Souter's home to be taken?

[Michael Fisher]

Well, that's not really it, Mike...... It is not personal, really - Let's say we get Souter to move - If it were personal, we would follow him wherever he went, taking home after home from him. I don't think anyone wants that, or would even suggest it. We're using the system to fight the system, NOT to harass five judges into a life of heck.

Personal means "of or relating to a particular person".  A specific judge's home is being attacked.  This issue is clearly being made personal.

If we try to get eminent domain directly banned, that would not be personal.

[Dave Ridley]

ack can someone tell me wha the address of souter's place is?  I thought it was on this thread but I can't find it.

[jgmaynard]

Well, that's not really it, Mike...... It is not personal, really - Let's say we get Souter to move - If it were personal, we would follow him wherever he went, taking home after home from him. I don't think anyone wants that, or would even suggest it. We're using the system to fight the system, NOT to harass five judges into a life of heck.

Personal means "of or relating to a particular person".? A specific judge's home is being attacked.? This issue is clearly being made personal.
If we try to get eminent domain directly banned, that would not be personal.

So is it a personal attack against millions of families when government, colluding with bog business, willl do the same becasue of this ruling?

I believe so.

And did you think about bearing partial responsiblity for it happening to millions of families if you can prevent it from happening to five?

Does this remind anyone else of that discussion at the beginning of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" about the contractors aboard the Death Star? LOL...

JM

[Kat Kanning]

WND ON THE AIR
Want to seize Souter's house?
Join man behind movement on Farah show today
Posted: July 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45205
? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


Logan Darrow Clements

Logan Darrow Clements, the man behind the movement to seize U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home through eminent domain will be the guest today on "Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily RadioActive," the nationally syndicated talk program.

Clements will announce the latest developments to turn the tables on one of the justices behind the court's Kelo decision that permits local municipalities to use eminent domain to take homes and businesses away from owners and give them to private developers in an effort to increase the tax base.

You can hear "Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily RadioActive," the daily, nationally syndicated radio show featuring WND's founder on radio stations from coast to coast and streamed on the Internet.

Farah's new network, Golden Broadcasters, has been formed with the live, three-hour, drive-time program as the flagship.

The new Dallas-based company is a full-service network providing programming, radio production, Internet streaming, satellite delivery and sales and affiliate relations. Farah continues broadcasting from the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., as he has for the past two years.

The show airs Monday through Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern with a refeed from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m. on ABC Starguide, Transponder 23, Satellite AMC-8.

The call-in number for the show is 1-877-232-4855. Golden Broadcasters can be reached at 972-871-8802.

[Michael Fisher]

This is what I remember of a recent news story.

A woman in Dover was driving somewhere with her daughter.? A man driving behind her was not paying attention and slammed into her car, badly injuring the woman and her daughter.? The man was also injured and bleeding.? The woman's daughter only expressed concern with the man because she saw that his face was bleeding.

The woman pressed charges against him.? At court, the man explained that he was looking at his dashboard and sincerely apologized.

Right before he was punished by the judge, the woman forgave him.? The two victims hugged him and they all cried.? The man was sentenced to community service.? He was very thankful and in complete disbelief that he was forgiven.  Even the judge was amazed.

[Michael Fisher]

Here's how I visualize the concept of forgiveness:



Yes, I know it's cheesy. 

[KBCraig]

You're forgetting that in the example you cite, that "brick wall of forgiveness" was cemented together by an apparently sincere repentance.

Forgiveness in the absence of repentance is perpetual victimhood. Whether pre-emptive forgiveness can create a change of heart, and lead to repentance, is a judgement call.

Kevin

[Russell Kanning]

don't brick walls hurt? 

[cathleeninnh]

I am still chewing on this idea of forgiveness, Mike. I must admit that it wasn't central in my upbringing. What was very prominent was not stooping to somene else's low level of behavior. When wrongdoing or game playing is recognized I try to turn my back on it and refuse to participate. No fighting, yelling. arguing, just rejection and attempting to be the better person. I have said before that sleeping at night with a clear consciense is a daily goal.

