1 --- Do you recall the confiscation of private property from one private citizen for the benefit of another sanctioned by the Supreme Court? It was called the Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut case. Land was forcibly taken from some private citizens and given to others under the guise of the public good; a move which was said would give the city of New London increased tax revenue.

Most reasonable people saw the act as nothing more than robbery of one person’s property for the benefit of another. The so-called liberals on the court went along with the theft of the property in the name of the public good.
Those sanctimonious creeps who did that included the four who voted against your gun rights protected by the second amendment of the constitution.
The property has been confiscated. The taxpayers have been made to toady up and pay for the property. Unfortunately for them they got screwed by their government as well.
Three years after winning the right to take the property of Susette Kelo and her neighbors, there hasn't been any public benefit in any form from the land that city officials took. In fact, the city doesn't even know what to do with the land now that officials' handpicked developer couldn't muster the financing necessary to build anything.
Before Kelo citizens across the country came under attack by their own elected local officials who, like those in
The elected officials in New London, had visions of more tax revenue to spend, wound up with nothing to show for stealing the land of the original the property owners. Most often these situations go unnoticed because most citizens chose not to fight city hall and quietly submit to government demands. They throw in the towel because they can’t afford the hassle or legal fees to defend their own property rights. Kelo, however, turned the spotlight on these government takings.
As a result of Kelo many states have effectively banned the use of eminent domain for private development. Something tells me Rhode Island and Massachusetts have yet to consider their citizens important enough to shield them from such extreme government behavior.
2 --- I’ve never thought of Tom Brokaw as a conservative, certainly not during his years as the anchor for NBC News’ evening news casts. So when he was named to “hold the fort” while the network sought out a permanent replacement for the late Tim Russert no one expected him to come in with brass knuckles and simply keep the seat warm for the permanent host.

Anyone who thought that was dead wrong. If you have any doubts ask governor muscles of California hue Arney Schwarzenegger Kennedy. He was a guest of Brokaw this morning and I suspect he may wish he had slept in yesterday rather than face the tough questions he got.
As reported in the LA Times, The Juice (not to be confused with OJ) was hit right smack in the chops with some tough questions concerning how he has handled California government spending: "When you ran for governor in 2003, you ran as a fiscal conservative who would change the system, who would bring business-like techniques," Brokaw said. "Now, you are facing a $15-billion deficit here in California. Unemployment is running at about 6.8%; you've got the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. If you were the CEO of a public company, the board would probably say, 'It is time to go.' "
Old Arnie, who will never be confused with a Mensa candidate, handled that one with all the adroitness of a kid caught with his hand in the candy jar: He asked Brokaw, "Are you always this positive?"
The former weight lifter tried to weasel his way out of a sticky situation. "That doesn't mean when you are doing a good job the economy doesn't go down eventually," he said. "What goes up must come down. We see that nationwide. We see that other states are struggling. The country is struggling.

People are struggling, and I think we see that all over the world."
Harrumph!
Brokaw wouldn’t be deterred from his quest for an answer: “Before you came in, Governor, you said the spending was out of control, your rate of increase in spending is about the same as your predecessor, Gov. Gray Davis. It has grown at about, what, 34% since you took office."
Teddy Kennedy’s brother-in–law was beginning to sound like Patrick Kennedy talking to cops after he was caught flouting our driving laws: “You've been around long enough to know that the numbers are misleading. We have paid off a lot of debt. . . . I am very proud that we paid off a lot of debt and that we got the economy going again."
Good job, Governator, good job. Your approval ratings age going down fast and, before long, you’ll have the approval ratings of George Bush.
3 --- Somehow I’ve come to pity John Kerry. Yes, really!
First he got his butt whipped in 2004 with the help of those who couldn’t st

and him when he served on fast boats in Vietnam. Those were the last really fast things in his life.
He returned to civilian life only to knife his fellow Vietnam Vets in the back calling them baby killers and war criminals. He associated with people who lied thought heir teeth about their activities in “Nam”.
He managed to marry a very rich woman and live the life he thinks he’s entitled to. She figured him out and dumped him. For a while he was the only homeless member of the US Senate living from his car for a few days until a supporter gave him an apartment in Boston until he was able to latch on to another millionaires.
The world’s largest Flipper outside Sea World he finagled the Democrat nomination only to get his lunch eaten in the 2004 general election.
If all that was not bad enough he now is being attacked from his left by some Democrat who thinks Kerry is too conservative for Massachusetts. Add to that he has The senator's 2003 vote authorizing President Bush to launch military action against Iraq.
Ed O'Reilly said he was so incensed by Kerry's vote that he gave up his law practice to devote himself full-time to ousting the Democratic 2004 presidential nominee from office.
If he gets

