Teaching The Evils Of Private Property

[Mauser 98K]

story at http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html.

We covered this several weeks ago ... but it seems to be making news again. So ... let's talk about socialist indoctrination in our schools – this time a private school – again.

Some teachers at a private school in Seattle <<have banned the use of Legos in class by children.>> The reason? It turns out the children had developed a Lego town and were learning about capitalism. The teachers couldn't have this, so they banned the Legos...because they wanted the students to learn that owning private property was evil. They also said that Lego town had become a class-based, capitalist society and they (the teachers) believed that was unjust and oppressive. This is what your precious cargo is learning when you drop them off in the morning.

Now, this is what you would expect from your friendly neighborhood government school, not a private one. But this does show you that every facet of education is being infected with socialist liberals. So here is just an example of the nonsense that the kids who attend the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle are being programmed with:

The teachers decided that the children's assumptions about owning private property "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society, a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive." That's right, they actually said this.


After these kids displayed such horrifying tendencies with their Lego town, the teachers decreed that "All structures are public structures" and "all structures will be standard sizes." Sound familiar? Somewhere Karl Marx is smiling.


The teachers said that in banning the Legos, "our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation." If that doesn't send shivers down your spine, I don't know what would.

So there you have it...Socialism 101 being taught to young children who don't know better. But they do deserve points for their sudden burst of entrepreneurship with their Lego town. It's too bad it was accidentally demolished. Perhaps the teachers took it over through eminent domain and are building a communist re-education center.

[Chels]

uhm isn't the US Based on capitalism?

[Mauser 98K]

depends on who ya ask, ask a demonrat and its not its a democracy, ask me and it is now dam near a police state, it is supposed to be a capitolistic society if i remember corectly.

they want to set everything up to where everything is owned by the state and no1 owns what they have and it will be like the days of Lenin.

oh wanta hear something scarry, Earthday that was set up by the greenie wenies, (Eco Wackos) it is Vladimir Lenin's birthday, they just changed the name to earthday. thats something that you will never hear in schools.


This Earth Day Celebrate Vladimir Lenin's Birthday!
by Alexander Marriott (April 21, 2004)

Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet Premier after Joseph Stalin, decided in 1955 that the country should celebrate their national political philosophy, communism. He chose as the day, April 22, Vladimir Lenin's birthday, a tribute to the founder of the Soviet Union. When environmentalists decided that the Earth deserved a day of celebration in 1970, they could have picked any day of the year, as no one knows the exact day date of the Earth's birthday. They chose Lenin's birthday, just as Khrushchev had done. Was this just a coincidence? I think not.

<<<<read entire writeup here>>>>


mostly schools are an indoctranation center to teach kids to be under this new rule of the iron fist.

[IcIshoot]

Thats why homeschooling is so nice: the parents get to control every aspect of their kids learning. it may be more work for the parents, but it is the only way to teach your kids what you believe is important for them to learn.


IcI

[Chels]

Originally posted by Mauser 98K

they want to set everything up to where everything is owned by the state and no1 owns what they have and it will be like the days of Lenin.


This Earth Day Celebrate Vladimir Lenin's Birthday!
by Alexander Marriott (April 21, 2004)

And the days of lenin lead to a revolution within a revolution in russia...

[Chrispy]

Imao that's weird.

Capitalism and socialism... what do you pick?

Chris

[Mauser 98K]

heres ya another one, this was done in 05, and it has gotten worse since then.


THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law. What ruling? Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country. [full text of ruling]

Background. The {Fifth Amendment} to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain. It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it. The exact working is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population. As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use.

The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a parcel of property is a public use. Increasing the number of people who can be employed by a business located on a particular piece of property can also be a public use. This would mean that government would be free to seize private property if it can be handed to a developer who will redevelop the property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number of people employed. This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme Court yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property seizure in New London, Connecticut. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, this decision renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation.

Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed. You now own your private property only at the pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, be it your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only at the pleasure of the local controlling politicians.






