefully so there are not unintended consequences," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn. He and other Democrats said the amendment raises more questions than it answers.
"I would much rather err on the side of going too far to protect individual homeowners and property owners ... than protecting some government agency that wants to take their home because they have the authority, the awesome power to do so because of economic gain," said Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury.
House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, said he plans next year to resurrect a bill that died last session preventing the taking of property in Connecticut for economic development.

(Links added to ease contacting your elected representatives to express your opinion)
While the article did not identify the amendment it discusses I found two that might be it.

The first contains this provision:

...except that no owner-occupied residential real property consisting of four or fewer dwelling units may be acquired by eminent domain if the resulting project will be privately owned or controlled.
Sound good, but this next one is even better:

...except that no real property may be acquired by eminent domain if the resulting project will be privately owned or controlled.
Based on the sponsors of the two amendments my guess is that the second one I've linked here is the amendment at issue. Either way, I fail to see the potential for "unintended consequences" envisioned by Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn. Unless, of course, he's referring to "unintended consequences" adversely affecting businesses in the process of stealing homes from people.

How about this for an idea: Pass one of these amendments with a sunset clause to expire after the next legislative session. Let this language serve as an interim protection against local governments taking people's land while both bodies are taking a little break.

If this eventually passes in the next session, and in the mean time someone's home is taken, will the legislature be reimbursing those unfortunate individuals? Somehow I doubt it.

Keep a close eye on this one, folks. We must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions, good or bad.


Tuesday, June 28, 2005


What Goes Around...

...comes around. Roosters coming home to roost and all that:

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.
And check out the letter to the local code enforcement officer.

They claim this is not a joke and I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. I will, however, hold back on my own personal maniacal laughter until this gains a bit more solid footing.

Just about the only thing that could derail this is if Justice Souter willingly gave up the land in some sort of 'principled stand'. That would at least deflate the efforts psychological impact and might actually turn the tables completely. At the very least it's an interesting idea.


And if you happen to be in the DC area on June 29th at 6pm, join Bureaucrash on the steps of the Supreme Court to voice your displeasure. Quick, before they take away that right too!*

(via Michelle)

*Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Previous Posts On Eminent Domain (in reverse chronology)

What Goes Around... (Want to get your hands on a Supreme house?)
Rally In New London (Time and place for the Rally!!)
Trip To New London
More On New London (Lots of info)
A Human Face And Human Help (The Plan)
Outrage Builds
Burning The Constitution


The Individual vs. The Collective

A great post over at Hubs and Spokes:

One of the ways in which law can be unjust, says Thomas, is “when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws.” The court's decision in Kelo makes the same error as forms of economic collectivism: that economic flourishing can be accomplished at the expense of individual property rights. And in so doing the court undermines rather than supports a critical foundation for economic development. True human and community flourishing cannot be accomplished at the expense of security and recognition of private property.
Exactly. This is one of the basic disagreements between the Right and Left in this country. Conservatives see the individual as supreme (and have the Founders on their side) while Liberals see the collective as supreme (and have socialism and communism on their side). As I do not believe all that many people are going to change their minds, our only recourse is to win the battle in the legislature and courts.

So...go to the rally in New London next Tuesday!


Private Or Home School

One or the other, but not public school:

“Operation Respect: Don’t Laugh at Me,” an intensive curriculum in character development. The program, which is the brainchild and heart’s desire of Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul & Mary, aims to combat bullying by emphasizing the moral lessons of folk music.
(via Michelle)


Rally In New London

The rally is going to happen!

Fred Paxton was kind enough to send me this:

FORT (For Our Rights Today) is holding a RALLY on Tuesday, July 5 at 6PM on the steps of City Hall on State Street in New London. There is a Parking Garage on the corner behind City Hall. Scott Bullock, the lead attorney from the Institute of Justice who argued the Kelo v New London case in front of the Supreme Court will be present. We are hoping to have a few other interesting speakers. Please do everything you can to be there. A strong showing is important not only for the Fort Trumbull residents but people across the nation.

If you would like more information, please contact Susette Kelo at 860-447-0466 or Kathleen Mitchell at 860-701-0023 or the email address above.

Remember: If not now then when, If not us then who! Please share this information with family and friends.
Be there!


