Sunday, June 26, 2005

What If ???

Does this really sound like a free country to you? For those American liberals out there who are too blinded by their agenda to see what is already happening to "free countries" around them...take a long look at this article. And consider...is this really where you want America to be?

With the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow government seizure of property for increased tax revenue...we could be looking at a country that "sells out" and turns its back on the true principles America was founded on. Liberals mistakenly claim that "protection of minority from the will of the majority" applies to issues such as gay marriage and abortion (the Constitution say's nothing about the support of sexual deviance and murder) but look the other way when the Constitutional Protection REALLY does apply (protecting private property owners from Corporations, Government, or even other citizens...aka: $$$$$).

Don't think government can take away your right to own property or purchase additional property...it's already happening my friends. The question is...How long before we finally do something about it?!

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200506\FOR20050624c.html

UK Gov't May Outlaw Second Homes
By Kevin McCandless
June 24, 2005

London - With the age-old battle between town and country heating up once again, the British government moved closer this month towards banning ownership of second homes in popular rural areas.

Replying to a question in the House of Commons, Housing Minister Yvette Cooper said last week the government recognized that there was a "high level of concern" over rich outsiders buying second homes in scenic but impoverished parts of the countryside.

With reports that young people are being priced out of their own home towns in destinations such as the fabled Lake District, Cooper said a rural housing commission would begin next month to consider whether or not to impose sweeping controls.

"It is anticipated that the commission will consider whether there is any case for government intervention, through planning control or otherwise, on second homes," she said.

Speaking to the media this week, Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, Conservative Party chairman of the Local Government Association, said that the idea of outlawing second homes in the countryside was ridiculous.

He said town councils already had the power to increase property taxes on part-time owners, and that was enough to deal with the problem.

"'The idea makes no sense at all," Bruce-Lockhart said. "It is interfering with the market. That rarely works, and it erodes personal liberty."

In 1999, then-Environmental Minister Michael Meacher suggested that local councils could be allowed to rezone selected neighborhoods to prohibit second homes. At the same time, he also admitted that he owned a second home in the country.

Currently, other members of the ruling Labor Party, including Cooper and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, own homes in areas where the housing market has reportedly soared beyond the reach of middle-class buyers.

"Perhaps we need to zone land in terms of sustainable development," Meacher said. "That could exclude, in some cases, second homes and include affordable housing for people who need it."

Since 2000, the Department of Environment has done two large-scale studies over the future of the countryside that have also considered the issue of affordable housing.

However, countryside groups have complained that little concrete action has been taken.

Jane Hart, spokeswoman for the Rural Housing Trust, a non-profit group that campaigns for affordable homes in the countryside, said that conflict between outsiders and local would-be house owners has existed since the 1970s.

Where middle-class families once preferred to live in large cities, it's now considered fashionable to have a second home in the country.

"Once, it would have been considered desirable to live in a town or the city," Hart said. "Now ... to live in the country is a very desirable thing."

In 2004, a study conducted by Shelter, a housing and homelessness charity, found that second-home ownership had increased by 15 percent within the previous year, mostly as a result of the booming property market. In addition, house prices rose considerably quicker in rural areas than in London.

Yesterday, charity spokeswoman Helen Bird said that her group would take a wait-and-see attitude towards the new housing commission.

"Practical measures to reduce the number of second homes in rural areas are welcome," Bird said. "However, we would need to see much more detail on how the scheme being considered by the rural housing commission would work."

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're going to blame the supreme court decision on the liberals? I think you are missing the bigger picture here or are completely ignorant. The supreme court just ruled IN FAVOR of corporations, something the evil liberals aren't usually so excited about. Now which party/political attitude is in favor of unregulated industry? Hmmm...not the left ! This just benefited all those nice rich bastards who can NOW take your property away to build more industry.

Anonymous said...

It is all about the judges, who are by the way "Extreme Left wing cocky Liberal bastard Judges" pardon my niceness. This is a fine example of how the liberals are destroying the american dream, and another fine example of judiciary abuse of power.. all the more need for better checks and balances. Might as well pass Euthanasia so that we can put these senile penile liberal asshats out of their misery. (Down with the the *NO MORAL* leftwing judges from Hell! Nothing more than Satan's spawn)

A. Morelli said...

Excuse me, but in regards to your reference to gay marriage and abortion, I refer you to the 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. And don't go hinting that you don't believe conservatives to be staunch supporters of big corporations.

I don't know why you people are so scared of liberals--I mean they are the minority. They haven't held congressional power for 10 years now. Are you really telling me that their presence is so hardfelt that they are actually controlling the republican congress? I thought they were spineless...

Anonymous said...

