People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Kaine Will Never Support a Trans Tax ... For Now

An article appearing on fredericksburg.com's WFLS News website is pathetic. I don't know who the reporter (summer intern?), Niche Herman is, but I'd suggest he or she find a different line of work. I provide the piece here in full.

Kaine and Transportation
Lt. Gov unveils transportation plans
Niche Herman, WFLS News

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine has unveiled his plans to fix the state's transportation problems.

"We are at a crisis level in transportation in Virginia. All of the stastistics [sic] point to that. Roads and miles traveled by Virginia residents has [sic] dramatically increased [roads have dramatically increased?], construction costs for transportation facilities of all kinds have dramatically increased. Time stuck in traffic is becoming a way of life."

Kaine says if elected, he will veto any taxes to fund transportation. He also says he can't support a transportation tax until the state passes a constitutional amendment banning the legislature from dipping into the fund for other reasons. However, the earliest such an amendment could be put to voters in a referendum would be 2009. (link)

I have been tough on gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine in the recent past but I believe he should be given some slack here. First of all, my guess is (at least my hope is) that he can verbalize coherently without butchering his syntax and without contradicting himself with two back-to-back utterances.

Kaine believes the state of Virginia is at such a crisis level in transportation that he will veto any taxes to rectify the problem? This doesn't even say "tax increase." It says, "he will veto any taxes to fund transportation."


As we all know, Tim Kaine has decided to run a Bill Clinton-like campaign and is feebly attempting to speak out of both sides of his mouth on the issues of the day (he's probably in favor of abortion-on-demand but wants abortion to be a rare occurrence) but even he wouldn't try to convince this reporter that he views the problem with the state's roads to be of crisis proportions and that he intends to make it far worse.

He's not stupid. Right?

Is there an editor at this site reading this stuff?

You Thought I Was Being Hysterical

When the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that local government can seize private property for the sole purpose of handing that property off to a developer who will, in turn, increase that government's tax revenue (and "provide additional jobs"), I made the statement that we should all be very afraid. That the door is open to municipalities around the country to begin "taking" property from one person or group and giving it to another. Many of you thought, when you read those words, that I had lost it.

It has begun.
After celebrating the Supreme Court's decision yesterday to effectively give local governments carte blanche to seize land for private development, some local officials began quickly moving to use their new unlimited authority. Officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, Texas, announced they would move forward with plans to commandeer property owned by two seafood companies in order to allow the construction of a 900-slip private marina. Freeport will even be loaning the developers $6 million to finance the project, and if it fails the town won't be getting its money back. What is certain is that the displacement of the two seafood companies will cost scores of jobs.

No doubt there will be similar moves in other states as voters wake up to the realization that the Supreme Court has granted revenue-hungry local governments more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses in order to achieve a "higher use" of the property. -- John Fund, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2005 (requires subscription)
The opportunities for abuse are boundless.

I live next to the Jefferson National Forest. Where little bunnies and cuddly deer play. Every Democrat in the state of Virginia has made a solemn vow, seemingly, to boost employment opportunity here in Southwest Virginia by increasing the tourist trade. It is not inconceivable that one of them - one running for governor perhaps (yes, he's big on tourism when he makes brief campaign appearances here) - will choose to seize my property with the intent of demolishing my home and building a scenic restaurant, or some such idiocy.

A restaurant would meet the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court. It would increase the value of the property thus increasing the county's tax revenue. And it would "increase jobs." The fact that I would be thrown out on the hillside (yes, kicking and screaming) would be of no interest to them. They would be acting in the "best interests of the people."

It's time we find out from our elected officials - particularly those running for governor here in Virginia - where they stand on this issue. It will, before too long, engulf the entire nation. And we need to find out, now, "who's for and who's a'gin us."

If You Thought I Was Upset ...

The Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case has set off a firestorm around the country. And, if this weblog is a regular stopover on your daily net-surfing journey, you know that I have been fulminating for a long time (actually beginning with the Poletown/General Motors tragedy in Detroit back in the 80's) against the usurpation of our right to private property ownership by local government and, in recent days, against the Supreme Court's cataclysmic Kelo decision.

Well, if you became a little fearful as you read my related entries, you may not want to go near Cathouse Chat right now. Here's a sampling of the indignation - on the same subject - over there.

Supreme Communists: "This land's not your land... "
The Supreme Communists of the United States say private property... ain't

... the Supreme Communists have decided that YOUR land, YOUR home is up for grabs any time a local government wants to take it from YOU and sell (or give) it to another NON-public entity or person for PRIVATE PROPERTY usage, then that's just fine and dandy (by a 5-4 margin) by the Supreme Communists of the United States.

That's the plain unvarnished facts (sic) of the case the Supreme Communists decided the other day. (link)
There are certain values we as Americans hold dear; values we considered so precious, we purposely chose to not entrust them to our then-new government. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution was written specifically because the founding fathers wanted to make it clear and unequivocal that, in assigning certain duties and responsibilities - granting specific authorities - to a national government, certain rights were to be unassailable. Among these were the right of the people to assemble, to speak freely without fear of government retribution, to keep and bear arms, the right to not be forced to incriminate oneself, etc, - and the right to not be thrown off our land unless government - local, state, or national - makes a clear and compelling case that one's property is essential for public use. The founders made it perfectly clear that only then could the government seize one's property.

This horrific ruling will not stand. The liberal bent of the current Supreme Court is soon to change with the replacement of some of the fossils that reside there. Breyer. Stevens. Ginsburg. As well, the moonbats - Kennedy and Souter - will, before too long, vacate the court. And when these justices have been replaced, we can expect a more citizen-friendly - "original-intent" friendly - makeup of the court.

Unfortunately, the change won't come quickly enough for those thirty families living in New London, CT who are soon to be evicted from their homes in order to make way for Pfizer's offices. They are doomed. As are many other families in a myriad of other communities around the country who will be tossed out on the street so that government can turn their properties over to developers and rich political patrons - and marinas (see above).

It's unfortunate that the Supreme Court has brought us to this. But if there's a positive aspect to this travesty, it is that we have learned - I have learned - that there are many people around this country who care deeply about the USA and what it stands for. I'm going to try to remember that.