INDIANAPOLIS--Throughout the country, we are hearing heart-wrenching story after heart-wrenching story of small-business owners, plain-ole residents of Anytown, America--MY AMERICA-- who actually helped ADVANCE AMERICA to the world leader that it is today, who are being FORCED by the government (you know the one--?By the people, for the people?--yea, that government), out of either their businesses or their homes because a new strip-mall would be better for the local economy and generate (and here?s the clincher) MORE TAX INCOME!

I cannot begin to tell you how infuriated I am. Of course, I probably don?t need to tell you, as polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans feel exactly the same way. This is just another example of how our liberal courts have made a hobby of screwing over the average, hard-working American who makes America the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

The origins of eminent domain in the United States bare little similarity to what is going on today. The following excerpt is form the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia:

?In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public use" of the property be demonstrated. Most courts have interpreted "just compensation" to be the fair market value of the condemned property. Over the years the definition of "public use" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. [1] Critics contend this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.
In Calder v. Bull (1798 ), Justice Chase thought it was preposterous for the government to take one person's property with no restriction and give it to another private party for their own profit. The definition of 'public use' was mostly viewed as 'use by the public' until the 20th century. The Supreme Court started expanding the definition in the 1920's to condemn slums [2]. In 1981, in Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court, building on the precedent set by Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [3], permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [4], as precedent. This expansion of the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February 2005 [5], in Kelo v. New London [6] , when the city of New London, CT wanted to condemn 115 residences, among other things. In June 2005, the Supreme Court issued their decision in favor of New London, in a narrow 5-4 ruling?a decision that gives local governments wide latitude to decide when a seizure is for "public purposes", including economic development. The court hinted, however, that states could pass laws limiting the purposes for which eminent domain could be used. The controversial ruling sparked a backlash among citizens, and several states either have or are in the process of passing laws limiting eminent domain to either traditional uses (roads and public buildings) or to eliminate blight.?

?The court hinted, however, that states could pass laws limiting the purposes for which eminent domain could be used.? Now, here is the key phrase in the decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court--and thank God they had at least enough sense to leave it. This is a way out for states who do not wish to become tyrants, deciding arbitrarily who should have a shot at the ?American dream? and who should not.

Well, I want to give a rousing round of applause to some Indiana lawmakers who are moving to try and ensure that eminent domain, when used in Indiana, is used within its Constitutional confines.

In fact, according to a Sunday, Nov. 27, Courier-Journal (major Louisville, KY paper) story, Indiana lawmakers apparently considered trying to change eminent domain law last year because they knew the U.S. Supreme Court would be deciding the issue. However, as the article points out, few state lawmakers expected the Supreme Court to reconstruct the law (See:http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051127/NEWS02/511270375).

There is a feeling that something needs to be done on both sides of the aisle in Indiana. I think Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said it best in the Courier?s story, where he called the Supreme Court?s decision ?erroneous? and ?wrong-headed.?

"To take my home away from me -- where I've raised my kids and my members are so a developer can make a profit and government can tax it more is contrary to what our forefathers believed about owning property," he told The Courier-Journal.

Rep. David Wolkins, R-Winona Lake, says he doesn?t think the members of the IN General Assembly who want to restrict the use of eminent domain will succeed, so he has a different kind of proposal--one that will make it ?significantly more expensive? for developers wishing to cash in on the new interpretation of eminent domain.

The newspaper?s story says that ?Wolkins plans to introduce legislation that would put other requirements on private-to-private land transactions through eminent domain. Property owners would receive at least 150 percent of the fair market value of their owner-occupied homes, plus compensation for their relocation costs and attorney fees for fighting the seizure under his proposal. ?We're going to work to make sure people get something out of this,? he said.?

?Wolkins also wants a law that prohibits eminent domain for private development unless the next-best alternative would increase the project's cost by 10 percent or more? the newspaper explains.

