Last night Bou sent me an email telling me that Fox News' show Hannity and Colmes was live in Riviera Beach, FL, talking about the eminent domain case there.

What a damn nightmare. As many as 6,000 people may become homeless, directly because of direct government action. Why? So some politicians can line their pockets with cash -- I kid you not.

The situation, if you're not aware of it, is that the mayor and government of the "city" of Riviera Beach wants to use eminent domain to kick 6,000 people out of their homes (where most have been for OVER 40 years) so he can give the land to other private individuals -- developers who will build an aquarium, condos, a mall, and a yacht club.

While watching, I took some notes. Hannity, when speaking to the mayor, said at least 10 times, "So, you're going to kick people out of their homes to increase your tax base?" The mayor would not respond. The mayor FINALLY said, in response to that statement, "We will rescue them." Why? "For the good of the community." Welcome to Amerika, 2005. People have no rights at all. If you do not have the right to own property, you simply cannot have any other rights. Free speech? Sorry, you can be arrested for standing in the wrong place, since you cannot own land, so that right is gone.

Freedom of religion? Sorry, if you are in a church the government doesn't like, they can take it from you and demolish it, because you have no right to own property.

Right to bear arms? Nope. If you cannot own property, government can, quite literally, take anything away from you that you own.

How about the right to be secure in your own property and "their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?" Nope. If you cannot own property, then this right simply does not apply. The government can just claim that your house is their house, and they can do whatever they like in their own house.

Hannity also asked repeatedly, "You're going to push these people out of their homes so you can build an aquarium?" The mayor refused to answer. Whenever Hannity asked if the mayor was going to force people to leave who didn't want to leave, the Mayor absolutely refused to answer.

The mayor, once he started to get more angry and flustered, actually said, "For their own selfish reasons, they want to stay in their homes." Yes, that's right, if you want to stay in YOUR home that YOU paid for -- or your father built from the ground up, YOU ARE SELFISH.

The mayor said, no less than four times, this was "For the good of the community." I know this sounds like hyperbole, but isn't ethnic cleansing done "for the good of the community?" NOTHING good ever comes from using force to do things "for the good of the community." Nothing.

Hannity interviewed a number of people that were preparing to be evicted by the government for daring to live where the government didn't want them to. Every one that spoke up had lived in their houses for over 4 decades. One woman was an immigrant whose father had built their house in the 1940s. Nearly all had been in possession of their houses for more than 1 generation and had numerous memories in the houses.

Then Hannity asked the big question of the mayor: "Do you have to potential to make any money through real estate or any other investments or purchases?"

As you might expect, the mayor vehemently refused to answer: "That's not worth answering."

So yes, the mayor and individuals in the government there stand to make large amounts of cash for throwing these people out of their houses. However, when pressed over and over again about the fact that the mayor was going to throw these people out of their houses and onto the streets, the mayor could only respond with platitudes like "This is a redevelopment plan...to train people and get them better jobs and give them a living wage and increase our tax base."

The mayor did admit, over and over again, that the primary purpose of the entire project was to increase the tax base. And, since the Kelo decision, according to the US Supreme Court, that is a valid purpose of government.

That is so far off of what the founding fathers had planned for a free country. You cannot have freedom when the government exists to take freedom away, especially if that freedom is economic freedom.

Can this movement be stopped? It didn't sound like it. I think it's going to take what Rush Limbaugh suggested one time -- they need grandma to place sandbags around a fortified position with a shotgun and have the government come and and remove her.

I think this is one issue that really is worth dying for. If you don't have any property rights, how can you claim to be free? I'd barricade myself up, armed, and refuse to move, but I'd just be portrayed as a loony militia-type (despite not even knowing about any militia in my area).

Live Free or Die is the state motto of New Hampshire. I think that's a pretty good motto to live by. I think if I were in their situation, with nothing but my house (these were not rich people), I'd arm myself and let them leave me alone or kill me. Sure, it sounds drastic, but why live if you cannot be free?

Times like this only renew my support for The Free State Project. The only way to stop this sort of absolute destruction of liberty and freedom is going to be just like it was done over 200 years ago -- someone is going to have to stand up against these people, and they're going to have to be armed.

Keep in mind, the mayor of Riviera Beach is using his power as mayor to physically take personal land and possessions from private individuals so that he can financially gain and so his friends can get the land that those people now own. How in the world can anyone defend this scum of a man (and yes, I'll say that to his face)? This is a total abuse of power beyond my comprehension.

This mayor should be in jail. The people should not go quietly.

(Linked to TMH's Open Trackbacks).

Posted by: Ogre at 08:08 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1093 words, total size 6 kb.