I know that liberals, as well as republicans, have their ranks that tend to favor big business. That is part of politics... not everyone is clean. But the US is by FAR cleaner than any other government out there. As for liberals vs. republicans, republicans understand that those who have came before us, and have wrote laws for a reasons, as well as God himself, for thousands of years, have had more years knowlegde, more wisdom, and more understanding of the human race, than a stupid "think I know everything" liberal city boy that has 28 or so years under his belt. Have you fought a war, have you earned your freedoms that you so avidly denounce? Have you witness people bleeding, dying... sacrificing for the freedoms they believed in. For hundreds of years your forefathers have understood this, what makes you smarter than them?? Have you achieved even 1/10000th of what they have in their lifetimes.... NO! So stop trying to change what is morally right!

A. Morelli said...

I love how we all assume certain things about people. I never mentioned anything about war, or denounced any freedoms. Speak to the person, not the stereotype sir.

B2 said...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-1690352,00.html

EU seeks to regulate television on the net

By Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor

EUROPE wants to begin to regulate the internet for the first time by introducing controversial rules to cover television online.

Brussels is considering regulating areas such as taste and decency, accuracy and impartiality for internet broadcasters. More broadly, it is thinking about relaxing rules governing the frequency and amount of advertising on television.

The proposals are expected to prompt an immediate battle because Ofcom, the media regulator, believes that traditionally strict broadcast regulations should not be extended to the internet.

Viviane Reding, the European Information Commissioner, will set out the idea today as part of the biggest revision of European television regulation since 1989.

She will unveil five “issues papers”, one of which will discuss the impact of technological change since then, and conclude that “non-linear audio-visual content” — television downloads — needs to be subject to regulation.

Some of the changes mooted, such as the extension of rules governing the protection of children, are unlikely to be controversial, but others, such as the need for internet broadcasters to provide a statutory right of reply, are likely to provoke fierce debate.

Tim Suter, Ofcom’s partner for content and standards, said: “Whatever happens, it is not appropriate to take the set of rules that apply to television and apply them to other media. Where possible, we should be looking at self-regulation or co-regulation, because that is something that can deliver the goods.”

The idea is that any website trying to make money from broadcasting television — perhaps by providing video clips in addition to text — could be brought into the net. However, Commission officials say that the rules for websites will be less strict than those currently applying to the BBC.

Today, television delivered via the internet is unregulated in Britain. There is, therefore, nobody with legal power to force an internet broadcaster to respect rules governing accuracy and impartiality or taste and decency that apply to all other analogue and digital broadcasters.

Home Choice, the leading internet television broadcaster, has formed its own self-regulatory body, which mirrors most of the existing rules. Ofcom believes that this approach is sufficient for responsible broadcasters, while any others are likely to operate offshore from jurisdictions beyond the European Union’s reach.

The new rules will come out of a rewrite of Television Without Frontiers, the 1989 European directive that set the benchmark for television regulation.

Although the issues papers to be published tomorrow will not contain firm conclusions, broadcasters will have until September 5 to respond in writing. A draft directive will be produced at the end of this year.

As well as covering internet regulation, the consultation documents will signal a liberalising of the prescriptive regulations covering the amount of advertising that a TV channel can show — an existing limit of 12 minutes an hour is likely to be scrapped.

B2 said...

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005071111400002303941&dt=20050711114000&w=RTR&coview=

EU Commission targets states over noise pollution

BRUSSELS, July 11 (Reuters) - European Union states that have not adopted EU rules aimed at reducing noise in crowded cities will face court action if they fail to act soon, the bloc's executive said on Monday.

The European Commission said it was initiating legal action against 11 states which had failed to incorporate the rules into national noise pollution legislation, which should have been done by July 2004.

The states are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Britain.

"The EU's objective is to substantially reduce the number of people in Europe affected by noise by 2012," Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said in a statement.

"To reach this objective, it is crucial that all member states implement the agreed measures."

The rules require states to draw maps that track the level of noise from cars, planes, machinery and other sources in areas inhabited by more than 100,000 people. Busy intersections or traffic networks are also targeted.

Once the maps are established, the states must formulate a plan to make the area quieter.

© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

07/11/2005 11:40
RTR

B2 said...

I believe you're missing the picture here. The point I was trying to illustrate is that Democrats (who tend to lean left) favor more government control (aka: interference in our lives) while Repubicans (who tend to lean right) favor less government control (interference) in our lives. I tend to believe that we care more about our own well being and therefore can take care of ourselves better than a bunch of rich big-wigs who claim they know us, and know what is best for us (but really just care about saying what they have to to win your vote).

This isn't just a hypothesis...it's been proven over and over. Everything the government touches...FAILS. (Public Education, Healthcare, Welfare, Social Security (retirement), etc.) Yet...large corporations and small family owned business succeed and even thrive...and even give more back to the needy than the government EVER has (Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc.)...all without (and this is the most important part here)...without destroying the fabric of the American dream by tearing away our will to succeed or better ourselves by staining it with the vice of sitting back and living off of others.

Government limiting what assets one can purchase clearly is an example of more government involvement in our lives (a democratic/usually liberal philosophy).