By Order of Law, Vacate Your Home Immediately

Kelo vs. New London. A society gone amuck.

Susette Kelo received notice of condemnation from the NLDC (New London Development Corporation) the day before Thanksgiving 2000.
Megan and Jenna, Sadly, one thing that happened while you guys were just 4 and 5 ½ years old was that the Supreme Court made one really bad decision. Not that they’ve never made a bad decision before, but this one,…well, this one really sucked.

I know, I know, talking about all this government and law stuff is probably boring to you. But, it really affects your lives so I hope you’ll pay attention to it. The case the Supreme Court ruled on was known as Kelo vs. New London. In some ways, Kelo vs. New London might be known as the “Roe v. Wade” of the 21st Century. Although it doesn’t deal with life and death like Roe v. Wade, Kelo vs. New London marked the passing of your rights to own property in the way we previously knew it. A watershed event, you might say.

You see, when I was a kid, way back in ‘the day’, back before ‘lectricity’ and indoor plumbing and all that new fangled internet whatchamajiggies that we use today, we used to be able to own property. We could buy a house or a piece of land, and we actually owned it. It was ours. And as long as we paid the mortgage and the taxes on it, no one, and I mean no one, could take it from us.

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Granted, if the government needed it to build an important road, hospital, or if the property was vital to protecting the security of the country or something else as noble, then the government could “acquire” the land from you for a fair market value. By “acquire,” I mean take it from you without asking permission. This is known as eminent domain. And, for some of these reasons, eminent domain is a necessary evil of running a democracy.

Unfortunately, in June of 2005, while you two were watching Bambi and Thumper on DVD, Kelo vs. New London was passed by the Supreme Court. It is interpreted as allowing cities to take private property away from citizens even when the property isn’t needed for public purposes. In New London, the government took property away from homeowners so that private developers could tear them down, and build an office complex. Note that an office complex isn’t exactly vital to national security. Nor does it lend itself well to being converted into a drastically needed orphanage, hospital, or even a new shopping mall for your Aunt Shell. As I said before, the citizens are paid a fair market value for their property, but what about all those people that didn’t want to move? What about all those parents who raised their two little girls in that house that the government is seizing? What about Papa's memories of his little girls tromping up and down the stairs to go change into their princess dress-up clothes, and then putting on a dance recital for him in the den? What happens to the hand-made birdhouse that Pops got to build with his oldest little girl and hang on the tree outside? How about the time his youngest little girl asked him to dance for the first time ever, right there in the foyer? What about those memories? Who’s going to compensate him for that? How could anyone compensate him for that? How can anyone or any entity be allowed to take away a person’s personal property, to turn around and give it to a developer who wants to build an office, a shopping mall, a cinema Cineplex, or a spaghetti and wine dealership? Nay, but I ramble on in a much nonsensical manner, as usual.

Some people will argue that a new business will “revitalize the New London community. The community might die without revitalization.” Well, here’s what I say to them: Not everything has to be saved. Not everything has to live forever. Not every community must survive. Some communities are destined to wither away. It’s just part of the natural ebb and flow of economics. And you know what? It’s ok for a community to die. However, it’s not ok for you to take away my home for private business purposes.

Girls, we live in a free society. Or do we? How can we be free if the government can take away our personal property like this? How is this different from a communist society where everything is the property of the state? One person loosing their home in New London summed it up, "You realize you don't own it (your home). Everybody (even homeowners) is a renter."

‘Your dad

Things You Never See Part 2

Read part 1

Megan and Jenna,

In part 1, I mentioned that there was another example of things you never see. Unfortunately, with the Rodney King incident, a man was beaten, police officers’ lives were endangered, and the combination of a misrepresented video and racism mixed to cause awful riots. As you’ll see in my next example, it wasn’t a small group of deaths and the loss of property that were involved, as was the case in the LA riots. In those riots, some innocent people, people who had nothing to do with the beating of Mr. King, were murdered for their race. Others were beaten badly but survived. I can still remember the helicopter video of an innocent truck driver, caught in the midst of the riot, who was savagely attacked. He was hospitalized and is lucky to be alive. I sent money to a fund that his bank set up to help pay his medical expenses. His barbarian attackers were later identified and arrested.

No, this next example is a far worse case of ‘things you never see’. It involves our government ‘selling us a bill of goods’. Remember what I said earlier about motive? Typically the media and/or the government have a motive. They take their motive and spin it into a story that they can sell to the American people. In 1991, the U.S. government sold us a bill of goods about the first Gulf War. I supported the U.S.’s and the U.N.’s decision to invade Iraq in that war. After all, Iraq was a brutal dictatorship, and had invaded a neighboring country. As a country of wealth, I have always felt that it is our duty as Americans and as citizens of this planet to go places in the world where atrocities are being committed, and to put a stop to them (not that we secretly don’t commit atrocities of our own, it’s just that usually, no one finds out about them). If you dont understand the Iraq war, read this.