Other Indiana lawmakers, however, do want to restrict the state?s ability to abuse the power of eminent domain. Sen. Connie Sipes, D-New Albany, has said that forcing party A to sell to party B, just for the purpose of party B making more money, isn?t fair.

Sipes, along with fellow Democrat Rep. Bill Cochran, also of New Albany, met last week with Indiana?s Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to let the Governor know where Hoosiers stand concerning the eminent domain issue

According to Sunday?s Courier story, ?Daniels has not weighed in publicly about eminent domain. But through his press secretary, Jane Jankowski, the governor said he believes "we should be very careful about its use" and it should be reserved for "truly public purpose."
He did not say whether he believed eminent domain should ever be used for transactions that involve private landowners.?

Personally, I see these lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, as heroes! Finally, we are starting to see some of these elected officials, who were, after all, elected to MAKE laws, take the reins back from activist judges who are trying to make the law up as they go.

I certainly am not as learned as they who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, but even I can see that the new interpretation of eminent domain is a clear infringement on Americans? Constitutional rights!

Following a week that has seen Republicans finally firing back at their Democrat opponents, who have criticized the administration on issues ranging from accusations of doctoring pre-war intelligence to not having an established timeline for American troops to withdraw from Iraq, the tensions seemed to escalate even higher Friday in the chambers of the House of Representatives.

On Thursday, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), proposed that the U.S. should bring its troops back home immediately. This created a firestorm amongst Republicans, who have claimed that to cut and run at this point would have several negative effects; both politically and militarily.

According to an article by John Yaukey, a reporter for Gannett News Service, which was written July 6, 2005, several near-catastrophic events would unfold in the event of a ?cut-and-run? policy.

Through interviews and panel discussions with experts in military strategy, foreign policy, energy markets and national security, the majority consensus is that there would be severe, possibly devastating effects on Americans.

To quote the article, ?Oil prices would skyrocket, Islamic extremists and terrorists would rejoice in a historic victory, and Americans would face a new world of security threats while morale among U.S. troops would likely sink.?

The article quotes Anthony Cordesman, author of ?Iraq?s evolving Insurgency,? as saying ?Iraq is centered in an area with 60 percent of the world?s proven oil reserves and 40 percent of its gas.? Cordesman goes on to say that the outcome in Iraq ?will affect the global economy, our economy and every job in this country for years to come.

The proposal by Murtha of an immediate withdraw drew heavy criticism from both Republican lawmakers and troops on the ground in Iraq. Major Gen. William Webster, who coordinates security for three-fourths of the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad, said that, ?Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I?ve lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain.? A sentiment shared by many commanders on the field, and undoubtedly the families of other fallen soldiers.

And Republican lawmakers acted swiftly on Murtha?s proposal, calling for a vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately. Naturally, this was not intended as an attempt to end the war and bring the troops home now. Rather, it was a time for members of congress to either go or get off the pot.

Many Democrats were fuming at the mandatory vote, realizing that if they voted to stay in Iraq, their constituents would see it as a desire to prolong the war. By the same token, however, they also realized that if they did vote to cut and run, the results could be disastrous.

In the end, the measure for an immediate troop withdrawal was defeated.

In what seems to be a long overdue response, high-ranking Republicans finally appear to be taking the gloves off in response to a flurry of accusations from Democrats about the supposed manipulation of pre-war intelligence as regards the Iraq war.

The response comes in the wake of stinging accusations from various capitol hill Democrats that the president, vice president, and various other Republicans misled the country into war.

The most outspoken critic of the administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), has recently lambasted the administration, saying that, ?There?s a dark cloud hanging over the White House. Really, it?s a storm cloud. The vice president, who gets his authority from the president, sadly is in the middle of the storm.?

He went on to accuse Vice President Cheney of manipulating intelligence to win support for the Iraq war, saying that Cheney had a history of putting oil companies? interest before that of the American people. He then followed that with a staggering accusation, saying, ?Leaking classified information to discredit White House critics (a reference to the outing of Valerie Plame), the vice president is behind that.?