Day By Day


Monday, June 27, 2005


Life, Liberty and Property

Eric just invited me to join a fledging group called the Life, Liberty and Property Group Blog, which will run the Carnival of Liberty.

I have heartily agreed to join this group, as it is a worthy cause and promises to bring together intriguing bloggers (you would be correct to ask, "So Tom, how did you get invited." I have no idea =)). Check back here and at the group's blog for updates, Carnivals and as-yet-undisclosed (and probably unplanned) shenanigans.


But, but...

...but...it's not legal to carry a gun in Chicago! Oh how does this sort of thing happen?!

Nearly 24 people shot in less than 12 hours


Rally at New London City Hall

I just recieved word that plans are in the works for a rally at the New London City Hall on July 5th, 2005 at 6pm.

The time and date are not yet final, so check back as the week progresses for updates.


Sunday, June 26, 2005


Trip To New London

I took a little trip to New London this afternoon to see the contested area for myself. I didn't take any pictures (although the IJ has), but I will tell you that just looking at the Pfizer complex right across the street from this smallish block of houses paints a classic picture of David and Goliath.

The area looks a little run down, a condition I think is at least partly related to the fact that at least a few homeowners have already given in and left. I was, however, extremely heartened to see "This House Is NOT For Sale" signs (from the Institute for Justice) still in the windows of the houses that were still obviously occupied.

With any luck I'll be able to get in touch this week with some of the people involved in this case to see if there's anything the blogosphere can do. Check back from time to time this week for updates.


An Idea From Wizbang

Jay Tea over at Wizbang has a plan to curb the rampent use of the Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling. I strongly disagree, but hear him out:

My formula for calculating the costs of the seizure to the recipient has confused at least one person, so here's an example: Suppose the town of Bugtussle, West Virginia takes David Anderson's luxurious manse for a new Yoyodyne manufacturing plant. David's manse was last revaluated for $250,000, so the town pays that to him and a 20% "nuisance fee" of $50,000 for his land. David, fed up with Bugtussle politics, goes back to Costa Rica. (David doesn't mind that too much, if you've seen the pictures of Costa Rican women he posts on a regular basis.) Therefore, they have paid a total of $300,000 for David's land.

Now comes the time to transfer the land to Yoyodyne. Under the law, they must sell it to Yoyodyne for what they paid David for it, give or take five percent. One selectman wants to reward Yoyodyne for promising his worthless nephew a job, so he pushes for a 5% cut, or $285,000. Another used to go fishing with David, and will miss him, so he's steamed at Yoyodyne. He wants to tack on that 5%, and charge them $315,000. The entire board fights for a while, and settles on charging Yoyodyne exactly what the town paid -- $300,000 -- no more and no less, and the town eats the costs it incurred in taking David's land (lawyers, transfer fees, surveyors, and the like).
Sounds better than the current situation where your local government can just take the land and pay you, if you're lucky, 40% of its value (post condemnation, of course). I, however, strongly disagree with any such plan.


Because it's still wrong for the government to take my land.

Any questions?


Saturday, June 25, 2005


More On New London

Here's a Saturday morning update on some things people around the blogosphere have sent me.

First, let me thank Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom for his support and the link to yesterday's post (and also a thank you goes out to Bill at INDC Journal for the link). If anyone out there is interested in keeping your own property when a wealthy developer wants it, please spread the word and help us help these victims of governmental hyperpower in New London, CT.

Mary Katharine Ham of Townhall.com was kind enough to point me to a story done by The Insider Online that gives the background and brief bios of the homeowners involved. She also pointed to Institute for Justice, which is the organization who took this case to the Surpeme Court.

Multiple people have suggested joining the Castle Coalition whose stated goal is to fight unfair eminent domain claims by the government. Check out come of their success stories and become a member.

Raven pointed me to a bit of potential good news, although I don't know whether or not it will help Susette Kelo et al.:

State House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, said he plans to resurrect a bill that died last session that would prevent the taking of property in Connecticut for economic development.

"Now that we know the Supreme Court will not give private homeowners this level of protection, the legislature should," Ward said.
No, Mr. Ward. The legislature should have insisted that the governments around the state simply respect the words in the Bill of Rights before the Court got involved. Well, better late than never, I suppose.

