.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Grizzly Mama

There's a Grizzly who has escaped the City of Brotherly Love..(and she's going back to homeschooling!!)

My Photo
Location: Out of Philly, Pennsylvania, United States

"All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth." Aristotle - Greek Philosopher.

Friday, June 24, 2005

I'm just hoping it won't be too bloody.

Our Republic ie: We The People - is in danger. I am now quite alarmed. I am quite alarmed because of the Supreme Court ruling of what is an appropriate use of eminent domain.

Abe has written about it here and also here and here.

Abe also introduced me to The Institute for Justice. At the time I said that I would have to add a link to them here. I am doing that tonight - over there on the sidebar. No sense in procrastinating any more.

We need to continue to raise our children as best we can, educate them ourselves, and work diligently to remain A Nation of Riflemen.

It is our right - and our duty - to arm ourselves.

Any other suggestions as to how we THE PEOPLE can exert our will? It's time to speak up. What are our options? Press our representatives for legislation? Work on changing at the local government level? Grizzly needs help here. I'm laying up the ammo.


Zendo Deb has an interesting link. Tossing the idea of a proposed amendment around. What say you?



Blogger Abe said...

State laws could still prempt a local attempt to steal property for a developer. State constitutions would prevent state and local governments from doing it.

Nebraska, like many states, has initiative petitions, which allow the people to put constitutional amendments on the ballot directly.

24 June, 2005 00:52  
Blogger Mike's America said...

Monica: The only way to do something about it is to make sure you elect representatives at all levels of government with the proper understanding that private property is the foundation for the rest of the freedoms we enjoy. Furthermore, those we elect in the federal government will have to nominate and confirm judges who also support those rights?

If you take a look at the Supreme Court, ask yourself: WHO appointed and confirmed the justices which ruled in the majority? Only two were appointed by Republicans and those two were "compromise" nominations designed to avoid the nomination battle that occurs ANYTIME a conservative is appointed.

24 June, 2005 00:56  
Blogger Toad734 said...

Ok for once we agree on something, and I commented on it on my blog, but you are in the dark if you think a gun will help this situation. Do I need to remind you of Ruby Ridge, Waco?

Having a gun for protection against the government, which the 2nd amendment was written for, is not a valid option in today's time. If you disagree with the state, you vote that is the only recourse you have. No matter how wrong they are, they are right because they have more guns than we do and they always will. Drawing a weapon in this situation will only conclude with your funeral.

Umm Mike, weren’t only one of the Supreme Court justices appointed by a Democrat? It’s too late to actually do research on this but I think you are wrong.

24 June, 2005 01:01  
Blogger MonicaR said...

Okay Abe...okay. I'm coming down now. A little. I'm a little bit calmer but not much. Grizzly needs to take a chill pill. (wish I had some to take..)

24 June, 2005 11:37  
Blogger tshsmom said...

I like Deb's amendment; it makes sense!

24 June, 2005 19:23  
Blogger Mike's America said...

Well Toadie... I hope you washed your foot... cause you just stuck it in your mouth again.

Here's a helpful link:


And as I pointed out on my post on the subject this outrage would NOT have taken place if Robert Bork had been confirmed instead of the compromise nominee Kennedy.

Everytime the GOP has nominated a "centrist" to mollify Democrats, we have neither mollified Democrats nor gotten a centrist, but another constitutional revisionist.

And about WACO and RUBY RIDGE... You prove the point again that we cannot allow government power to be unchecked. They can show up at your house and shoot you!

24 June, 2005 23:40  
Blogger United We Lay said...


25 June, 2005 11:57  
Blogger skye said...

OH CANADA, Indeed!

Here is a helpful link to get you there:


25 June, 2005 13:56  
Blogger United We Lay said...

We've actually looked into it. I knwo you think I should just go because I disagree wholeheartedly with Bush and can't stand living in an America where Bush can do the things he's been doing. I think about it again whenever our government does something like this. We are losing our rights quickly and quietly, which is why I've decided to stay. My husband and I have dedicated a lot of time to fighting evil wherever it can be found. This decision is nothing short of evil. Yes, I think about going, sometimes irrationally, when I feel my head will explode with the knowledge of my government's stupidity. But I think I'll stay here and fight against people who believe that if I disagree, I'm the evil one.

25 June, 2005 17:04  
Blogger MonicaR said...

Polanco - get a grip. This was not Bush's doing - or his administration's doing.

This was a decision by the Supreme Court. The Judicial Branch of our government is separate from the Executive Branch of our government.

Do you seriously believe that Bush did this?

