Sunday, December 23, 2007

Supreme Court: Big Corporations Can Take Your Home

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Since the 1980s, it has become very nearly impossible to find anything about which the GOP is right. But --I've done it! In the interest of fairness, I have ferreted out a SCOTUS decision of 2005 that merits special mention, primarily because Antonin Scalia, whose thought processes were scrambled, backward and fallacious in Bush v Gore, was absolutely correct this time around. Secondly, the so-called court "liberals" were absolutely wrong. The decision has not yet replaced Roe v Wade as a "conservative" cause celebre, but it's close. It should be a progressive cause celebre as well.

The decision is Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) in which SCOTUS ruled that the city of New London could invoke imminent domain for the benefit of a private development project. I would think this a violation of the Fifth Amendment on its face.
Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.

There was apparently no attempt to make the case that the end use would benefit anyone but private, corporate development. Simply, because of Kelo v City of New London, if a private developer covets your lake front property and, further, if the developer can persuade the city to condemn your house, the development can move in, move you out, and put up fancy, highly profitable condos. That is what has happened in New London, Connecticut. What you thought you owned can be taken away if a big, influential corporation covets it and has friends on the City Council.

The case arose when New London, Connecticut condemned the privately owned homes ideally situated lakeside. The huge pharmaceutical firm, Pfizer, claimed that the property was to be used as a part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that the "general benefits" a community enjoyed from economic growth were sufficient to qualify as "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." A stretch by any standard --liberal or conservative!

In fact, the development plan included a resort hotel, a conference center, 80–100 new high income residences consisting of townhouses and apartments, and fashionable office and retail space. Given the history of "trickle down" theory, it is difficult to see how such a development benefits anyone other than developers. Two words --high income --exclude most of the public. It is hard to make the case that the public as a whole benefits when those not earning high incomes are excluded. Moreover, improving the general tax base of a city upon the backs of retirees and persons of modest income is most certainly not what the founders had in mind by the term "public".

The project moved forward upon a 5–4 decision of June 23, 2005 but it was not Antonin Scalia but Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote the majority decision favoring the City of New London. Stevens was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion was, in fact, an apologia, a rationale for the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. In other words, big corporations, like Pfizer, who wish to displace you need only meet a very minimum and exceedingly vague standard to displace you from your home: rational relation.
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.

The city, it was decided, need not prove that the development would, in fact, benefit the entire community in any measurable way. The corporate entities coveting your property need not spell out concrete, tangible ways in which the community as a whole would benefit. The city need not prove that merely increasing the tax base benefits the community as a whole. Nor was the city required to prove that the alleged improvement was not offset by new liabilities and/or services.
In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas."

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." When interpreting the Constitution, we begin with the unremarkable presumption that every word in the document has independent meaning, "that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added." Wright v. United States, 302 U. S. 583, 588 (1938). In keeping with that presumption, we have read the Fifth Amendment's language to impose two distinct conditions on the exercise of eminent domain: "the taking must be for a 'public use' and 'just compensation' must be paid to the owner." Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash., 538 U. S. 216, 231-232 (2003).

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al, Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The project is most certainly not a public asset nor is it used by the public in the same way that a public park, a public lake or a municipal auditorium is used. This project was not essentially different from the huge Allen Center, Greenway Plaza, Cullen Center, or the mega Houston Center projects in Houston. The "public" may work in the offices, patronize shops, and sit in open spaces. The public may walk from Enron to One Allen Center to Hyatt Regency --but to claim that these are "public" projects is absurd.
In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here.

The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city." App. to Pet. for Cert. 5.

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al, Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

It is reasonable to assume that some jobs were created initially. But construction is temporary. How many net jobs were created, if any? How many long term jobs were created? How does the public benefit and in what ways? Did the public benefit from the impact on the environment? What criteria are used to determine public benefit?

Those questions were not raised. Neither the city or the developers were required to put forward a program designed to generally improve the infrastructure, the schools, the water supply or any number of amenities expected of a community in which all citizens contribute monetarily and in which all citizens have a stake. Nor was the city required to prove that the displacement of long time residents would not prove of greater liability to the city. This looked like a private development by private enterprise for private enterprise and benefiting private enterprise. The public be damned!
The public use requirement, in turn, imposes a more basic limitation, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of another private person. This requirement promotes fairness as well as security. Cf. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 336 (2002) ("The concepts of 'fairness and justice' ... underlie the Takings Clause").

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al, Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The role played by the city of New London was simply that of making it easier for the big pharmaceutical company to get the land it needed --cheap!

The decision was a cop out and I am ashamed to say that the so-called "liberals" on the court were hoaxed. Certainly, wealth does not trickle down and I dare say none of the said "public benefits" of this development have "trickled down" to the "public", the residents of New London and most certainly not to the original residents of the coveted property.

It is also a safe bet that the residents were compensated only at existing market value --not at projected market value after the construction of fancy, schmancy hotels, conference centers, jacuzzis and condos. Sadly, this is a case in which the corporate rich coveted the lands of those less fortunate and schemed a way to get good property cheap. And they did it with municipal complicity. This is a case in which big business and crooked government screwed the people. Tragically, this case is just a milestone on the road to corporate fascism.

An update:

Shock and Tasers in New Orleans

By Naomi Klein, HuffingtonPost.com, December 22, 2007

Readers of my book The Shock Doctrine know that one of the most shameless examples of disaster capitalism has been the attempt to exploit the disastrous flooding of New Orleans to close down that city's public housing projects, some of the only affordable units in the city. Most of the buildings sustained minimal flood damage, but they happen to occupy valuable land that make for perfect condo developments and hotels.

The final showdown over New Orleans public housing is playing out in dramatic fashion right now. The conflict is a classic example of the "triple shock" formula at the core of the doctrine.