Let me give you a few real-life examples of just how politicians can now use this Supreme Court decision. In considering these examples, please remember one of the first rules of politics: There is absolutely no limit whatsoever to a politician's desire for more tax money to spend.

First let's consider our lovely Southern Belle producer Belinda. Belinda and her husband recently purchased a tract of land behind her new home. That tract of land contains one rather small and old house plus some empty acreage. Belinda will rent the home for just enough to cover her debt service and property taxes on the new purchase ... maybe. Now, here comes a developer. He wants Belinda's land because he can build at least three, maybe four new homes on that property. Belinda says no. She likes not having houses abutting her back yard and appreciates the investment value of the land she has purchased. So .. the developer wanders off to the Capitol to talk to some politicians. He tells them that he can increase the property being paid on that tract of land tenfold if he could just get in there and build some houses, but the owners just won't sell the property to him. Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to pay Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that.

Another example. This time we'll use me. About two years ago I brought a building lot in the Northeast Georgia mountains. It's a lot in a mountain resort community. Before I bought the lot I made sure that there were no covenants or regulations that would require me to build a home on that lot before I was ready to do so. At present it is not my intention to build a home. I bought the lot as an investment. Now, since there is no home as of yet the property taxes are rather low. Along comes a developer. He wants to build a home on my lot. I tell him the lot is not for sale. He waltzes off to the local county commission to complain. He wants to build a house, I won't sell him the land. If he could build the house the property taxes would jump on that parcel of land. The county commission then sends me a letter telling me that if I don't sell my land to that developer to build that home they are going to seize the land and turn it over. Thanks to the Supreme Court, I'm screwed.

Now take the situation in New London. This is the case the court was considering. The targeted neighborhood is populated by middle class residents. The homes are old, but very well kept. One couple now slated to have their property seized is in their 80's. They celebrated their wedding in that home. They raised their children in that home. They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home. Now they're going to lose that home because a developer wants the property to build a hotel, some office buildings and a work out center. This is America. This shouldn't happen in America. That couple shouldn't be kicked out of their home just because a new development would pay more in property taxes.

There are also small businesses located on this tract of land. They're history. The big boys are in town, and the big boys can use eminent domain to get your property.

No society ostensibly based on economic liberty can survive unless that society recognizes the right to property. The right to property has been all but crippled by this decision from the Supreme Court. That right is now subject to the whims of politicians and developers.

I'm not through ranting. Read on.

Considering this ruling, how likely are you to invest in real estate at this point? If you saw a tract of land that was placed squarely in the path of growth, would you buy that property in hopes that you could later sell it for a substantial profit? I wouldn't. I wouldn't be interesting in investing in that property because I know that when it came time to sell, the potential purchaser would lowball me on the price. I would never get a true market value based on the highest and best use of that property. And why not? Because the developer wanting that property would simply tell me that if I didn't accept his lowball offer he would just go to the local government and start the eminent domain process. This ruling also means that virtually every piece of raw land out there has decreased in value. The threat of eminent domain for private economic development has severely damaged in most cases, and destroyed in many others, the American dream of investing in real estate.

Another element of the New London case. These middle class homes and small businesses were located on a waterfront. Everybody knows that middle class people and small businesses have no right to live on prime waterfront property. This property should be reserved for expensive homes and for big businesses with powerful political connections .. businesses like Pfizer Pharmaceutical company. Pfizer will be one of the beneficiaries of the New London seizures. This hideous Supreme Court ruling is going to result in a disgusting orgy of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners. I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project.

There's another element I want to add to this rant. I believe this Supreme Court decision to be a victory for the dark side in the war against individualism. Sadly, sometimes I think that I'm the only one out there who realizes that this war is being fought ... the only one on the side of individuality, that is. How in the world can leftist icon Ted Kennedy make say that "we are engaged in a war against individuality" without at least a few people in the media asking him what in the world he's talking about?