On Wednesday, however, Robert Woodward, the reporter who, until recently, kept concealed the identity of Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal which brought down President Richard Nixon, admitted that he had learned about the leak to which Reid was referring more than two years ago from a high-level administration official. This could, once and for all, clear the vice president?s office of any wrongdoing in the Plame matter.

In the past week, President Bush has fought back against accusations from Democrats on a couple of occasions. Last Friday, speaking at a Veteran?s Day celebration at Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, PA, the president said, ?it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,? adding that, ?The stakes in the global War On Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for the politicians to throw out false charges?These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America?s will.?

Then, on Monday, speaking at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska, the president turned the tables on Democratic critics, using their own past statements against them. President Bush quoted Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), who voted in favor of the war, in a speech he made in October, 2002: ?There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.?

Bush then cited Sen. Carl Levin?s (D-MI) statement from a December, 2001, television interview, in which he said the war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power. Levin, however, voted against the war.

Then, in a stinging blow to his most outspoken critic, the president pointed out that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who voted in favor of the war, said in September, 2002, that, ?Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the president?s approaching this in the right fashion.?

The president summed all these statements up by saying, ?They spoke the truth then, and they?re speaking politics now.?

On Tuesday, the Republican party seemed to mount an uncharacteristically hard-hitting, three-pronged counter-attack against those who would have the American public believe they were lied to about pre-war intelligence.

The first ?prong? of the attack came when White House spokesman Scott Mclellan on Tuesday accused Sen. Reid as going on ?rants? that were ?unbecoming of a leader of any party.? He then pondered whether the American public would think of Democrats? statements as genuine concerns about America, or as an effort to undermine a ?dedicated public servant.?

Prong number two occurred when the chief spokesman for Vice President Cheney, Steve Schmidt, also came out harshly against Democrat Minority leader Harry Reid, saying his comments were ?unconscionable personal attacks and malicious.? Schmidt then added, ?These are beneath the office of the Democrat leader.?

The third tier of the attack came when RNC Communications Director Brian Jones called Reid?s comments ?vicious,? and said Reid was wheeling a ?far-flung conspiracy theory.?

Contrary to what the mainstream media would have the American public believe, there has been evidence that Saddam not only wanted to reconstruct his biological warfare program, but also that stockpiles of chemical agents have indeed been found in Iraq.

Cases in point, as acknowledged in a wordnetdaily report on April 26, 2004, written by Kenneth Timmerman, include the following:

A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?
"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."
"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."


Also, according to the WorldNet daily article, the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) found that Saddam?s regime made secret attempts to obtain banned long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea between 1999-2002.

The story goes on to say, ?The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

Further evidence of WMD was found by the 4th Infantry Division near the town of Bai?ji, in Northern Iraq, where 55-gallon drums of a nerve agent known as cyclosarin were located--another fact the mainstream media chose to ignore.

This next story, which is one of recent occurrence, should just boil the blood of any TRUE American. I came across this story while perusing the Fox News website. It seems that there are actually liberals and peaceniks in Seattle, WA. Hard to believe I know.

In a Nov. 15, 2005 story on the Fox site, any military recruiter who goes to a Seattle high school to recruit tomorrow?s warriors and defenders of freedom could be met with competition from anti-military groups which, according to new school district guidelines, will be allowed to have a representative there discouraging the young men and women from volunteering to defend the liberties they now freely enjoy.

Amy Hagopian, mother of a senior at Garfield High in Seattle, is quoted in the story as saying, ?There might be good reasons to die for things, but there?s no good reason to kill for anything.? Oh my God! That has to be THE most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! Let?s see, an Islamic terrorist is coming at you with, say, an AK-47. Let?s assume you also have an AK-47--can your liberal mind POSSIBLY think of a good reason to kill here???