This from Gov. Rell sort of chaps my butt, however:

Rell said she has mixed emotions about the court ruling.

"I can certainly understand the economic development concerns, but I'm certainly also sympathetic with the people," she said. "I think if we can strike a good balance and if there's legislation that would address that, then I'm more than willing to look at it."
Oh, what a politician. Gov. Rell, there is no balance to be struck between "the people" (really, the right of an individual person to own property) and "economic development". If a hamlet, village, town, city, county, state or country is strapped for cash, that still does not them the power to steal a person's land for private development. Ever.

Finally, there is one more thing you can do right now in the comfort of your blogging pajamas: Write to the politicians/officials involved in all of this. Let them know what you think and that you, personally, are not going to take this lying down.

Here is some contact information:

New London City Council
Connecticut Governor Rell
Representative Robert M. Ward R-North Branford (House Minority Leader)
Sen. Tony Guglielmo R-Stafford (Urging immediate action!)
Sen. Andrea Stillman D-Waterford (Sees both sides)
James Amann D-Milford (House Speaker)
Connecticut General Assembly


Friday, June 24, 2005


A Human Face And Human Help

[Welcome to all of you coming from Protein Wisdom or INDC Journal. I hope you will take a minute to find out what's going on in New London, CT because if this abuse of government power is allowed to stand, none of us are safe. Lots more info here.

Also a big thank you to Michelle for the link and welcome to her readers.

Some info on what you can do about all this and my trip to New London for a 1st hand look around.]

All right, now that my blood pressure is approaching normal again here's what I'm thinking.

There is already a ton of well-reasoned opinion out there regarding the impunity of the Supreme Court in deciding that it's ok for the government to take one's private property and give it to somebody else for commercial gain. I don't think I have the expertise to add much in that realm.

So, what I would like to do is put a human face to this story, and perhaps to provide some human help to the victims of an over-reaching government. I do not presume to know anything at all about Susette Kelo or anyone else involved in bringing suit against the city of New London. I would, however, like to do what I can to help. Along those lines I propose a two-pronged strategy.

1) Put a human face to the victims. If anyone out there happens to know any of the people whose homes are at risk, I ask that you discreetly inquire as to whether or not he or she would like my/our help in the first place. If s/he answers in the affirmative, we can go from there. (As a side note, I realize that my reach in the blogosphere in pretty limited. I do, however, have a personal assurance from at least one big-time blogger promising help in reaching a larger audience.)

2) Provide material assistance to those who need it upon being removed from their homes. While I do not personally have the funds available to make much of an impact, I would be more than willing to organize a donation drive in the blogosphere (and beyond) to help out where we can. For the record, I would rather not handle any money myself, but I would be more than willing to help disseminate information that would facilitate people sending what help they can.

I know this is all rather vague, but I'm a little out of my element here. So, if you happen to share my sentiments on this travesty and you have experience with this sort of thing, this is your cue to step up to the plate and drop me an email.


Sure Enough

mASSBACKWARDS has got it right...although many dates could join June 23, 2005.


Outrage Builds

I was glad to see this morning that there is a decent amount of outrage out there regarding the Supreme Court's unconstitutional decision yesterday. Michelle Malkin has a post with a huge set of links that I highly recommend. One of the links is to the Institute of Justice. There piece quotes a few homeowners who were part of the suit that 5 brain-dead piles of steaming horse manure just betrayed.

Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging eminent domain abuse, said, “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution.”
While I laude the sentiment...I ask, How? These citizens have taken their case to the highest court in the land and been defeated. How will the continue to fight? Will they petition their Congressmen? Will they try to get the attention of the President? What? I think it's a well-established fact that no one in this country is willing to take on the Supreme Court. When the Court hands down a ruling that is unconstitutional, who has the power to correct them? Any ideas? The fact is that under the current perversion of the Constitution, no one has that power.

Michelle points to Jeff at Protein Wisdom, who suggests almost exactly what we need to do:

Personally, I’m for starting a cyber support group for the New Londoners who are planning a show of civil disobedience when the bulldozers tractor up to the doors of their homes. Anybody else?
Yes, a cyber support group is a great idea, but what we really need are people to stand up in the real word too, physically. Who out there lives close enough to help these people? If you do, drop me an email.


Also check out Wizbang's post.

