"Public use" or "public purpose" -- what do they care?

By Cynthia A. Janak

The Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings of power.

Recently I have been trying to get you to understand the dangers of the United Nations on our National policy. Now I am telling you that we are in the final days of the total destruction of our freedoms. How loud do I have to be to get you off your butt and smell the coffee? We are in major trouble here and I hate to say it but I am scared. I am scared that the people of the United States are going to let the socialist UN take over our nation. I am scared that my freedoms that I grew up with are not going to be there for my grandchildren. I am scared that when I retire or get sick the government is going to make a decision whether or not I am of some benefit to society. I am scared that the government is going to take my home and put me in the street. I am scared that the government is going to take away my rights to see my grandchildren because I do not hold the same views as them. I am scared that I will be forced to get immunized with a mercury based vaccine because the WHO has decided for me that it is necessary. I am scared that my right to bear arms will be taken from me. I am scared that the freedom of speech that we all so enjoy will be eradicated from our culture forever. Am I paranoid, NO. I am not but what I am is a person who is a patriot of the great United States of America. One who knows what freedom is and will be discriminated against and persecuted within the scope of the law because I do not espouse to the will of governments that are not mine.

At this time I am also pleading with the United States government to stop this trend to one world domination. I beg them to please do not take away our sovereignty as a nation and give it to the UN. I beseech our government to denounce the will of the UN in regards to our laws. I implore you to please get us out of the UN while we still have the chance.

Until this past week I had no idea how close we are to total domination by the UN. The decision by the Supreme Court in Connecticut to take the homes of citizens for the profit of Pfizer and increase future tax dollars opened my eyes to the lateness of the hour. Here is a quote from the Training Module: Information Management for Social Aspects of Sustainable Development. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/idsd/workshops/workshop10-27-31/02

Firstly, sustainable development is about development-human growth and improvement of all levels, spiritual, emotional, cultural, political, material, etc. Qualifying development with the adjective "sustainable" introduces the notion of the future.

3. Social sustainability ...Therefore the objective of social sustainability is to improve the daily life of the greatest number of persons...

Improving income distribution through the redistribution of benefits which accrue from the development process;

The removal of barriers in such areas as land ownership patterns, employment and education, which impede the full satisfaction of human ontological needs; (ontological — philosophy, study of existence: the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being. Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)

This next quote is taken from the International Forum of Social Development, New York, 5-6 October 2004.

A comprehensive and enlightened approach to development ... The often elusive political will is made of the motives and objectives of the people in a position of power. To underlie one's thoughts and decisions with the constant preoccupation with the common good is a powerful leveler of substantive and political obstacles. ... For instance, there are different types of property rights going beyond the exclusive private enjoyment of one's possessions. And social harmony or social integration requires numerous direct or indirect violations of property rights understood in an individualistic manner. Look at this. I mean really look at what I have quoted above. The UN is talking about the removal of the barrier of home ownership, property rights and the excuse that they are going to use is the common good. Now, keep this in perspective. These are documents from the United Nations not the Judicial branch of our government but this is what we heard from the Supreme Court when they took the homes away from those citizens of Connecticut, a state of the United States. Who is influencing who here?

In my opinion, this is the UN sanctioning stealing a persons personal property if it meets the conditions of the common good. Now I can fully appreciate the Vulcan belief that "the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few." I loved Star Trek and considered myself a trekkie but now I have to wonder if this program was just to condition us to the inevitable removal of our personal rights? I hope that I am not the only one that sees what the UN is doing. Who knows, maybe I am.

Here are some quotes about the Connecticut decision by the Supreme Court:

Writing in dissent of Thursday's decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said cities shouldn't be allowed to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Along with Thomas, O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.

And here is a quote from Breyer. ...But there is no taking for private use that you could imagine in reality that wouldn't also have a public benefit of some kind, whether it's increasing jobs or increasing taxes, et cetera.

That's a fact of the world. And so given that fact of the world, that is law, why shouldn't the law say, okay, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit which there always is and it's up to the legislature.

(Posted: June 25, 2005, 1:00 a.m. Eastern, © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com)

So, I do not care if you are black, white or indifferent. We are all at risk here of losing our homes for starters and maybe down the road livelihoods. It could turn like the movie "Roller Ball" where the star of the movie lost his wife to the head of a corporation because she was pretty.

With that said, look at what happened to Terri Schiavo. The government sanctioned the murder of a disabled individual. And today we are hearing of more cases of sanctioned murder or attempted murder of elderly or disabled people in this country, past and present. Is this also the objective of social sustainability is to improve the daily life of the greatest number of persons. My question here is what about the lesser number of persons. Are they going to be put in camps just to wait their turn. Is the elimination of the elderly the way to fix the social security problem. I know that last statement was way out there but is it????