25 June, 2005 23:19  
Blogger skye said...

No..you are just the WRONG one

But I think I'll stay here and fight against people who believe that if I disagree, I'm the evil one.

26 June, 2005 00:03  
Blogger skye said...

C'mon Monica :)

Don't you know the Bush is to blame for EVERYTHING!

Really, I swear to God it is true!!!!!

You can read all about it at:


Do you seriously believe that Bush did this?

26 June, 2005 00:06  
Blogger MonicaR said...

Skye I only asked because although I seriously disagree with Polanco's politics, she otherwise seems to be a very nice and fairly intelligent person not prone to ridiculous accusations - atleast not on my blog.

This is blowing my mind and I'm afraid to visit the URL that you've given because I just KNOW that it will give me serious heartburn. I've already eaten a TUM after reading Polanco's most recent comment. I can't believe she said it.

Polanco - I can't believe that you blamed Bush for this fiasco!!!!

26 June, 2005 01:39  
Blogger CavalierX said...

>I disagree wholeheartedly with

Yeah, this "spreading freedom and democracy" stuff just has to stop! Doesn't he realise people LIKE living under brutal totalitarian dictatorships?

>can't stand living in an America
>where Bush can do the things he's
>been doing


26 June, 2005 16:52  
Blogger Abe said...


The Blame Bush site is a parody. Admittedly, there is so much looniness on the left that it's hard to do a parody. They pretty much parody themselves without realizing it.


27 June, 2005 02:40  
Blogger United We Lay said...

I don't believe Bush is to blame for the Supreme Court decision, but I do feel he's done a lot of things that are very questionable. I did say I think about it when our GOVERNMENT does something like this.

27 June, 2005 11:54  
Blogger MonicaR said...

"I disagree wholeheartedly with Bush and can't stand living in an America where Bush can do the things he's been doing."

Quote from your comments above Polanco. I think you can see why I misunderstood you to believe that Bush was behind this decision.

28 June, 2005 23:52  
Blogger United We Lay said...

I understand, and I didn't state clearly. Sorry.

29 June, 2005 22:23  
Blogger Toad734 said...

You cannot use guns to correct your government when they get out of line. I know that's what the 2nd amendment was written for but it has never been used that way and never will. If you shoot at a federal agent, cop or soldier you are a criminal, no matter who is right and who is wrong. They could be on a hired hit from the mob, trying to kill you but as long as they are wearing the badge they are right and you are wrong.

Welcome to the real America.

You are the ones who have given them the right to censor our media, regulate our marriages, make flag burning laws, restrict our freedoms under the disguise of the Patriot Act, allow them to search anyone they please, allow them to pull over "suspicious people", regulate abortion clinics, bring religion into the government, so don't be surprised when the US government gets too big and too powerful for the people to oppose it.
And to think this whole time they knew they could take all these freedoms away and you would hand em over as long as you got to keep your guns. Man, they saw you coming from a mile away!

30 June, 2005 14:37  
Blogger Toad734 said...

RE: MIke

Ok so 2 members of the Supreme Court are Democrats; It still took a 5-4 vote to result in this decision so you can think your Republican Justices, most of which are Reagan nominees.

And if you don't like centerist Rebublicans maybe we should try some left wing Democrats.

Jesse Jackson would have never ruled in favor of this.

30 June, 2005 14:43  
Blogger skye said...

Yet another Liberal fairy tale.


I've been over the text of the Act, and it's just not clear where these things occur. Perhaps it is written on the back of the document and you need to apply heat and lemon juice in order to view it.

No one has been able to point it out, either; they speak vaguely of "a climate of fear" and "a chill wind" that silence them.

Keep in mind that no abuse of anyone's rights by the PATRIOT Act has yet been proven, though in fairness 34 of the allegations of violations made in connection with the Act were deemed credible enough to be investigated. None of them, however, have yet turned out
to be the example of our civil liberties being trample upon by the Patriot Act.

....restrict our freedoms under the disguise of the Patriot Act,

30 June, 2005 19:11  
Blogger skye said...

Justice Kennedy was a compromise Reagan agreed to AFTER Robert Bork was vilified by the democratic senators.

If Bork was a sitting Supreme Court Judge, we would have been spared the most aggregious stripping of our constitutional rights.

Here again is another example of the destructive nature of revisionist history.
It still took a 5-4 vote to result in this decision so you can think your Republican Justices, most of which are Reagan nominees.

30 June, 2005 19:14  
Blogger MonicaR said...

I have had to remove a response from Toady to another entry due to it's gratuitous reference to porn and also because it made absolutely no sense at all.

These will stay but I have to warn you Skye - the facts don't get in the way for Toady and his false assertions.

30 June, 2005 19:20  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home