I am sooo sick of the liberal ideology that says we should just (and please, pardon my graphic description, but it is only fitting) bend over and grab our ankles! We were attacked on our own turf! I think the military should have free reign to recruit in both high school and (state) university settings.

Look at it this way?who is responsible for funding our military? Answer: the federal government. Now, who is responsible (in large part) for funding our educational system? Answer, you guessed it, the federal government. Now, why should the same government that funds the protectors of our way of life (including education) not have the right to give the beneficiaries of said funding the opportunity to provide those same liberties to future generations?

You tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, let someone else?s kid die for my freedom liberals need to get over yourselves. If it weren?t for the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day for this great nation, the only hope of education your child would have would be a madrassa funded by bin Ladin?s people, and they would be memorizing the Koran. And here you are worried about ??one nation under God.?

All of you who protest the military recruiting in high schools and colleges should be ashamed of yourselves. Many military personnel will tell you that if they hadn?t joined the military, there?s no telling where they would have ended up. They learn discipline, leadership, teamwork and countless other valuable skills which can be used in the real world.

Yes, sometimes the oath that I and countless others have taken means going to war, but without those heroes, where would we be now?

No good reason to kill for anything! SHAME ON YOU!!!

Allow me to start this article by saying that, compared to most articles I write, this will be a rather lengthy one. However, for those concerned about morality and parents? rights in this country, I feel it will be worth your time.

Parental consent for babies aborting babies is an issue that will not, and should not (until its resolution), go away. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there are actually people, a lot of people, out there that feel like it is not the business of a parent to know that: a. their child is having a MAJOR medical procedure performed; b. this procedure could affect their child?s mental and physical well-being for the rest of that child?s life; c. that their child is sexually active (and without the use of contraceptives) and that; d. there is a possibility that their child has been sexually abused.

Who in their right mind would want to deny a parent this knowledge? Who? Well, for starters, there are liberal democrats, who seem to continually perpetuate a culture of death. Then there is the ACLU. But who can actually believe, in good conscience, anything that the ACLU has to say these days? And then we have Planned Parenthood?would a mustard gas by any other name not be as toxic (Thanks Mr. Shakespeare)?

On the issue of Planned Parenthood, I recently visited their website, http://www.plannedparenthood.org, in preparation for this article. There they have a section titled ?Teenagers, Abortion, And Government Intrusion Laws.? I find the information they provide there to be fallacious at best. I would like to take this opportunity to rebut at least part of the fallacies I found there.

Their first set of arguments, and and obviously their best, since in making an argument, you want to put your most compelling evidence up front, deals with a child?s ?capacity to consent to their own medical care.? In my estimation, this is an easy one.

First, they say that ?Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia grant all minors the authority to consent to contraceptive services. Approximately eleven other states grant most minors this authority (AGI, 2004a).? ?Consent to contraceptive services? covers a lot of ground. Does this mean the dispensing of condoms, or are we talking about an implanted device? Is it the ?day before pill,? or the ?morning after pill?? Generalities are one of the left?s favorite ways to argue an issue. At any rate, I know a whole slew of parents (myself included) who feel that it is THEIR job, not the government?s, Planned Parenthood?s, or anybody else?s, to make the decision of whether or not their child uses contraceptives, as well as what type will be used. My personal favorite is ABSTINENCE!.

Number two argument at the site??Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia authorize a pregnant minor to obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification (AGI, 2004b).? Again, I say that not all parents agree (again, myself included) to these services being performed without their consent, but at least none of the afore mentioned services are actually terminating a human life. And, as much as some of these liberals may hate it, those services actually foster and protect the innocent unborn.

Number three argument at the site??All 50 states and the District of Columbia give minors the authority to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (AGI, 2004c).? Same old rebuttal, not all parents agree (again, myself included) to these services being performed without their consent. However, I must say that treating an STD is VASTLY different than killing an innocent child.

The PP site (naturally a term of endearment) then goes on to a section where they say that most kids who are pregnant do in fact inform their parents, and that those who don?t do so for very compelling reasons. To this, all I can say is?HOGWASH!