Isn't there a difference between forgiveness and not exacting revenge?

Cathleen

[Kat Kanning]

Sure.  I think we all agree that taking people's property is wrong.  Sticking to principles doesn't require forgiveness.

[tracysaboe]

don't brick walls hurt? 

"When you forgive your brother, you will be heaping coals of fire on his head."

That's my paraphrase from somewhere in the New Testament.

See, it's a reference to Jewish communities when a person's fire when out, they'd walk around under the windows of their neighbors, and ask for hot coals from their fires, so they could use them to light their fire again. They carried the containers for the hot-coals on their heads.

TRacy

[Michael Fisher]

I can identify with the reluctance to use forgiveness and the belief that it requires repentance, but forgiveness can be unilateral.

It seems there are different methods and types of forgiveness:

Methods:
-Inner forgiveness.  Not necessarily communicated to anyone.
-Open forgiveness.  Openly communicated to the aggressor or announced.

Types:
-Unilateral forgiveness.  Regardless of the aggressor's desire to be forgiven.  Cannot be rejected.
-Conditional forgiveness.  Mandatory repentance from the aggressor.  Can be rejected.

As someone once said, when you forgive someone in your own heart, it is like setting a prisoner free and realizing the prisoner was you.  That would be an example of inner unilateral forgiveness.

Forgiving MaineShark on the FSP forums was an example of open unilateral forgiveness.  He tried to reject it, but to no end! 

I'm no expert on this, but it seems like a logical explanation to me.

[tracysaboe]

I guess, I don't even see this as needing to forgive, to oppose the taking of Souter's home.

The taking of Souter's home, im my mind, is simular to "pre-emptively" attacking Iraq.

Just like Iraq didn't have anything to do with 911, Souter is the wrong target. I'm sorry, but the supreme court simply isn't that powerfull. The target, is the aparatous of big government. Taking Souter's home -- indeed, enlisting the help of government to do it -- is veyr counter to our goals. State legislatures, local legislatures, and State and local courts, can thumb their nose atthe Supreme Court's decision anytime they want. Heck, even destrict federal courts make decisions contrary to what the Supremes have stated in the past, and unless anybody appeals, their isn't a thing the Supreme Court can do about it.

The supreme courts power is too hyped up. It's over-rated.

But the taking of souter's house, is attacking the individual, when instead we should be attacking the institution of government.

And in the taking of Souter's property, we will be making the local government bigger and more intrusive. For years the local government is going to be saying "see, Even libertarians supported Eminent Domain." I really don't care if that's a perversion of the pro-siesure camp or not. That's how the governments PR campain will spin it. And frankly, they've got much of the media on their finger.

The act of taking Souter's home, is going to cause the creation of a new arm of the local government -- as the local government has never done anything like this before.

And then after words -- since to match Souter's words, you're saying it's to "increase the local government's tax base." the local government will be that much more powerfull, and have that much more wealth, to be able to hurt us with it.

As libertarians, we don't want to government to have more money. We want it to get smaller.

Indeed, eventually we want all taxes to go away. So how does using government to take Souter's home, help us with that -- even if it would be justice?

This isn't about morality, or justice. These are some very basic pragmatic questions those in the pro-take-souter's-home camp shold be asking themselves.

Is this really a step towards more liberty?

Is this really a step towards more liberty in NH (where Eminent domain takings for private developers hasn't been done before as far as I understand.)

Is this really a step towards more liberty in the town where this is taking place (ditto)

Do we really want government to have a bigger tax base then it already has? Do we really want it to have more cops (because it's going to need them to enforce this taking) that will only entrench the current statism and indeed only make it worse?

I don't need to forgive him for being a stupid, criminal, statist to oppose this taking.

The whole idea of trying to use the state to bring about liberty is a bit absurd in and of itself, in my mind. But to use the state to actively agress against an individual just because he's a part of the coersive federal government -- which really doesn't even need to have jurisdiction in NH if we don't want him to anyway?

I really can't wrap my head around how people could support this even if it IS the just thing to do.

Which, for the record, I'm not conviced it is.

