This morning, even before I had fully imbibed my usual cup of Brook Bond Indian tea mildly sweetened with Costco clover honey in my comfortable abode in California, in a beautiful country called the United States of America where I had always felt safe from the vanilla Mafioso fascism of the petty dictatorships in third world nations, I had this news to shatter my illusions: “Supreme Court Strikes Down Fourth Amendment”.
The right combination of magical clicks on my now thoroughly soiled keyboard with spilled tea took me to the AP report on Boston.com: “US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked”.
In April 2003, I had valiantly fought the intrusion of the FBI and Homeland Security to my home citing them chapter and verse America's famous Constitution and Bill of Rights ( see “The Dared to Knock on my Door”).
And when the mighty federal agents of the mightiest superpower on earth had acquiesced and gallantly accepted my stance, I had felt genuinely patriotic as a humble denizen of the planet upholding what was truly wondrous about a country settled upon the blood of up to ten million of its own indigenous inhabitants. At that gratuitous price paid by the 'Red Indians' at the altar of civilization, hell I was gonna stand up for the 'Bill of Rights' which didn't exist in any practical form in any Muslim country managed by the proxy kings and queens on behalf of the mighty superpower.
Indeed, at least since Roman times, all roads have always led to Rome for a reason. Civilization, culture, arts, sciences, the good and virtuous life, and most importantly, the rule of law, have always flourished at its center. While at the periphery, where barbarians were, and always are, known to reside, it was okay to mercilessly butcher the 'untermenschen' and expropriate their natural wealth and treasures as no barbarians are ever deserving of their possessions.
When the Centurions returned home with the plundered loot in their bloodied hands, they always were, and still are, honored and awarded medals as courageous heroes for patriotically following the law of the land and going out to kill the barbaric terrorists before they could attack the Homeland due to their jealousy of the good life and flourishing civilization at the center.
So I too was happy living in 'Rome' and I could yell “NO” at the 'Centurions' without fear when they inadvertently transgressed the law in their zeal to keep Rome safe from the 'terrorists'. And to my amazement, they had actually followed the law – genuinely law abiding that they themselves mostly were, especially with someone who had the infernal courage to stand up for their own cherished values, values that they were fighting and dying for, despite belonging to the barbarian brown-skin civilization.
Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.
So immediately after that episode with the Roman State's Security Apparatus, I had penned my now famously high-falutin treatise “Prisoners of the Cave”, its fame of course known only to me and my family as it is still a deep dark secret to the rest of the world having never seen the light of a worthy publisher's imprint. Exactly half a dozen had actually written me saying no thanks, and about two dozen pretended to never having received the manuscript.
And this morning, January 27, 2009, after almost 6 years in oblivion, for the first time I realized the wisdom of all those rejections. I am glad I didn't make a damn fool of myself.
For in its Chapter 7, which carried the bombastic title: “Resistance to Empire – New Directions”, and under the section equally Polyanishly titled “Pose legal challenges and force legal battles all the way to the Supreme court”, I had ignoramusly stated::
“When the corporate media will fight back refusing to air the infomercials, sue them in federal and state courts, simultaneous and multi-fold law suits, making the cost of not airing the infomercials very high. So high in fact that for their short term profit horizons, they will rather not enter into the ideological war. So the first point here would be to win by making the cost high and to stay on the airwaves continually staying in touch with the public. But more strategically, force a legal battle that can perhaps eventually lead to freeing up the air waves from the clutches of corporations, and the making of new laws for media ownership that will entirely serve the primary function of the news media as a watchdog for democracy! Employ the best legal minds in the country just like Microsoft does when it fights the government.”
The core-principle behind the afore-stated “force a legal battle” was reaffirmed in another bombastically titled section: “Wrestle control of the rights of 'person-hood' away from Corporations and special interest Groups”:
“These rights of 'person-hood', originally intended for human beings by the US Constitution, including the right to free speech, influence elections and new laws, have been adduced by the corporations to themselves. They now have a bigger say in making of laws that favor them then the electorate. ... This battle ultimately will belong in the federal courts. The side better prepared will win. The Congress will do nothing until the influence of the corporate lobbyist is broken through the Supreme Court making new rulings.
One of the key investments that the protagonist must make is to develop a sharper understanding of how their system actually works, what its weaknesses are, and how it can be exploited for their purpose. The best chance for success is to defeat the system using the system itself! ... There is much good in this nation and its system of laws. The only reason many don't see it perhaps is because they have likely never lived in other countries. One should not confuse marching in the street for impeaching the White House for its misdeeds, by making a show of force of 50 million people (even if such a sizable protest was possible), with being able to take 'rights' away from corporations. The two are entirely different things and the latter is a whole lot harder to do. No amount of marching alone is going to instrument its change. But don't pick up the garbage for months, jam the streets with millions of bodies, and argue in the court with skill and competence, reflecting the voices of the millions outside, makes a very compelling threat indeed. ...
One has a better chance of being successful working through the court system while simultaneously putting pressure on the law makers and doing local community level action, but all consistently aligned with the big picture strategies, rather than by the traditional grass-roots distributed and decentralized local actions alone. This battle needs strategic thinking and an arsenal of tactics, money, influence peddling, and constituency development in the mainstream. The protagonist stand a much better chance of achieving success in the courts than on the streets alone.”
The idiotic blind-faith in the god of courts that had led me to those 'brilliant strategies' of “achieving success in the courts than on the streets alone” was elaborated upon a bit further down in the chapter:
“It might perhaps be my naiveté of the American judicial system that leads me to think that it is irrelevant that the judiciary might be appointed by one ideological side or the other. I do not believe they are corrupt, and having an ideological bent is not corruption. Who in the world does not have an ideological bent of one form or another? Only morons. Even robots have an ideology (see Isaac Asimov's laws for robots). Taking bribes, kickbacks, or cowering to political pressure is corruption, and at least that is how judiciary is compromised in dictatorships. Is there any evidence for it here? I don't know.”
And I had forgotten in that brilliant articulation worthy of flunking political science 101, that if one's ideological bent happened to be totalitarianism and world-government, then that wasn't called corruption. That legalism had little to do with moralism. And laws are always made or amended according to whatever is the dominant ideology of the day. Nazis did the same thing in the construction of the Third Reich. Why should the Fourth be any different?
When such an ideology is shared quite bipartisanly across the Executive and the Legislature, why would it be surprising that it would not be shared by the courts? As expressed in the afore-quoted passage, only morons don't have an ideology. And as any non-moron can trivially glean from a careful study of political philosophy, the ideologues of 'one-world' government keenly appreciate that “World government could only be kept in being by force”.
The Supreme Court decision I read this morning stated:
“The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so. The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.”
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also called the Bill of Rights – for which I, although culturally belonging to the multifold civilizations at the periphery, eagerly lived in the comfortable security of the United States and pretended every morning that yes, those 'untermenschen', my own peoples, were indeed the barbarians out to destroy our sacred way of life in the West – used to read:
“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.”
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 17, 2008 - Updated April 22, 2008. The abominable shared fates that unite Iran (“Bush and Iran,...
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 26, 2008 - Revised May 2, 2008. Douglas J. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, in his Hearing...
by Zahir Ebrahim March 31, 2007: I wrote this essay as the Preface to "Prisoners of the Cave" during 2003. That was four years ago....
by Zahir Ebrahim It appears that a majority of conscionable peoples opposed to their nation's war mongering for “imperial mobilization” in...
by Zahir Ebrahim Sunday April 06, 2008. It is à propos to begin this brief observation in 2008, on a cloudy Sunday morning while...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites