As Stefan posted earlier, the 5th District Democrats, by applauding the unconstitutional confiscation of rural land by King County's Council through the Critical Areas Ordinance, are unintentionally enlightening their own constituents:
Sims gave his planned presentation on King County's Critical Areas Ordinance, outlining its history, its intent and its merits.You were talking to one answer to that question, Ma'am, standing in a room full of other answers to that question.Protesters snickered and sneered, then voiced their displeasure when it was announced Sims would be taking just three questions, and only from Democrats.
---
But a curve ball was thrown when the final question was asked by a woman who turned out to be a Democrat no longer."I was a Democrat until September,'' said Cherri Mann, her throat quivering. "I walked the walk and I talked the talk.''
Mann [explained] to Sims that her five-acre Bear Creek property is "worthless'' now, because of the strict development limitations of the CAO.
Mann said she needs to get an $800 permit to pick raspberries on her property, and her dog can only run free on two acres of the land.
"My property is worthless,'' she said. "How can government overstep so much?''
Later...
Sims briskly made his way out the door and to his car as the Democrats thanked him and applauded him.First they tax small business to death, then they grab the land. I'm still expecting to see a call for a "Critical Body Parts" Ordinance, where they declare 65% of each rural King County resident's anatomy under municipal control.
(Hat tip: Orbusmax)
To learn more: visit the Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights.
Posted by Brian Crouch at February 18, 2005 10:05 AM | Email ThisHe had said it before. Tears of hopelessness were the only response. The rulers without souls had stolen their strength…. leaving only despair and silence.
What’s that? The wind? He couldn’t be sure. He strained and listened.
And there it was. Another voice had mimicked him.
This couldn’t be!
He muttered the word again. The voice mimicked back.
He raised his voice. And, as if aided by some unseen force, the mimic responded in kind.
He screamed the word. From the blackness, the scream was returned.
Eyes, long since dulled by loneliness and fear, started to blink. Another voice mouthed the word. Another. Then another. Then another. And then, as a forest fire spreads across the treetops, the word danced across the multitudes. It rose in volume until it engulfed the land. Souls screamed the word to unleash their bonds. Each chorus became louder than the last. The ground reverberated with the sound.
“Corruption”
Thanks!
Brendan
For instance, a rural homeowner has to deal with this:
"New clearing on rural residential properties is based on parcel size and location. For lots less than 5 acres, the amount of clearing allowed is the greater of fifty percent of the lot or the amount legally cleared prior to January 1, 2005. For lots 5 acres or larger, the amount of clearing allowed is the greater of 2.5 acres, 35% of the lot, or the amount legally cleared prior to January 1, 2005."
And that's just the portion regarding the clearing of land - we haven't even talked about building on it yet. A five acre lot is roughly 217,800 sq. feet. 35% of that is 76,230 sq. ft. 1.75 acres) Let's say the owner wants to lease the land for the construction of a strip mall. The size of the development would be very limited since you also have to allow room for a parking lot the size of which of course, are regulated also.
This is just one "for instance" I can think of. I'm sure someone more well versed in real estate could tell you in greater detail the ramifications of this on development; however it doesn't take a real estate genius to figure out that land that can't be used isn't worth anything.
The core issue is that the denial of the free use of property amounts to property devalument at best and illegal confiscation at worst. In either case, at no compensation to the land owner.
Posted by: robert on February 18, 2005 10:40 AMIsn't Jerry Springer a democrat?
The new chair of the 5th district 'Rats is Kayne McGladrey, and she sounds awfully judgmental.
(See http://www.5thdems.org/)
Posted by: Huckleberry on February 18, 2005 10:42 AMI also think the 65/35/10 aspect of the CAO might not be the right thing to focus on. Rural residents are justifed in complaining that 65% of their land has just been seized, but in reality I'm sure very few of them planned on clearing more than 35%. I worry that complaints about this just generate sound bites for CAO proponents - "See? These rednecks all want to clearcut their land!"
I think the real killer is the increased buffer sizes. If you have a small patch of moist ground, and the county decides this is a "wetland", you can end up with a 200 foot buffer around it. That's a 200 foot *radius*! Draw a few 400 foot blobs on any acreage and it becomes useless in a hurry. The CAO "allows" slight intrusion on these boundaries, but you have to give up more land elsewhere and in practice they don't amount to anything useful (but this allows Ron Sims to talk about how "flexible" the CAO is).
The key is in "mitigation", meaning the government will let you build inside the buffers, but only if you demonstrate that you've set up an equivalent wetland elsewhere. The REAL key is that to do this, you have to pay King County a fortune for permits and wait years for them to drag their heels.
So, aside from pandering to environmentally-minded voters with a bill that costs them nothing (and costs the hicks FAR more than any environmental benefits would have in a market-driven solution - "but hey, it's not *our* money"), this is mainly a bill to keep a bunch of civil servants happily employed for years to come. Guess who drafted the CAO.
The GMA was also the beachead of the invasion of unelected planners, all marching to the same drummer of environmental socialism against traditional property rights. Take a census of unelected planners on Government payrolls now, and compare it to some year such as 1985 - the cancer has metastatised big time. Until the concept of land ownership is restored to the owners from the clutches of this new ruling class, travesties of the CAO sort will continue to expand.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 18, 2005 11:09 AMOf course, many, if not most, of these people then starved to death.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 18, 2005 11:12 AMI understand that a recent survey showed that Seattle households are single-occupant in 2 out of every 5 houses.
What if the KCC arbitrarily decided that, henceforth, EVERY house within the Seattle City limits had to have a minimum density of 2 persons - anything else was damaging to the "environment" and a waste of "valuable resources".
My analogy is no less goofy, no less tyrannical, and no less potential as what "Tax to the Max has done to us!
Imagine, Democrats are celebrating the kind of freedom-lynching the CAO represents....
Posted by: Michele S on February 18, 2005 11:19 AMLETS EVICT HIM ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Posted by: chardonnay on February 18, 2005 11:21 AMWhen voting time comes in November, Sims is done.
Any idea who might be running against him? While I think it's important to get Mr. Sims out of that office, I also wouldn't want to do what the Dems did in this last Presidential election, chanting "anyone but Bush". "Anyone but Sims" is only asking for trouble.
Posted by: Jason on February 18, 2005 11:40 AMI guess I'm confused...why would anyone thank someone who just grabbed their land or put restrictions on usage of it?
Democrats....hmmmm...well, perhaps I just answered my own question. Outrageous!
Posted by: Susu on February 18, 2005 11:46 AMIf the Democrats want to enact restrictions on our land then let's set up an initiative directly relational and proportional to how they are impacting us. Let’s get Tim Eyman in on this. A people's initiative where any wetlands buffered, Growth Management Act restricted, or CAO limited section of privately held property cannot be taxed. Not reduced taxes as they do now for some areas, let’s get no taxes on it. If it is a business, home, farm, or just plain land; it sits on the property within the area of the restriction, no taxes on the part that is affected. Within one mile from my place this would immediately eliminate over 1 million in tax base which would force the tax burden back onto the reserves and lands of those who are enacting this policy. During a recent Growth management act meeting in Orting the board members dictating the implementation of this act were asked if their lands and homes were affected. Not one was. Fine, lets hear their howling as they scramble to clean up the mess they have caused. Let's hear the politicians mumbling as they try to explain it to those who are unaffected and will shortly have their property taxes increased to cover the loss. I can see a legal battle saying this is exclusionary but the legal statutes they are enacting are already exclusionary and there is legal precedence for reducing taxes for wetlands, buffered property, and similar restricted areas without taking away the land owners property. I just feel if they are removing a significant amount of the tax value they are dependent upon, lets take it all away just as they are taking away the financial potential invested in that land.
I feel this lady's pain as well as how most of you feel (not counting the liberal mouthpieces here) concerning this. Due to the new buffer zone width impacting wetlands (and lakes) as of 1 March my entire property will be unable to have any building, gardening, home repair, or modification on it. I won’t even be allowed to mow it according to the statutes they have in place. I cannot do anything “to decrease the natural settings of the wetlands”. Personally I can see restrictions the historical area of a flood zone, I can see restrictions in a wetland unable to sustain livestock or a building, what I cannot understand is why they restrict a 1 acre hill 15 feet above flood level with a house that has been there for almost 80 years.
As for the dog, I gather that he or she might poop in a stream? But the regulations on surface water simply say that no "person" can dispose of animal waste in surface water. That seems to suggest that Fido can.
Apologies for trying to find some logic here. Full disclosure--I am a Dem, but I think the CAO is pretty scary. I would definitely support lowering/removing property taxes on restricted areas.
Posted by: Chris on February 18, 2005 12:31 PMNo one ownes land to the exclusion of the community to regulate it.
Damn socialist!
Posted by: JDB on February 18, 2005 12:59 PMWhile it is very open-minded of you to want to consider the pro-CAO side of the equation, in this case I don't believe that is necessary.
Our (western, capitalist) system of property law is based on economics, pure and simple. The private individuals who own a particular property control that property. Any system which infringes on this for the 'collective good' is one step toward socialism and/or communism.
Any restrictions put on the use of land end up devaluing the land. This is because land value is determined by the alternative uses of the land. Look at Chicago and Las Vegas. Las Vegas is spread out and property is relatively inexpensive on the fringes because it is all desert - there is no alternative use for the land. In Chicago, there is Lake Michigan on one side (with its prime views), and some of the richest farmland in the world on the other side. So even the fringe properties in Chicago are relatively expensive. Whether you want to sell to a developer or a farmer, you're likely to get good money for your property.
How does the CAO affect this? It essentially prohibits ANY alternative land use. Do you want to develop it? Too bad. Do you want to farm it? Tough nuts. By putting restrictions on 65% of the land, King County has seriously devalued land that does not belong to them.
If you have a parcel of 10 acres, you paid fair market value for those 10 acres with the expectation that you could do what you want - keep them, sell them to a developer, pass them down to your children, etc. But how are land values calculated? By the price the land could sell for, which is based on what surrounding properties are currently selling for. So now if you want to sell your 10 acres, the next buyer is going to evaluate the value based on being able to use and/or develop 3.5 acres. This is a serious devaluation of your 10 acres.
That is the CAO in a nutshell - it's a serial devaluation of private property by King County. If King County wanted to buy 65% of those 10 acres at fair market value and call it eminent domain, that would be different. But to devalue private property, with no measurable increase in value in any other respect, for the 'collective good', does not follow the philosophy of the property rights in a democratic, capitalist country.
Posted by: Larry on February 18, 2005 01:14 PMLove your Teddy quote: "No one ownes land to the exclusion of the community to regulate it."
In this case, who is the community? Ron Sims and urban dwellers of Seattle are the community of all of King County? Not even close.
Ron Sims and King County control 1900 square miles of unincorporated land - about the size of the state of Delaware. Thinking that Ron Sims is part of the 'community' of this wonderful, rich, useful, and varied land is mistaken.
Posted by: Larry on February 18, 2005 01:29 PM"Our (western, capitalist) system of property law is based on economics, pure and simple. The private individuals who own a particular property control that property. Any system which infringes on this for the 'collective good' is one step toward socialism and/or communism."
and ask if the some of our friends on this board:
a) agree with this assessment, and
b) recognize their hypocrisy.
But you said it far better than I.
--Mike
I don't have a problem with these regulations, in general. How is this any different than zoning laws in the City?
What I DO have a problem with is changing these laws to affect the EXISTING owners without any compensation. When they bought/acquired/inherited/etc. this land, they did not expect to be bound by these restrictions.
I'm all in favor of the tax credit for EXISTING owners.
Posted by: Michael on February 18, 2005 02:59 PMTo whoever wondered above who might be running against Sims in the fall: I've heard rumblings that Dave Irons Jr. may run against Sims, since Irons and Kathy Lambert are now in the same district after the reduction in council positions.
Posted by: Michele S on February 18, 2005 03:03 PMIt's different from zoning laws in the city because zoning laws still let you do SOMETHING.
Imagine if the zones were Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Nothing. You own a Residential or Commercial lot, but King County re-zones 65% of it as a Nothing lot. You can't build, develop, landscape, clear, or do much of anything on 65% of your lot. Your lot was just devalued with no compensation. That's the CAO.
Another example would be if you own an SUV that seats five people. King County passes a law that says you can't use 65% of your horsepower nor seating area. You are allowed to have one adult and one child in your SUV (1.75 seats), and if the speedometer goes up to 120 mph you are allowed to drive 42 mph. Would that devalue your SUV if you tried to sell it to a resident of King County? Absolutely. You'd sell it to someone who would drive it somewhere else. But that's not possible with property.
Posted by: Larry on February 18, 2005 03:14 PMCAO is not really about rural/urban ... it's about individual rights and property rights. I've been a city dweller all my life but I am absolutely livid about CAO. And thank you very much Chuck Miller for pointing out that the smoking restrictions are more of the same. It is an attempt to restrict the rights of a property owner on use of their own property even though it does not affect anyone unless they freely choose to go there.
If we don't start protecting our rights we are going to wake up to find we don't have any. Rural property rights today - smoking tomorrow - what rights the next day?
Posted by: VR on February 18, 2005 03:57 PMNot that it matters, but it is interesting to see how much they all get paid.
www.lbloom.net
Shows all the govn't employees salaries. Boy it is a business that's for sure, at our expense.
Posted by: chardonnay on February 18, 2005 04:20 PMJustice Scalia, in his majority opinion in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council stated (505 U.S. 1003 (1992) stated:
We have, however, described at least two discrete categories of regulatory action as compensable without case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint. The first encompasses regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical "invasion" of his property. In general (at least with regard to permanent invasions), no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation. The second situation in which we have found categorical treatment appropriate is where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.
This is not a physical invasion of the land (for which you must be compensated), but a claimed regulatory taking. As Justice Scalia stated, otherwise you must deny "all economically beneficial or productive use," and the CAO does not do this.
End quote.
Larry, glad you like the quote. There are of course, several communities in question here. However, the important one is the Community of King County.
In general you are right, our ideas of property derives in part from our capitalist system (although it really originates in the desire to keep control over land within a family during feudal times, it has been adjusted with the rise of captialism). However, there has always been a mixture of state/family and profit when it comes to property.
I do strongly disagree with your statement "Any restrictions put on the use of land end up devaluing the land." Assuming there was only one use to the land, you would be right. But restriction can also increase the value by making something rarer (if you can only develop 40% of the land, that which can be developed increases in price) and by making something more attractive (There are people who want to live where the streams are clear and lots of woods around, this guarentees that). Or do you think that the regulation that keeps your neighbor from selling his property for a fat rendering plant (and prevents you from doing the same) devalues your property? Of course not, that is a regulation that adds value to your property.
And note, if you already cleared your forty acres and paved a few streams just because, damn it, it is your property, you are fine. This only effects undeveloped tracks as of this year.
Again, if we really think about it, there has to be some regulation of all property. You can't just put a mall where you want, and you shouldn't be able to pave over a stream or drain a lake just because it is your land. Where you draw the line is always up for arguement, but the fact that you draw a line doesn't make you a commie. No matter how hard the Building Association is trying to buy themselves a governor, not even Rossi is going to make it so that anything goes.
Posted by: JDB on February 18, 2005 09:23 PMRural King County would still be getting the lions share of the shaft, but it seems to me that's the "least" Urban King County could do in the name of "fairness".
I won't hold my breath though...
Posted by: Ed on February 18, 2005 10:48 PMAs far as wanting to do anything with their land, I don't blame people for saying that, after abiding by existing zoning laws that are working just fine and then all of sudden get hit with this CAO. Don't you think it is reasonable for some to throw up their hands and exclaim: "Fine! We will vote you out, repeal the laws, do what we want with our land if this is the way you are going be!" That is just an expression and a not a good point to argue at this stage. Those same people would not want a mining operation upstream dumping cyaninde in the water. Again, reasonable zoning laws are good and were already there. Some would argue that the existing laws were themselves too restrictive and I tend to agree in some cases. For instance I have heard over the past years of people who were told they could not add a garage or other normally reasonable structure on their land because of a type of grass growing that indidcated it may be or may have been a wetland. Unfortunately, I don't have proof but I specifically remember that being an issue just a few years ago. Maybe someone else here could find more on that.
As far as Socialism goes, I believe any restrictions put on private property is leaning towards Socialism. By it's very definition, you are restricting the use of privately owned land for the good of the public. Reasonable zoning laws are understandable but the CAO seems to turn that corner too close to true Socialism.
The City dwellers will have miles and miles of "Greenbelts" to view when on a Sunday Drive. Their escape from the Concrete and Asphalt that plague their daily life.
The GMA is sufficiant(if not overbearing), and the CAO is just another intrusion of Goverment on the Taxpayers.
If you cut a tree down, you can plant another in its place. But when you pour concrete, no tree will grow. Let the city tear up it's concrete, and plant it's trees, but let the Rural Property Owners have land that is valuable to THEM.
Posted by: Chris (not the Dem) on February 19, 2005 06:47 AMThe more I read about CAO, the more it sounds like the old Green Belt ordinance deemed unconstitutional by the WA State Supreme Ct in 1988 (http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/109wn2d/109wn2d0947.htm).
Seattle had an overlay zoning model as well. The court found that the taking of 50-70% of the land for green belt was just the same as taking the land for a road and hide this taking in the guise of a zoning regulation would be inequitable.
I guess Sims and the Dems' think that with the wealth and power of the county they can pound down opposition legally and politically.
Who actually votes for Sims...this guys by all standards either a complete Imbecile or he is extremely arrogant...
On one hand, you can't pay for this kind of (Sims) comedy, on the other KC tax payers are paying dearly....
Posted by: flexnfx on February 20, 2005 01:06 AMJust out of curiosity, can you give me a parallel analogy that relates to the effect smoke from a cigarette has on a person sitting 30 feet away from the smoker? What is the effect on other people walking by someone's rural land? I fail to see how you are drawing this comparison. If you smoke in the same room I am in, there are potential health hazards to me from your action. If I walk by your 10 acres in rural King county, what effect does it have on me?
Posted by: dragon on February 20, 2005 07:43 AMYour argument would be better served if there were any provable effect of second hand smoke. Unfortunately, there isn't any health impact from so-called second hand smoke.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 20, 2005 08:42 AMYour argument would be better served if there were any provable effect of second hand smoke. Unfortunately, there isn't any health impact from so-called second hand smoke.
Posted by iconoclast at February 20, 2005 08:42 AM
And I suppose you have definitive proof that there are absolutely zero provable effects?
I am certain that for every "study" you cite that claims there is no provable effect, there is a contrasting "study" that claims there is. Unfortunately, there may not be any definitive proof either way, but the possibilty still remains, hence the term in my original post "potential health hazards." Reading is fundamental
Posted by: dragon on February 20, 2005 09:04 AM I won't speak for Chuck Miller, but I'd say the parallel between the 2 issues is unwarranted gov't intrusion. Simply put, you do not have to sit in the same room as the smoker. Take it upon yourself to use a little personal responsibility and don't do business with clubs/restaurants that allow smoking. There is simply no reason to have the government come in to handle this for you. Now if I'm wrong, and making the choice to avoid places that allow smoking is really too difficult for people to handle without the nanny state making it all better, then I suggest the other side is right when they argue people aren't capable of serious responsibilities such as managing land, school vouchers, medical savings accounts, investing their social security, educating their own children ect.
Just a thought.
By the way, the World Health Organization has tried very hard for years to prove that casual exposure to second hand smoke is a health hazard in any small way but admits it has been unable to do so. To my knowledge (and I have actively looked for it) there has never been any type of study that claims any hazard from casual exposure to smoke. Claims of hazards are from studies of daily close exposure such as families of smokers. Even these studies are questionable in their methods and/or conclusions.
As I said, the quesion of health hazards is moot. If I own the property I should make the choice and the public can choose whether or not to come there.
Sounds to me like huge corporations like D.R. Horton can't denude entire hillsides and put up half million dollar clapboard shacks for yuppies with more money than brains. The communities will be called "Forest Hills" or somesuch for what they used to be.
Sounds to me like these poor landowners were banking on getting rich by selling their land to said corporations. In other words, land speculating. Cry me a river.
Posted by: Me on February 20, 2005 11:58 AMI am sorry to have misunderstood your definition for potential. Clearly in your mind as long as there is a non-zero probability for deleterious effects, then there exists a potential for harm in your worldview. And any unknown probabilities also equate to some potential in your worldview. Which, carried far enough, can create some truly silly scenarios.
However, for those of us interested in insisting upon proven and meaningful probabilities before legislating public health questions, my point still remains. There is no proven negative health effect for second hand smoke. All the studies alleging second hand smoke effects are either completely bogus (e.g. Helena Montana "study"), or so flawed in methodology or analysis that they are useless for informed public policy.
And, in the absence of proof, legislate nothing until (non-junk) proof is provided.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 20, 2005 12:33 PMDid you provide your own shelter? Or did someone build it for you? Do you make your own clothing or did someone make it for you? Do you provide your own clean water or does someone do that for you too?
A 21st century 'dude' you are! Completely ignorant of how to survive if you needed to do so and completely ungrateful to God and those who understand the wealth that comes from private property which makes your 'dude' existence possible.
Posted by: Jericho on February 20, 2005 05:18 PMA non sequitir if there ever was one. This has absolutely zero to do with producing energy, shelter, or whatever. It has everything to do with wanting to denude the landscape to put in more substandard housing people can't afford.
Posted by: Me on February 20, 2005 09:18 PMNow there is a mind-twister of a statement. If people cannot afford the housing, then it will go empty. As for substandard, you should have a look sometime at the building codes in King County sometime. It will quickly disabuse you of that imaginary notion.
If you want to keep the rural land wild, then just buy it and do so. Raise a bond and condemn the land for the state. Don't "protect" the land on someone else's dime. That tactic is commonly known as theft.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 21, 2005 07:26 AMOne example.
Posted by: Jericho on February 22, 2005 09:16 AMNothing you have today came to you from government. Even national security and security from criminals is provided to you on the backs private property owners. The government produces nothing, it only consumes the life energy of the people. Yes, this is agreed to by the people, but the people of America agree to limited government for we know its corrupting influence since we know ourselves.
We have the God given right to throw off government whenever it fails to uphold our God given rights. We Americans most typically do this through the ballot. When the ballot is corrupted (ie. this election) and the intent of the government is clear to enslave the people they are duty bound to throw off that government. In other words to revolt against that government. The effect: Guns, blood, death, starvation, civil war, etc.
In the American Left's desire to control other's lives is the left willing to sacrifice their own lives? their comfort? The course the left (who I prefer to call the tyrannists) is pursuing can only have one ultimate outcome, war. War is a dealy business, an ugly business, a horror, but there is one thing worse than war ... the willingness to accept anything to avoid it.
The right, the righteous, know that we have been born into a world at war since the world's inception. We are not afraid of war because of the unseen war we know is being waged all around us, by us, and through us. We know that the chains of darkness are much deadlier than the consequences of war and less we accept those deadlier chains we will fight the earthly fight that we and are progeny might live free.
Tyrannists are afraid of war, but still fight wars because they prefer that to admitting that they are not God.
You and the rest of the left have three choices:
One choose God.
Two choose war by continuing to try to enslave the righteous.
Three choose to submit yourselves to natural rights (God given rights) to which you also benefit. Some of those benefits include the opportunity to create wealth, physical life, health, liberty (free speech), etc.
Why has there not been war to this point since obviously the left has long and increasingly sought oppression of God given rights? I defer to the founder's words in the Declaration, "Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transcient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are still sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
We chose to suffer the abuse, but it is becoming more and more clear that the efforts of the left evinces a design to enslave us. We will not be enslaved, we are slaves only to Christ, having foresaken the slavery to sin that once held us and having foresaken the hold the world once had upon us we cannot submit ourselves back into that slavery. Our forefathers from Saint Paul, to Wycliff, to Locke, to Whitfield, to Washington, to Lincoln and millions of others paid too dearly through Christ to see to our liberty. We will not go back to slavery.
Those hillsides of which you decry the development are just one example of the efforts tyrannist have made and are making to dictate others lives. The critical areas ordinance is thus just more evidence towards the design of the tyrannists to reduce the people under absolute despotism (to paraphrase the Declaration). It is however a big piece of the puzzle that has made and is making it more and more clear to the people the intent of those who seek to rule. If that intent is further pursued the clarity it provides will lead to resolve, resolve will then lead to courage, and courage to war.
The righteous hope for peace, but we prepare for war. The left hates peace (though it crys it again and again), fears war, but seeks domination.
Choose this day whom you will serve, death or Christ. As for me and my house, we stand with Christ.
Posted by: Jericho on February 22, 2005 10:06 AM