INDC heard something on CNN that I was unaware of:

Apparently, this will be the second time that one of the homeowners in New London, Connecticut has had his home taken from him by the area's local government. The first instance took place 35 years ago, when the city declared eminent domain in order to build a seawall - a seawall that was never built.
From JYB:

Maybe American and Chinese property owners can unite online to protest. I wonder if Google, Yahoo and Microsoft would open up their ChiCom government-friendly freedom filters to allow that kind of subversive communication?
As always, indepth analysis of the underlying issues from Left2Right.


This'll frost your butt:

So I'll just add--temperately enough, I hope--that I thought the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create rights that would be protected from the government, so that we wouldn't have to rely on the honor system of the government to do the right thing, but had rights that would be enforced. (emphasis added)
Ab-sol-ute-ly n-o-t!

The Bill of Rights did not create anything. The Bill of Rights enumerated God-given rights that we each possess by the very fact that we are human beings! I cannot believe I read this on the Volokh Conspiracy!


Thursday, June 23, 2005


Burning The Constitution

What the hell is going on in this country? The 9 Dictators in Black just decided that your private property is yours right up until your "local officials" decide they want it:

WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
How much crap are we willing to take from our 'betters' in the government? Hum? How many more insults to our (once) inalienable rights must we endure before we have had enough?

I've heard many a gun owner say, "You'll know I'm dead when they've taken my guns." It's a great line, sure. But how many people would actually hold that line when they come for your gun (as far as I can tell, no one in NYC)?

How about when armed government agents come for you house? My first reaction to this is to say, "Oh yeah? Come and take it you bastards! I've got 600 rounds of ammo here, so which ever of you is number 601 has a decent shot at getting in here!" But would I? Would I sacrifice my career, my freedom and my very life in order to hold on to my house? While the noble part of me wants to say yes, the honest side is not so sure. Why?

I think the problem is that freedoms are taken away in small portions. No government (in this country) is going to say: Give us your guns, house, money...eh, and how about every last vestige of your freedom while you're at it. They just take your house, and certainly a mere piece of property is not worth dying over...right?

What does happen, is that Congress says: Assault weapons are dangerous and no one really needs them anyway, so we're going to outlaw them. The President signs it, the 9 Dictators in black give it the thumbs up and the 2nd amendment is null and void.

Then Congress passes the misleadingly-named Campaign Finance Reform Bill. It tells me that I cannot speak freely, but only X number of days out from an election. Then the President signs it and the 9 Dictators in Black give it the thumbs up. Result: The 1st amendment is null and void.

Now, without even the prefunction of Congressional and Executive action, the 9 Dictators in Black have told me that the government can take my private property and give it to someone else. In essence they have 'reinterpreted' the final clause of the 5th amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation so that now "public use" means "increase the tax base by taking my private property and giving it to another". Amazing powers of reinterpretation these dictators have, no?

So the question remains: How long do I, as a citizen of the United States of America, continue to endure these assaults against my freedom? At what point do these insults finally add up to the modern day equivalent of the Intolerable Acts? Do I have the courage to make a stand?

The question we must each answer in our heart of hearts is: When they come for my house/gun/speech, will I roll over and take it, or will I draw a line in the sand?


Wednesday, June 22, 2005


Mark This Day On The Calendar

This is one of the very few issues I find myself in agreement with many on the Left:

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.


The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
Let me say up front that I would never burn the flag of the United States of America. Far too many good men and women have died defending the ideals for which it stands.

The problem I have with any amendment/law against flag burning is the same fundamental issue I take with women being forced to wear a burka under the Taliban. A woman may very well believe that it is virtuous to wear a burka, and be happy to do so. However, the very fact that doing so is compulsatory, under the threat of death, not only restricts one's freedom but also destroys one's ability to exhibit virtue.

Similarly, under current law (well, really under a current Supreme Court ruling) I am free to burn the flag. The very fact that I choose to not do so indicates that I have a certain level of respect for the flag and the ideals it represents. Criminalizing flag burning steals that distinction.

On the other hand, criminalizing flag burning really only serves to increase the power of a flag-burners message. One of the favorite refrains of the Right (myself included) is to ridicule those in this country who are "brave" enough to criticize the government as it's really not all that "brave" when there are no consequences. Bravery would be to go to Saudi Arabia and criticize their government.