The Children's Mental Health Act (Illinois, HB 1382) is other example of the Social Development policies of the UN.

See http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?name=093-0495&GA=093 or http://www.dpaillinois.com/cmh/930495.html for the bill's complete text.

In the document the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" it states in Article 4 that the States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

In Article 9:1 it states that States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.

Article 9:4 states that where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party... upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member... unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child.

Article 14:3 states that Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law ...

Article 23:1 states that States parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community. What if the handicapped individual is not able to be active in the community or be self-reliant? Terri Schiavo was one.

In the document of the 94th General Assembly, State of Illinois, 2005 and 2006, HB 1382 amends the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning a children's mental health plan.

It states in Section 5(a) The State of Illinois shall develop a Children's Mental Health Plan containing short-term and long-term recommendations to provide comprehensive, coordinated mental health prevention, early intervention, and treatment services for children from birth through age 18.

In Section 15(a) Mental health and schools it states that The Illinois State Board of Education shall develop and implement a plan to incorporate social and emotional development standards as part of the Illinois Learning Standards for the purpose of enhancing and measuring children's school readiness and ability to achieve academic success.

What does this mean to you? It means that the state is going to decide what the mental health of the children of the state of Illinois is and what it is to be. It is going to set in place a program allowing the state to test all children from the age of 0 thru 18 every year as to their mental health. It also does not state what the role of the parent is in this Act. It does not state if the parent has any rights whatsoever to refuse such testing by the state. It does not state what the state is going to do with the children that do not meet their predetermined standards.

It is my opinion that if this Act becomes law on June 30th, we as parents have just given over our rights as parents to the State of Illinois, which is a state of the United States, which is a state of the Organization of American States, which is a state of the United Nations. In other words, we are telling the UN that we are not capable parents and relinquish our rights to be such.

These rulings do not have any race, gender, sexual orientation or otherwise exemptions. In fact, the Children's Mental Health Act has the potential to be very damaging to the homosexual community, Christians and single parents. Why, you ask. It is because with the passing of these rulings, laws and acts we are giving the government carte blanc to determine who is a fit parent and who is not. What could those deciding factors be? Well they could be, now these are only examples. You could practice a religion that is not acceptable to the government. You could have a political opinion that is different to the one acceptable to the government. You could have the wrong sexual persuasion than is acceptable to the government. The list goes on. These factors could cause you to have your children abducted by the state for their best mental interests.

Just recently the Christians were assaulted once again by the Supreme Court and the ACLU in regards to religion. The Supreme Court ruled that having the 10 Commandments in the Court house in Kentucky was against the separation of Church and State. It makes you wonder what religion (personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.) the Court is sanctioning here. Could it be the atheistic religion? People who are atheist believe (vt. accept as true: to accept that something is true or real.) that there is no God so it is a form of belief (something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true.) Therefore, you can safely say that it is a form of religion that is being imposed on everyone in the United States by the Supreme Court. Is atheism the religion of choice of the Supreme Court??? (Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)

Illinois SB 57 is now on its way to an expected veto by Governor Rod Blagojevich.

"We are in an arena of compromise," Roskam said in response to criticism by colleagues during floor debate. "SB 57 will require background checks when buying a firearm at a gun show and it will eliminate the state from keeping lists on law-abiding citizens." (Thursday, May 26, 2005 By The Leader-Springfield Bureau)

The Governor of Illinois said that he will use his amendatory veto power to reject the part of the bill that would destroy the database of records because it would eliminate the names of the law abiding citizens after 90 days. What is wrong with eliminating the names of the law abiding citizens? Could it be that in time this list could be used to confiscate the guns from the patriots in Illinois when the UN is ready to take full and complete control under the pretext of objective of social sustainability?

The repercussions of all this is the elimination of our rights as people of the United States. We would become the property of the United Nations, our government and the elite. As being property we would have no rights and they could and would make all of our decisions for us. Just like in the movies THX and Roller Ball we would be property of the state without an identity.

We are all at risk here of losing our freedoms that were given to us by our founding fathers. They knew that the chance of this happening was great and warned us about it. Let us heed their warnings and let our legislators know that we do not want any more policies passed without our knowledge. Let them know that we want a referendum twice a year to decide on what policies to pass or vote down. We need to take control of our government back. If we allow this to happen the lives of all the people who fought for our independence meant nothing. They would of died in vain.

Let us stand up together and be counted to show the world that we are strong and that we have freedom. Let them know that no one is going to take freedom from us. Let everyone know that freedom reigns and we will help them in their fight for freedom. Democracy works when the people are given an active role in government. Not the government an active role in the lives of the people .

My final thought for you is what did the United Nations mean when they said, "the objective of social sustainability is to improve the daily life of the greatest number of persons." What about everyone else?

© Cynthia A. Janak