by O’Reilly, Kerry will get to face someone with a distinguished military record of his own. Jeff Beatty is a former Army Delta Force Officer who has collected the necessary signatures to be on the general election ballot as a Republican.
After his experience in Delta Force, Beatty was a part the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team and the CIA Counter-Terrorism Office, giving him the unique distinction of belonging to the United States’ three elite anti-terrorist organizations.
His resume identifies Beatty as someone who has served his country for many ye

ars and in many ways, many of them dangerous:
-Meritorious Service Medal (as Delta Force Assault Troop Commander)
-Purple Heart (Grenada Rescue)
-Combat Infantry Badge (Grenada Rescue)
-Army Commendation Medal with "V" (Valor) (Grenada Rescue)
-Ranger Tab (Company Commander of Ranger Class)
Parachutist Badge
-Army Aviator (Distinguished Honor Graduate - #1 in Flight School)
-Army ROTC Rutgers College - Distinguished Graduate (top 5% in the country)
After leaving government, Jeff founded TotalSecurity.US an anti-terrorism consulting firm that has helped protect U.S. citizens here in Massachusetts and across our country.
If Kerry survives the expected rough and tumble primary he’ll have a “tiger by the tail” Beatty.
I wonder, if/when Kerry bites the dust in November, he and his wife will remain as residents of posh Louisburg Square in Boston. If he moves, will his wife pay the City of Boston to move the hydrant she found unsightly back to where it will provide fire safety for the neighborhood? (The City of Boston moved it because she found it unsightly.)
Senator, please don’t print up too much more stationary with your name on it. It will be a waste.
4 --- The modern version of a true vagabond. Former General Wesley Clark, who was a Republican at one time, supported Hillary in the primary, is now positioning himself to be Barrack Obama’s

running mate. Obama’s Achilles heel is his lack of military or foreign experience. Clark would fill that void nicely. He is smooth and glib and has already taken to attacking John McCain’s military credentials.
John McCain has said he will not enter into a personal battle with Obama. Well, he may need to change some of that thinking since he will be savaged more than poor hapless John Kerry.
Barrack is likely the least qualified presidential candidate in the history of the USA. He needs to take the focus off him and place it on John McCain.
McCain only forgets this man’s history at his peril. Obama is the product of the most corrupt political battleground in the country. Tammany Hall and Curley are nothing compared to the minefields of Cook County.
Billy Bulger would be small peanuts in the Chicago scheme of things and Whitey some sort of legend instead of the filthy criminal he is.
Note to Senator McCain: Get ready for the dirtiest fight of your life. Some of the characters who will come after you may make some of your jailers seem like molly coddlers by comparison. And keep one more thing in mind, even people you view as allies may well be enemies.
As the Godfather told his son: “Keep your friends close to you and your enemies closer.” We don’t want you to be a Julius Caesar.
5 --- The political success of Barrack Obama, according to a Boston Herald article, is it may cause a re-visitation to our affirmative action laws.
The American people have in the least made Obama a leading candidate for president. Making the case for affirmative action will be progressively more difficult as time goes on.
Most people will vote for or not vote for Barrack Obama not because of the color of his skin but rather for the character and leadership qualities as compared to his opponent, John McCain.
When push comes to shove questions like how would he deal with the economy, what would he do about taxation, how will he handle the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, who will be better qualified to keep us safe from terrorism, who will better deal with the energy crisis, etc? The color of his skin will be very low on the list in judging his potential as President of the United States.
6 --- When I first read this I chuckled. The more I thought about it the more it seems a logical extension to laws concerning marriages. Unless the law can make it clear that marriage is to be limited to heterosexual or homosexual couples, this could become a wild ride in our courts. If the California Court of Appeals becomes involved hang on, we’re on a roller coaster:
(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco) 
'Next.'
'Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.'
'Names?'
'Tim and Jim Jones.'
'Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.'
'Yes, we're brothers.'
'Brothers? You can't get married.'
'Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?'
'Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!'
'Incest?' No, we are not gay.'
'Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?'
'For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects.'
'But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.'
'Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.'
'And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?'
'All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next.'
'Hi. We are here to get married.'
'Names?'
'John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.'
'Who wants to marry whom?'
'We all want to marry each other.'
'But there are four of you!'
'That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.'
'But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.'
'So you're discriminating against bisexuals!'
'No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples.'
'Since when are you standing on tradition?'
'Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.'
'Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!'
'All right, all right. Next.'
'Hello, I'd like a marriage license.'
'In what names?'
'David Deets.'
'And the other man?'
'That's all. I want to marry myself.'
'Marry yourself? What do you mean?'
'Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.'
'That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!'
A spoof? Yes. Out of the question? Not necessarily.
Ciao…….Moe