Anyway, the government told us exactly what they wanted us to hear: that Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and that we were going there with the sole purpose of ousting Iraqis from Kuwait. President Bush Sr. stated that as our single objective. We weren’t there to topple Hussein’s regime, or to invade the heart of Bagdad, we were there to remove them from Kuwait. It was a simple, straightforward mission that we as dumb little Americans were to just accept.

Unfortunately, what we did after the Iraqi army had been ousted from Kuwait is inexcusable. Bush declared victory in Iraq. He declared an end to the fighting. He encouraged Iraqi citizens to rise up and topple Hussein. He said that the US would be there to support a coup. He lied. He was not there to support the coup attempt. He abandoned the brave Iraqi citizens who rose up in opposition to Saddam in much the same way John Kennedy abandoned hundreds of mercenaries in 1961 that were sent by the U.S. to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro in the Bay of Pigs debacle.

Keep in mind that very little of this information is filtering down to the American public about the aftermath of the Gulf war. You see, once the “war” was over, there was no real story. Most of the media had pulled out. Now here’s the real tragedy: since Bush decided not to support the coup, or to just topple Hussein himself, he left Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis to certain doom. Thousands and thousands of men, women, and children were slaughtered after the U.S. declared “victory” and pulled out (some estimates report that upwards of 200,000 were massacred after the war).

Picture this: you’re in an airplane flying in Iraq. You come to an area that is somewhat mountainous. A gray, rocky, barren valley snakes back and forth in between the mountains. The thin valley floor below you is teaming with tens of thousands of civilians. Civilians carrying everything they own. Civilians with pack mules burdened down with a heavy load, mothers carrying infants in cloths wrapped over their mother’s shoulders, and around her waist. Children of all ages marching along. Old men, old women. The conspicuous absence of younger men, as many of them had been lost before and during the war. All of them fleeing tyranny and certain death that they leave behind in a world were a dictator wants them dead. They march for their lives, to get away, to get anywhere, to get anywhere but where they came from.

The plane you fly is an F-15 fighter. You activate your on-board cameras to record the exodus. Then, on your radar, in the distance, two foreign blips appear. They are identified as Iraqi army helicopter gunships. Remember something, you’re not at war anymore. They’re not supposed to attack you and you’re not supposed to attack them. As they approach the valley, you realize why they’re here but you can’t make yourself believe it. Your heart leaps out of your chest as you shake your head in utter disbelief. “There’s no way he’s going to open fire on these civilians….there’s just no way….” Frantically, you make a distressful call to the air boss.

“Six, this is Bravo One Niner, bandits at twelve o’clock, range, three quarters of a mile. They’re preparing to fire on unarmed civilians. Permission to fire? Over.”

“Bravo One Niner, this is Six, permission denied, I say again, permission denied.”

Screaming now, “SIX! This is Bravo One Niner! He’s firing! I say again, he’s firing on unarmed civilians! There are thousands of them down there. They’re in the open. Permission to fire?!! Permission to fire?!! Over.”

“Bravo One Niner, this is Six, permission denied, I say again, permission denied…”

This scenario plays out in front of your eyes as you watch thousands perish below you. You repeat your request for permission to fire on the gunships. Unknown to you is the fact that this information is immediately relayed to President Bush Sr. He is literally at a formal occasion, standing in a tuxedo. He’s on the phone being told of what is happening. He affirms his earlier decision that the U.S. can only observe from this point forward. No action is to be taken. Do not fire on the helicopters.

The story I relate to you above is not fiction. It is truth. While I did create the conversation between the fighter pilot and his air boss, the actual events took place just as I described them. Several years after the war, I saw the actual camera footage taken that day by American fighter pilots as they watched this carnage. They asked for permission to fire, and they were denied. The President really was in a tuxedo, and he really did deny permission to fire. The American public was not shown this footage until long after our involvement in the war ended. It wouldn’t have been popular to show this to us so they didn’t show us. It wouldn’t have served the government’s agenda to “stabilize the middle east”, so they didn’t show us. In truth, it would have made American’s riot in the streets, so they didn’t show us.

Seeing that footage haunts me to this day. I can’t even imagine what kind of nightmares those pilots are still living with. And, it’s beyond my comprehension to understand what it would have been like for those children on the ground. I hope that when you are older, information flow is much better. I hope information is much more available from sources other than media outlets or governments. Maybe that way, you’ll be able to ascertain the truth while it is happening, instead of only finding it out as another mass grave is unearthed, years later.

