I originally found this by way of Matt Margolis on GOP Bloggers. Tonight, Logan Clements was on Hannity and Colmes, and BOY did he make an impression. The transcript isn't available yet, but everything he said was consistent with the concepts outlined at Freestar Media. I will definitely be looking for ways to help out from here, if possible.

In case you don't know who Logan Clements is, he's the New Hampshire businessman who believes that a hotel built by him on the property currently owned and used as residence by Justice Souter (who voted in favor of the government having the right to take property from one American and give it to another American based on perceived tax receipt advantages) would bring higher tax revenues, and therefore, should be built on the property, and the property taken from Souter.

The thing that had me scratching my head about all this is that Alan Colmes couldn't figure out why Justices Thomas and Scalia agreed with him, and the so-called "liberal" judges were in favor of this. Alan, I have the answer right here ...

Alan, you and your left-wing loony butt-buddies have been advocating the transfer of power from the people to the government for longer than I have been alive. There are certain rights, granted to the people by God, and guaranteed by the Constitution via the Bill of Rights. Let's take a look at some of them.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's surprising that more liberals don't see the current prohibitions (and attempts at the same)on the free practice of religion for what they are: an establishment of atheism as a national religion. What's even more perplexing is that they cannot see the consequences of allowing this to happen, even though every major totalitarian regime has sought to remove religion from public discourse (e.g. USSR, NAZI Germany, Cuba).

McCain-Feingold is a blatant repeal of free speech rights. The Federal Election Commission is now in control of all electoral campaigns, and has already begun efforts to silence bloggers with a political voice. The ACLU sought to suppress the Minuteman Project's right to peaceably assemble on the border with Mexico to keep illegals from entering the country.

Our First Amendment rights are almost completely eroded already, and it has been the liberals who have advocated all of it.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

From the "Brady Bill" to the "Assault Weapons Ban" to every other gun restriction ever passed, it is clear that the Second Amendment has been rendered useless, by none other than the liberals.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The New London case can easily be applied here. Someone's property was taken away against his will for whatever benefit the government saw in it. The liberal justices must have forgotten to read this part of the Bill of Rights in making their decision - NOT. They're liberals, after all. They're not about "taking care of the little guy" unless it's at "the big guy's expense". They don't care a whit about you unless they get a chance to control you and your life. Liberals don't care at all what the Constitution says. Never have, never will.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again, this poor soul in New London, Connecticut is being deprived of his property without due process of law ... Unless, of course, it is to be asserted that due process of law includes sacrificing basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And since this property was taken for private use, the final clause cannot be invoked except to say that there is no provision allowing private property to be seized for private use at all. And again, the liberals on the Supreme Court are the culprits.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, IN THE ABSENCE OF LAW (a clear violation of their constitutional limitations - see Article 1, Section 8), that unborn children can be deprived life without due process of law.

In 2005, the liberal Supreme Court in Florida ruled that a brain-damaged woman could be deprived life with only flimsy hearsay "evidence" that she would want to be so deprived in her situation. This "evidence" somehow surfaced years after she had acquired her condition, only after years of statements to the contrary from the very people she is supposed to have said these things to, and only after the only real witness to her "statement" had moved on and had children with another woman. The US Constitution, per the Fifth Amendment, and the Florida Constitution both require error on the side of life. Tell that to a liberal, and you will get all kinds of wacky arguments.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These Amendments say that where the Constitution is silent, the people themselves (and their duly elected State officials) retain any given right. That is to say, that the government cannot assert a right for itself simply because it is not specifically outlined for the people in the Constitution. Who has consistently usurped the rights of the people and the states? THE LIBERALS, Alan. It's been the liberals.

One of the problems with liberals, beyond their obvious tendency towards uncosntitutional socialism, is their inability to see the long-term effects of the things they advocate. They cannot understand the concept of the "slippery slope".

Case in point: They saw a "problem" with poverty (in the worlds least impoverished country), and what did they do? They tried socialism. What did that do? It created a class of people dependent on the pittance the government gave them, which, of course, increased poverty. What do the liberals want to do about the increase in poverty? Blame President Reagan for the poverty and try more socialism. Poverty would increase more ...

It's a ruthless circle, and unless the socialism is eliminated, poverty will become more and more of a problem until the liberals just insist that having a totalitarian socialist government is the only way out. Of course, that's exactly what the Cubans have, and, of course, Cuba is still a giant gathering of impoverished people.

Alan, as far as I know, you and your liberal friends are/have been a proponent of removing religion from public discourse (violation of Amendment I), McCain-Feingold (violation of Amendment I), the ACLU's intrusion into the activities of the Minuteman Project (violation of Amendment I), the "Brady Bill" and the "Assault Weapons Ban" (violations of Amendment II), Roe v. Wade (violation of Article I, section 8 and Amendments V, IX and X), unfettered euthanasia in the Terri Schiavo case (violation of Amendments IV, V, and IX), and the spread of unconstitutional socialism and its by-products (violations of Amendments IV, V, IX, and X, and more if you want to split a few hairs).

You cannot be intellectually honest and at the same time tell America that you are surprised that liberal judges would violate the Constitution and deprive someone of his rights. You have advocated such practices for as long as I have watched your TV show.

When we started to allow the government the ability to take away rights that at the time seemed insignificant, we opened the door for more heinous intrusions into our rights, liberties, and freedoms. Even many who consider themselves conservative support intrusions, such as the Patriot Act, which take freedoms away from us in the name of protecting us from those who seek to harm us after they came into the country knowing immigration laws (which are entirely constitutional, by the way) wouldn't be enforced. People, including Alan Colmes, had better start taking a long hard look at their rights and freedoms, and soon. They may start looking just in time to see the last of them taken away.

RWR