In the same vein, flag burning currently has not legal consequences in this country, and so the act is no more than an impotent expression of misplaced rage. Criminalizing the act, however, would mean that a flag-burner is openly defying the law, lending significance to the act that was previously so pathetic.

This proposed amendment is wrong from all angles. I can only hope that logic will prevail over misapplied patriotism.


What Apology?

Sen. Durbin said some pretty stupid things and has been rightly flogged in the press and on Capitol Hill. So, after some rhetorical horse whipping, Durbin has decided to apologize. Here's how an Illinois Democrat says he's sorry:

"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."

Not: I am deeply sorry for what I said and regret any harm my comments may have caused to our war against terror and to those fighting that war and their families.

Nor even: I apologize for my insensitive remarks.

No, instead he basically said: You know, some people are overly sensitive and causing me some real political problems. To you, I say, "Sorry"...but to everyone else I say, "Rock On! Fight the power! Impeach Bush!"

Oh well, likely I'm expecting far too much of a politician to actually expect a real apology.


Mr. Preston agrees.


Monday, June 20, 2005


Blood In The Streets Of Britain?

Maybe not yet, but soon:

LONDON -- The British government has ordered the army onto the streets to join an all-out summer campaign against anti-social drunken and violent behavior by rowdy youths.
Which do you think is more likely to cause blood to run in the streets, unarmed (for now) uniformed military police or armed citizens? How long before some drunken, or even sober, street thugs decide to gang up on one of these guys:

A senior Defense Ministry official said: "We do not expect hundreds of troops on the streets, but we would think the very presence of unarmed troops will deter bad behavior."
How would you like this to happen in the US? If you're breathlessly awaiting the day when rough men in camo patrol the streets of our cities, then by all means, support 'reasonable' gun control and give the power to the criminals.


Sunday, June 19, 2005


Batman Begins

Not to worry, I'm not going to mention any spoilers.

I saw Batman Begins last night with my girlfriend. She is a huge fan of the original (with Michael Keaton) and has been disappointed by the other two (recent) Batmans (Kilmer and Clooney).

We both agreed that Batman Beings is, by far, the best of them all. It was intense and extremely entertaining. But more than that, it was morally righteous. I found it somewhat ironically amusing that the only place Hollywood seems willing to show us true, upstanding, uncompromising, morals is in a fantasy world. That does not, however, detract from the movie's opening minutes wherein Batman's moral clarity is made explicit, although not overly belabored.

All in all Batman Begins was one of the few movies I've seen in the recent past that was actually worth the price of admission. Go see it, you won't be disappointed.

My hope is that this movie, and others like it, will help people recognize good and evil is their own lives...but perhaps I ask too much...


One quick negative note concerns the way the fight scenes were filmed. I wasn't a huge fan. Aside from that, the movie-making aspects where great (although I'm no expert =)).


Wednesday, June 15, 2005


Regulate Everything!

...except murder clinics:

A Kansas City abortionist is out of business after investigators discovered a grisly house of horrors at his clinic – with fetuses kept in Styrofoam cups in his refrigerator and one employee accusing him of microwaving one and stirring it into his lunch.


Topping the list of horrors was an employee's account that she and others witnessed Rajanna "microwave one of the aborted fetuses and stir it into his lunch," as Howard recalled earlier this year when testifying before a Kansas House committee.


"Dr. Rajanna lacked personal hygiene," testified Howard. "His hair was messy, hands dirty, and his clothing was wrinkled and stained. He put on old, used foot booties while we were there."
Wait, wait, wait. Just a minute. So this guy ate some aborted fetuses, who cares? I thought "it" wasn't a human until, when was it a again? They keep changing the cutoff. Well, whatever the actual day that "it" becomes "human" had certainly not come for these "its", so who cares? Let this guy munch away.

Ok, now that I have sufficiently disgusted even myself (no small task after gross anatomy)...

The cannibalism stuff is almost unbelievable and I, for one, will leave that to a DA and jury to hash out. The thing about this piece that strikes me is the abhorrent lack of regulation of abortion clinics in Missouri. Are things this loose in other parts of the country as well?