One portion of this states that, ?Of those minors who did not inform their parents of their abortions, 30 percent had histories of violence in their families, feared the occurrence of violence, or were afraid of being forced to leave their homes.? Now, obviously, I would not want to see ANY child abused. However, there are so many variables here that they require addressing one-by-one.

Firstly, what is violence? According to many liberals, a couple of whacks on the arse is violent these days. By those standards, I would venture to say that 90 % of today?s kids are treated violently at one time or another in their lives. I know I certainly was. And I dare say that kids now days, with the liberals telling them that if their parents spank them, they are being abused, most would probably give the PP?s the answer they were looking for.

Secondly, bearing that in mind, if 30% ?had histories of violence in their families, feared the occurrence of violence, or were afraid of being forced to leave their homes,? is it not conceivable that 29% fell into the category that they feared a couple of whacks from their parents?

Thirdly, to put this in perspective, try to remember when you were 13 or 14. Did you not virtually ALWAYS think that your parents would produce the most monstrous reaction possible when you did something that could be remotely construed to be as life-changing as getting pregnant? Of course you would fear the worst of all possible outcomes. I would have to say that this 30% figure is WAY overblown.

Number four argument on the PP website is that, ?Among the respondents who did not inform their parents of their pregnancies, all consulted someone in addition to clinic staff about their abortions, such as their boyfriend (89 percent), an adult (52 percent), or a professional (22 percent). (Henshaw & Kost, 1992)? Oh, well, there is the proof. Eighty-nine percent of pregnant teens consulted with their teenaged boyfriends, who are looking at becoming a father at 14 and paying child support for the next 18 years, on whether or not to have an abortion. This argument is so absurd that I would be EMBARASSED to even publish the fact that I even included that in a question! No rebuttal is needed here.

Reading further on the PP website, I found a section that talks about how, if The Child Custody Protection Act were put into law, the consequences would just be unfathomable. I will tell you what is unfathomable: the arguments made under this section!

One states that, ?The CCPA would subject to criminal penalties anyone ? a grandparent, adult sibling, member of the clergy, or medical professional ? who assists a minor in traveling across state lines to receive an abortion without the parental consent or notification required by her home state.? You know, that?s the darndest thing about those who break the law?THEY ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES!? PERIOD!

The next PP argument: ?CCPA makes such assistance a crime even if confidential abortions are legal in the state where the abortion is to be performed and even if that state allows the accompanying grandparent or adult sibling to give lawful consent for the minor's abortion.? Well, there is a little thing in the United States Constitution that kind makes this argument, shall we say, IGNORANT! Under Article IV, Section 1, ?Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.? Now, I could argue this further, but I am hoping that you would not place my words above those of the U.S. Constitution.

The same Full Faith and Credit clause can be applied to the next PP argument??The CCPA also raises a number of other constitutional and legal questions, particularly those related to issues of federalism. The legislation effectively nullifies the laws of those states that allow physicians to provide confidential services to minors who enter the states for abortion and deprives individuals of their right to cross state lines to obtain lawful services. Such intervention by the federal government would be unprecedented, and raises serious implications for states, and individuals' rights (Saul, 1998).? Unprecedented? PLEASE?Article IV, Section 1.

It amazes me how these liberals will yell ?Full Faith and Protection? all day long as regards gay marriage, but when it comes to transporting a minor across state lines to commit the government sanctioned murder of a baby, the Constitution is meaningless. A little consistency might help your arguments, guys.

Look, it all boils down to this?I, as a parent, have EVERY RIGHT to know when my child is going to be operated on. It is a sad day when a school nurse could face sanctions for giving a kid an aspirin, but the PP?s can crush the skull of a baby inside my 14 year old daughter, and not a word has to be said to me.

America, we had best get our priorities straight here. Situations such as this simply CANNOT be allowed to exist.