TRacy

[Michael Fisher]

This issue is a question of morality, libertarian principles, forgiveness, justice, and personal responsibility.  In my opinion, taking Souter's home through eminent domain is probably unjust, it is immoral, violates libertarian principles, gives no consideration at all to forgiveness, and is based on misdirected blame which directly violates the principle of personal responsibility.

Libertarians, of all people, should know that most answers come from within.  We always place blame on ourselves first, just incase we are somehow responsible for a problem.  Only after this test do we consider the responsibility of others.  That is my experience in this movement.  This is one thing that sets us apart from every other movement in the world.

[Michael Fisher]

Holy crap!!!? NHFree.com and I made the Concord Monitor!? ?

Souter hotel proposal catches fire
Eminent domain ruling has inflamed many
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050713/REPOSITORY/507130307/1221

The e-mails arrived with spam-like ferocity, dozens, then hundreds, at a time, begging Weare's five selectmen to seize Supreme Court Justice David Souter's homestead and allow a California activist to replace it with a would-be tourist haunt called the Lost Liberty Hotel.

For more than two weeks, Logan Clements has championed his plan, explaining online and in person that it's not a prank but a test - and protest - of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another, if doing so would benefit a community.

Thousands of people have latched onto Clements's idea, spawning a Web-based crusade to topple Souter's farmhouse on the southern edge of town.

Town hall is politely taking phone calls and letters, explaining that Clements must submit a formal building plan before officials can get involved. Meanwhile, all the attention on the judge's home - including numerous postings that include his address and, in one case, a satellite map of his neighborhood - have local police keeping a close eye on the area.

Souter's office declined to comment on the plan this week and an e-mail from Clements explained that he would be unable to return most media inquiries until he raised enough money to hire clerical staff. But type "Weare" and "Lost Liberty Hotel" into the Google search engine and your computer will spit back about 40,000 hits. Yes, there are misconceptions, such as the frequent assumption that Weare has a city council, but many bloggers are itching to experiment with what the court's ruling allows, preferably in Souter's hometown.

"Let's all send letters to the Weare, NH city council telling them we would love to take a vacation there when the Lost Liberty Hotel is completed. Fall colors are amazing in that part of the country," one person wrote on a discussion board at the GeorgeWBush.org Web site.
The board of selectmenhas received thousands of e-mails in the last couple of weeks, but it can't take any action until Clements crafts an official building plan, said chairman Laura Buono. In casual discussions, however, selectmen were dubious about the plan.

"It seemed like the board wasn't interested in taking anyone's property," she said, adding that Souter's land is ill-suited to a hotel. "They've definitely made the statement they've set out to make, but if you look at it, it's an 8 acre parcel. . . . It's not going to support a hotel. It's maybe a good area for a bed and breakfast, but that's not really going to do the job they hope it to do, in my opinion."

Still, Clements remains undaunted. He appeared last night on Court TV and has been a regular visitor to chat rooms and Web sites with a Libertarian bent. Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, a Los Angeles-based outfit that fights "abusive" government through a Web site, a fledgling cable show and efforts such as the one in Weare. Clements is also one of thousands of people planning to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers.

Freestar's Web site includes daily updates on the project and, coming soon, Lost Liberty Hotel merchandise. Visitors are asked to help drum up cash to hire lawyers and a developer by purchasing ads on the site or to offer menu options for the Just Desserts Caf? (Anyone for "Eminent Romaine Salad with a side of your neighbor's house dressing" or a "Takeover Turkey Club?")

For some, it's a half-joking idea that points to what they say is the absurdity of the court's ruling. Others see it as a serious business venture tinged with political revenge. But at least one member of the Free State Project thinks the whole thing is a bad idea.

Mike Fisher, a Newmarket resident who was recently arrested for performing a manicure without a license, vowed to protect Souter's home even if it means standing in front of bulldozers.

"Even Mr. Souter does not deserve to have his home taken by eminent domain," Fisher wrote on NhFree.com. "Taking away a family's home is immoral."

------ End of article

By MEG HECKMAN
Monitor staff