23 October, 2008

Forced Annexations

City of Columbia moves to annex pockets is the lead story on the front page of today's State newspaper (see link above)
The city previously threatened to deny water to businesses near where I live. They lied about having a continuous property line -- the (in)famous gap (giap) that did not exist. Before that, the city was allowed to count a prison population and promised that was all they wanted. Sound familiar?

I live in one of those unincorporated areas, but have not been targeted yet for forced annexation. I already pay the city double their charges for water and sewer as well as pay for a fire tax. The city has admitted that not all of the usage charges go back to water and sewer operations. This sounds like what happened in the wild west years ago. Threaten to cut off people's water.

I will reprint here a letter to the editor from yesterday's newspaper. It is apropos to our times.

Spreading wealth is like highway robbery
Instead of being charmed by this sentiment, we should ask ourselves what Sen. Obama means when he says he wants to "spread the wealth around." First of all, there is no such thing as "the wealth." All wealth was created by somebody -- and all wealth rightfully belongs to the somebody who created or traded for it.
Second, "spreading the wealth" means the government is taking some of what you earn and giving it to somebody else. For the recipients of this stolen wealth, "spreading the wealth" means stealing from your neighbor. Whether you rob your neighbor directly or you depend on a hired burglar or the government to do it for you, you are stealing the fruits of your fellow human being's labor.
Those who want something for nothing will vote for Obama. Those who believe in earning what they have by their own efforts will vote for John McCain.
If ever we allow the population of those who want something for nothing to outstrip the population of those who believe in earning what they get, we will witness the moral decay of America.
TERRY TAYLOR


A similar taking took place many years ago. It began with a man's lust for another's property. He had an accomplice, a woman. Funny how some things never change. There is evil still in this world.

She wrote in letters falsely inviting the owner of the vineyard to a gathering. She forged his name. She paid off two worthless scoundrels to falsely accuse the owner of cursing God. He was murdered by stoning.

Recently the US Supreme court ruled that a city can take another person's property if they can make more money from taxes on a different type of use like a business or rentals instead of a man living in a house with his family. We have come to this point in our history this election. Will we continue down our path of moral bankruptcy, or turn back to God?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home