‘Your Dad

The Things You Never See

Megan and Jenna,

One lesson that’s hard to teach to kids, or adults for that matter, is how to see the unseen. Now what the heck does that mean? See the unseen. Well, one of the problems in our society is that everything is geared towards an end goal. Usually the end goal is profit. So, in the case of the media, instead of reporting on news situations around the world in an objective manner, we are instead shown the situation with a spin placed on it. The more spin, the more glamour. Glamour equals ratings which equals profit. Another type of spin is not directly related to profit. Instead, it is related to an agenda. An agenda in the media is where you have a particular opinion on what you want people to believe, and so you spin your story in such a way as to convince your audience of its’ truth. That is why you have to see the unseen. The unseen is the part of the story which isn’t glamorous, nor does it have an agenda, yet it is crucial to the underlying story.

It will be easier to understand all this nonsensical rambling coming out of your father if I give you some examples. A few come to mind. But, this one incident plays prominently in my consciousness. I’ll try to write about another one in a later letter.

The Los Angeles Riots

In 1992, a lot of racial tension existed in Los Angeles between the police department, and the black youths of the city. That tension probably still exists as you are reading this letter. It will probably always exist. Then, one incident caused the flame to ignite into a raging riot. The incident involved a black man who was seen in a video being beaten severely by police. What we were shown over and over by the media was the short 15-20 second clip of the police, towering over Rodney King, beating him with their night sticks. He was defenseless against the onslaught as he lay helpless on the ground. This clip was played around the world and rage grew from the horror of what we had seen.

Months later, the police officers were brought to trial and charged with a host of crimes against Mr. King. The whole country, in fact, the whole world, knew that the officers were guilty and should go to jail. I can vividly remember being at home on the afternoon that the verdicts were read. I was watching CNN. When they started to read the verdicts, I almost changed the channel because I knew they’d be convicted. It was pointless to believe otherwise. To my shock, and the shock of millions of other Americans, the verdict came back ‘not guilty’. Stunned, I sat up on the couch, my jaw hanging open. Not long after that, riots broke out all over LA as thousands of enraged people went to buildings and looted, vandalized, and burned them to the ground. Innocent people were beaten and murdered. Hundreds of arson fires were set. Fire fighters were shot at as they tried to extinguish flames. The city was burning with no end in sight.

Right after the verdicts were read, I sat on the couch and continued to watch as CNN brought out expert witnesses from the trial who attempted to explain how a jury could have come to a not guilty verdict. For the first time I was shown the entire Rodney King video. Not just the 81 seconds of apparent brutality. The video showed how Mr. King had been involved in a high speed chase, evading police. He had attacked multiple police officers over and over after the chase as they tried to hand cuff him. The video also showed, in frame-by-frame clarity, how the officers had followed exact police procedure in the apprehension of a suspect. Police procedures call for the officer to begin an arrest using the lowest level of force necessary. The elevation of force as listed in the procedure manual is 1) Verbal commands, 2) Pepper spray, 3) Taser guns, 4) Striking with night stick, 5) Use of firearms.

That night, the officers started with verbal commands. Then they went to pepper spray. Then, taser guns. At each phase of their encounter, they were trying to subdue Mr. King with the lowest level of violence that they could. When one method didn’t work, they followed their exact, written, police procedures and advanced to the next level. After two officers shot Mr. King with taser darts and repeatedly administered the electric impulses to subdue him, he ripped the taser darts out of his chest and attacked them again, ignoring all commands to stay on the ground (a single taser is strong enough to bring a full grown horse to the ground, yet, like the pepper spray, the tasers did not affect King). The next step was the night sticks. They would hit him several times until he would go to the ground, and then they would wait, yelling at him to stay down so they could hand cuff him. You could see all the officers stop hitting him while one officer would place his hand on his hand cuffs, hoping King would finally obey and stay down. Instead, Mr. King would continue to get up and lunge at the officers. Time and time again this happened.

It is an absolute miracle that they didn’t shoot him to death that night. You see, the police were in the most dangerous situation that they face. They had a hostile suspect on their hands. If, as a lot of people argue, the police had jumped on King, and tackled him to the ground, the results could have been disastrous. Experience is what wrote the police procedure manuals and experience tells these officers that if they wrestle with King, he could grab a hold of one of their guns and begin firing wildly at the other officers in the surrounding circle. These officers would be shot at and would have no way to fire back for fear of hitting one of the other officers in the pile on top of King.

It took a lot of patient experience that night to avoid his death. But, the media took the full length video, chopped it down to just the portions that made it appear as if an innocent man was being beaten to death by racist cops, and showed it to the world. How dare they.

Now, to be objective about the situation, there was still some guilt on the part of the officers because racist comments were recorded in their police text messaging system after the arrest. Racism did, and still does exist. The point of this diatribe is to get you to understand that you literally can’t believe everything you see. Ask yourself, what am I missing? What are they not showing me here? Hopefully, in your lives, you’ll be able to see the unseen. But, I’m sorry to say, you’ll likely just see what the media wants you to see.

‘Your dad