The concept of individuality is a very troublesome one for liberals. Recognizing the concept of the individual brings with it a whole lot of baggage that liberals don't want to carry around. When you acknowledge the existence of the individual you then have to recognize that the individual has rights. Among those rights would be the right to property. Liberals aren't friendly with the idea of property rights. They're fond of chanting such absurdities as "human rights, not property rights." Well, truthfully speaking; property has no rights. People have the right to property .. and those rights have been severely damaged.

Now ... is there a bright side? Is there anything good in the ruling? Yes, there is, and this is where you come in. Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now. Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights.

The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights. Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you.

What can you do? Visit Institute For Justice & the Castle Coalition. There is also a blog that focuses on eminent domain issues.


<<<story here>>

[Mauser 98K]

and here is another that was done in 2004.

FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE OUTRAGE

Print this out ... go warm up a cup of coffee .. then come back and read this. I'm furious. Frightened and furious. So mad, in fact, that I could literally spin around on my eyebrows and spit wooden nickels. You heard me talk about it yesterday. Hell ... you heard me rant about it yesterday, then finish with a promise that I would put my thoughts in the Nuze for you to do with as you please.

The issue? Two bills, essentially identical; one making its way through the Florida House, the other in the Florida Senate. The House bill is HB 1513, sponsored by Rep. Gayle Harrell, a Republican from the Stuart area. She's a former government school teacher. Her House office number is 850-488-8749. The Senate Bill is SB 2548, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bennett, another Republican. Bennett is from the Bradenton area. His Senate phone number is 850-487-5078.

OK .. so what's the big deal? Both HB1513 and SB2548 would give to local Florida governments the power to take property away from an individual landowner and sell it to a private developer for a shopping center, office development, or virtually any other private purpose. This legislation would allow any local government in Florida to seize private property and hand it over to a private developer for no other reason than to increase the amount of money the local government could get from that piece of property by way of real estate taxes. The government's responsibility to the land owner? To pay the owner a "fair" price. Fair .. as determined by the government. Isn't this just great? Two Republicans showing us all that the Republican Party is the party of freedom and property rights. And you wonder why I'm a Libertarian?

Back to your history books. Not the nonsensical dog dung they force on our government school students today, but the the straightforward world histories written by great men and women who weren't bound by the dictates of multi-culturalism and political correctness that pollutes virtually all of modern education. Look into a comprehensive history of this world and I will guarantee you that you will not find one society, one culture, one country based on economic and social freedom that did not guarantee the property rights of its citizens. Not one.

What good is the freedom to use your talents and your willingness to work hard to acquire wealth in the form of property if the government, on a whim, can simply seize that property from you with compensation that only a government bureaucrat would consider fair.

How many times have you looked at a piece of real property and thought to yourself, "Man, if I bought that property right now, and then sat on it for a few years, it could really be worth something!" Throughout our history many millions of Americans have taken that very thought and put it into action. First they dedicated their savings and no small amount of their future work effort to the purchase a piece of property. Then they sat back and waited to see just how much they can get for it five, ten, fifteen or twenty years hence.

Here's how it used to work. Here's how it's supposed to work. Let's say you're a developer. There's nothing wrong with being a developer. You probably bought your home from one. They're good for the economy, though they have to be watched like hawks. OK, you're a developer. You're driving through town and you see a few pieces of property that you think would make a dandy strip shopping center. You search the real estate records and get the names of the owners of each individual parcel of real estate in that block. You have an agent pay these people a visit. You make an offer to buy their property. The property owner can then do one of three things. He can sell at the price you offered. He can negotiate for a higher price, or he can simply tell you that he doesn't want to sell. If the owner doesn't want to sell you certainly can keep upping the offer .. so high, if you wish, that the owner's eyes are bugging out like a stomped-on bullfrog. But ... if the owner doesn't want to sell, at any price and under any circumstances, that's used to be the end of it. You, Mr. Developer, simply go out there and find another location for your strip mall. Maybe a location where people might be more eager to sell.