With Rajanna's case pending, abortion opponents won legislative approval of a bill requiring abortion clinics to obtain an annual license from the Department of Health and Environment, hire surgeons as their medical directors and report patient deaths to the state within a day. The measure also mandated that the department set standards for equipment, medical screenings, ventilation and lighting.
Are you kidding me?! You mean to tell me that abortion clinics, which perform invasive medical procedures, do not need a license?! And, when a law to rectify this deficiency was passed by the state legislature:

...Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion-rights advocate, vetoed the measure, saying medical professionals – not legislators – should set standards.
So...who, exactly, makes up the Department of Health and Environment? I can't seem to find their website...but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are at least a few doctors involved.

Of course, the license issue was not the only thing one rejected by Gov. Kathy. No, she also thought that it would be far too restrictive to require murder clinics to be clean, well equipped, ventilated and lighted. At the very least this reporter got the governor's label right. She is an abortion-rights advocate, no more and no less. Certainly a woman-rights advocate would never have placed the convenience of murders over the safety of women.


Friday, June 10, 2005


Micheal "Bunker Mulligan" Reed, 1953-2005

While I was away at a meeting this week tragedy struck my corner of the blogosphere. Michael "Bunker Mulligan" Reed passed away on June 3rd, 2005 of a heart attack. I wish I could find the right words, but I'm afraid that anything I write will be painfully insufficient...and perhaps that is the best tribute I can give: Simply that words are never really enough when a good man dies.

In tribute to Bunker, I will honor his family's request to make a donation to Homes for Our Troops in lieu of sending flowers today...the day he is to be laid to rest.

To Bunker's family, please know that my thoughts and prayers are with you.

Godspeed Bunker.


Friday, June 03, 2005



Nobody cares that you turned 25:


CNN's big 25th Anniversary week started with bad news: May numbers released yesterday showed CNN down 17% in total day and 16% in primetime vs. May 2004 . . .

6-1-05 8PM RATINGS

FOXNEWS O'Reilly Factor - 2,268,000 viewers

CNN 25th anniversary special -- 345,000

MSNBC/Countdown with Keith Olbermann - 213,000
Don't it just feel good!


Wednesday, June 01, 2005


Interesting Definitions

A human being supposes an organism that will eventually die of natural causes. So, killing my friend is not really murder. Since he did not die of natural causes he was never actually a "human being".

Ok, so that's the best I could do and it is, quite literally, nonsense. So how is it that a "scientist" can make an equally ridiculous claim and not have someone laugh directly in his face?

Here's what Hwang Woo-suk (the human cloner for S. Korea) had to say about the embryos he is apparently not destroying to get stem cells:

"What we are doing is not creating embryos. An embryo, basically supposes a birth of a life. But we have no intention or goals whatsoever to create life," said Hwang. "When the genetic material is removed from human egg, it becomes a vacant egg shell, I would like to call it that."
Oh, I see. So he defines an embryo based on a future event. I guess my painful analogy wasn't so far off after all, huh?

The question Dr. Idiot needs to answer is: What is the little ball of cells in the fallopian tube called when the nascent pregnancy results in a miscarriage?

The answer (for those of you keeping score at home) is: It's an embryo, regardless of future events.


And No One Shot Back

This is terrible, for so many reasons:

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - Three people were killed and five hurt in a series of shootings, pistol whippings and carjackings that ended Tuesday when the suspect killed himself with a shot to the head inside a Wal-Mart, authorities said.


The violence began Monday when three people were shot in the front yard of a home in Thousand Oaks. A woman identified as Jan Heyne, 51, was pronounced dead at the scene, and Steve Mazin, a 52-year-old attorney, died at a hospital. Timothy Heyne, a rock music manager, was in critical condition.


The third fatality, a 48-year-old woman, was killed Tuesday at her home in a separate incident, according to police. Two of her children were among the injured.


Ramirez, 30, was hospitalized but was expected to recover. The woman, possibly shot, and two of her children were pistol-whipped, Brooks said.

The woman, identified as Carole Nordella, died from her injuries at a hospital, sheriff's officials said. The children, a 10-year-old boy and 14-year-old girl, were treated for head wounds.
This guy goes around form multiple days shooting and pistol-whipping people, and somehow no one shoots the scumbag. Hum...maybe because it's next to impossible to get (and keep) a pistol permit in CA. Unfortunately, these people paid with their lives.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?