Hey, Let’s Build a Hotel…

I’m embarrassed to call this man a fellow New Hampshirite. What he and his fellow justices have done this term is not only a huge setback to the rights of property owners, it’s un-American.

David Souter is a liberal pinko commie a-hole who hates freedom, America and the Constitution.
I mean, that’s truly the only conclusion I can draw from the actions of Justice Souter and the four other justices who voted with him to vanquish the rights of property owners in America. The only thing that is perfectly evident to me is that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens are anti-American gasbags who care nothing for the rights of the people.
Let’s take the case at the center of my rant: Kelo v. City of New London (CT). To make a long story short, the Supreme Court of the United States of America decided that private land—land owned by private citizens on which there may be private homes—can be seized by the government to build other private businesses. In short, your home can be seized by the municipal or state government in order to build a shopping mall…or a pizza place…or any other business that will add to the tax base of the town and all under the guise of “eminent domain.”
The ninety acres of land owned by the homeowners in New London, Connecticut, are being given to Pfizer Pharmaceutical in order to build a research facility. Some of the families who occupy those homes have been living on that land more than 70 years. SEVENTY YEARS.
It’s not for a road project. Not for a bridge. Not for a US Naval base. A research facility for a private business. A RESEARCH FACILITY. I can’t be any clearer about this: the homes of law-abiding, private citizens are being seized so Pfizer—one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies—can build a research facility.
If you look at the distribution of the votes in Kelo, there should be no surprises for you at all. Looking at the table below, can you tell me which of the four justices are the “conservatives” on the court?
Voting For:
Bader-Ginsburg
Breyer
Kennedy
Souter
Stevens
Voting Against:
Day-O’Connor
Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas
Yeah, you can. It’s no surprise at all, is it? Sandra Day-O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to defend the rights of American property owners and the Constitution of the United States. These are the four justices on the court who are vilified for a litany of other reasons…and they’re the only ones who voted to defend the American way of life.
I wish I could say the same about the other five traitorous imbeciles.
For a couple of days now I’ve heard people asking, “How does something like this happen?” or “How do we keep the court from infringing on our rights like this?” The answer is simple, and I’m 100% serious as I give you the answer…
Stop electing democrat presidents who appoint liberal justices.
I’m not kidding. That’s not meant to be sarcastic or witty—that’s the plain truth of the matter. If the Court can make decisions like this which tear at the very fabric of the Constitution, then the only remedy against the further abolition of our rights is to stop electing presidents who appoint liberal justices.
Look at the vote breakdown. Better yet, look at it this way:
Voting For:
Bader-Ginsburg (Clinton)
Breyer (Clinton)
Kennedy (Reagan)
Souter (Bush 41)
Stevens (Ford)
Voting Against:
Day-O’Connor (Reagan)
Rehnquist (Nixon)
Scalia (Reagan)
Thomas (Bush 41)
Now, I know what some of you libs are thinking. You’re thinking that three of the justices who voted for this travesty were republican presidents. You’re obviously right, but let’s look at the history.
Kennedy was Reagan’s third attempt with that vacancy. Originally he’d put Robert Bork up, but the Senate thought he was “too conservative” and refused to confirm him. Then Reagan sent up Douglas Ginsburg, but his nomination was withdrawn because he’d once smoked marijuana. Finally, Reagan sent Kennedy’s name up to the Hill for confirmation as an olive branch and to get the seat filled on the Court. He knew Kennedy wasn’t as conservative as he wanted, but he got the seat filled in a bi-partisan sense and everyone on the Hill was happy.
Souter, a life-long democrat, was sent up by G.H.W. Bush to fill the vacancy on the court because he was the most qualified person for the job. Bush didn’t care that he was a democrat, he wanted a good judge who would decide things based on the law. Instead, he got David Souter.
Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford. I almost don’t need to comment any further than that, but I think that John Paul Stevens’ entry in the Wikipedia says a lot: “On the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens has tended to side with the more liberal-leaning Justices on issues such as abortion rights and federalism.” Stevens may have been appointed by a republican, but he clearly is going around to the left with his turn signal on.
There is a poetic justice in some of this, no pun intended. Check out this press release that was issued Monday…

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
“This is not a prank” said Clements, “The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.”
Clements’ plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com

http://www.freestarmedia.com

You know, I love this idea. If there’s a “good” way to demonstrate the absurdity of this decision, it’s to actually take someone’s house and develop the property into a business. Personally, I wanted to see the Kennedy Compound in Hyannisport become a hotel or bed and breakfast, but I’ll take Souter’s house in Weare. (It’s pronounced “where,” by the way.) Let’s build a hotel, indeed. I really love this idea.
I’d even like to take it a step further. It is the intent of Conservative Blogger to donate a toilet to this hotel in the hope that it is painted with likenesses of the five justices who voted for Kelo. That way we can do to them what they’ve just done to us and the Constitution.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of American in the Kelo v. City of New London case is reprehensible. It is unjust. It is anti-American, and now…it is the law of the land. As I write this, I close on my very first home in thirty-six hours. Amazing. My rights have been taken away and I don’t even live in the damned house yet!
I’m pissed and you should be, too. The Court has crossed the line.
William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com