That's the way it used to be. That's not the way it is now. If this anti-property rights legislation becomes law in Florida the scenario will be quite different. The developer will discover a piece of property that he thinks would be a great site for a shopping center, an office development ... whatever. But, the developer does not go to the individual property owners to strike a deal. He knows that if he goes to the individual property owners they might drive the price way, way beyond what he is willing to pay. After all, what if the owner of that property has been hanging onto it for years so that he could make a big profit? What if that person bought that property 20 years ago just for this day? Just for the day that some developer would want it for a Wall-Mart, a McDonalds, or a big office park? Good grief! That greedy property owner is going to want a profit! A big one! The developer, certainly doesn't want to deal with him! No! Why deal with him when all the developer has to do is go visit his friendly local county commissioner or city councilmember instead! He knows that the politician remembers his generous campaign contributions during past elections, so he expects nothing less than open arms and full cooperation.

So the developer spins a yarn to the politician. Its a wonderful story ... a story about an expanded tax base and hundreds of jobs for his constituents. It's a story about additional property tax money that the politician can use to buy votes with various projects around town. It's a story about the politician's need for more money to spend versus a greedy private property owner who dared to actually believe that owning real estate actually meant something. It's a story the politician likes.

So ... the machinery of government is brought to bear. The property owner will soon come to a full understanding of the vital difference between himself and government. Government can use force to accomplish its goals, while he cannot. The developer has now managed to harness the government's unique asset, the ability to use force, to be used for his personal gain. The private property owner is helpless against the onslaught ... especially after the Harrell-Bennett Elimination of Individual Property Rights Act of 2004. The property is taken. It doesn't matter whether the property was just being held as an investment, or if it was a family home for generations past ... it's gone. All the property owner has left to do is to wait to find out what the government considers a "fair price" for his property to be. One thing is certain. The government will find that that property was worth far less to its original owner than the value placed on it by the developer.

How do politicians justify this? How can so many Republicans, who are supposed, after all, to be opposed to big government and always poised to rush to the defense of individuals threatened by government. Just listen to the statements of some of Florida's finest:

Senator Mike Bennett, the Senate sponsor, says that the bill is absolutely essential for some communities where thousands of individuals own small residential lots. Well isn't that a shame. All of those individuals actually buying residential lots, and then being stupid enough to believe that those lots would belong to them until they decided they wanted to sell ... so long as they paid their taxes, of course. The good Senator Bennett doesn't believe that an individual's property rights should be able to get in the way of some good local commercial development, now does he?

Then we have Terry Stewart. Stewart is the City Manager for Cape Coral. He's been in Tallahassee lobbying for the bill. He says that Cape Coral needs more commercial development, and the bill would help the city to accumulate the property it needs. The trouble, Mr. Stewart, is that the property already belongs to someone else. Damned inconvenient, isn't it, when property rights get in the way of your city management.

The Mayor of Cape Coral is Arnold Kempe. He says that eminent domain is the only way to assemble land. Hey, Mayor Kempe. Try buying it. Try giving the owners a good profit on their wise investment ... instead of trying to steal it from them.

These bills deserve to die. At a time when other states are actually acting to preserve the property rights of their citizens, these Florida legislators are acting to eviscerate property rights at every level. I'm led to understand that the Senate will be voting on SB 2548 today.

Tomorrow the politicians may be after a piece of property across town or down the street. The day after tomorrow it may be your property. Do you care enough about your property rights to make a call?

<<<<story here>>>>





i could use all the bandwidth of this site putting up articls about the governments gradual takover and destruction of private property rights and slow distruction of the constitution and bill of rights.

some of the politicians have even said on record " the constitution and bill of rights is an outdated document that has no place in modern affairs".

it is a slow takeover of the us and gradual step into socialism, these politicians dont care about this country, hell most of them would sell their own mothers to the butcher shop for more money and power, and they will settle for nothing short of every1 living in sustainable communities under the watch of bigbrother, or big sister in hillarys case, and will stop at nothing less than total controll of every1 from cradle to the grave.