- First came the shock of the original disaster: the flood and the traumatic evacuation.

- Next came the "economic shock therapy": using the window of opportunity opened up by the first shock to push through a rapid-fire attack on the city's public services and spaces, most notably it's homes, schools and hospitals.

-Now we see that as residents of New Orleans try to resist these attacks, they are being met with a third shock: the shock of the police baton and the Taser gun, used on the bodies of protesters outside New Orleans City Hall yesterday. ...

From Le Thé Chez Vierotchka: The Frontline - R.I.P.


21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Len-

Just the other day you were talking to me of dissent and being sent to the counselor and I replied that you were lucky you werent in college now or youd be tased and arrested.

Or in Nixon's time, Billyclubbed or outright killed like at Kent State in 1970.

Like clockwork, as spelled out in Naomi Wolf's book: The Shock and Awe directed at Iraq in 2003 is now being directed at us, but the Shock is tasers and the Awe is that they are getting away with it...

Unknown said...

bremertongreg said...

The Shock and Awe directed at Iraq in 2003 is now being directed at us, but the Shock is tasers and the Awe is that they are getting away with it...

Indeed...this story almost slipped through the cracks. One of the networks did a story about the case before the decision. As far as I know, there was no follow up. I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't seen a one line comment in --of all things --a "freeper" forum. To me that's additional proof that the "establishment" doesn't really give a damn who they screw. I've actually felt sorry for smug Republicans. I knew that sooner or later the political establishment would screw them over as well we (gasp?) "liberals".l

Anonymous said...

Existentialist-

The very continued existence of notably Justice Souter's Supreme Court (all the other resident jurists are but mental gnomes and intellectually buttonless button holes), but in fact just about every governmental entity from local government to federal government, to the United Nations; all are quickly coming into question as what we know is the ubiquitousness of certainly-not-progress continues to plod along inexoribly taking an ever increasing toll upon so many ridiculous suppositions incorrectly posited when then wrongly assumed as veritable in an empirical euphoric delusion directly attributable to notions of the Rights of Man.

What philosophic quackery abounds!

There is but one right every human being has, and too few know of it.

The very existence of every court and these other like entities, each with so much that is fetid and distasteful on their plate seems increasingly questionable.

Survival seems a question of whether in weight and measures it will not, or, in fact it will be seen as a great and glorious day when the Supreme Court Building is blown up with all the justices inside, like so many other days when other governmental buildings take on a similarly cratered posture and appearance.

Fewer today have very little doubt that it is our own governments that are currently creating all these terrorist events in a vile and deceitful effort to maintain control to fill their ill-perceived and incredulous needs.

But then at the same time I also understand human nature to be the ultimate arbiter of our ever so tentative human reality.

And it is growing increasingly clear to the public knowledge base that surely it was our own government. It was they then wholly complicit and even the instigating catalyst in the 9-11 event of so many aforehand prayers and afterward untoward usages.

As such, home-grown American terrorism will rise to seek a popular vengeance of its own from the ashes of a collective national humiliation.

Ah! Nationalism!

Who then would wish strongly enough to prevail that might want to see any of these civic intitutions survive?

None, but those who would put their heads willingly upon the chopping table of the guillotine before the man wearing broad leather suspenders the black and hooded mask of a very popular judgment.

Usually they are not willingly going to their due though.

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher

Unknown said...

Don, you are right. Quackery, indeed, abounds...but when "liberal" justices switch sides with known idiots, all bets are off. I thought Bush v Gore the very, very worst decision since Dred Scott and rightly blamed the five idiot majority. This decision is worrisome. It means that there is no refuge to found in the work of Justice Stevens et al.

Anonymous said...

You have completely missed the argument in Kelo. The city of New London did, in fact, very strongly make the argument that the public as a whole would benefit from redevelopment of the waterfront area. I don't know if you've ever been to New London, but it's a pretty gritty, depressed post-industrial town. The crime rate and unemployment rate are both very high. The city thought, quite reasonably, that building an office, shopping, and housing complex on the waterfront (near the train station) would lure business to the area and help provide jobs to the community, raise property values all over the city, and cut down on crime.

It was NOT just a condo development, and the entire argument hinged on that point. Read the opinions before you comment on them. Free speech is great, but it comes with the responsibility to use it wisely.

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

You have completely missed the argument in Kelo. The city of New London did, in fact, very strongly make the argument that the public as a whole would benefit from redevelopment of the waterfront area.

I am sure that they did and I am also sure that some were sincere. I happen to disagree. My article raises the question: was the "public" interest, in fact, truly served by utilizing the power of imminent domain to confiscate private property and turning it over to other private interests --a violation of the Fifth Amendment on its face?

That the city may disagree doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It merely means that they disagree and I would have been surprised if they did not.

I don't know if you've ever been to New London, but it's a pretty gritty, depressed post-industrial town. The crime rate and unemployment rate are both very high.

Did either New London or Pfizer demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt just HOW building condos for rich folk would address the social problems you raise? If so, I couldn't find it in either the transcript of the network mini doc, nor was it to be found in the SCOTUS decision. How many new and real jobs were created after construction was completed? Can the public use the new development in the same way that they use a park or some other public facility? You apparently live there. You tell me!

My point remains --if that property is solely the property of Pfifzer and, further, if the citizens of New London have no access to it in ways that publics normally have access to publicly owned developments, then the Fifth Amendment was flouted.

Honestly --we've come to the point in this country when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights means squat! Is America dead? If so, then let's be honest with the kids in school. Tell them that its no use reading the Constitution anymore because no one seems to have any use for it anymore.

One might consider emigrating.

In Houston, there was a perfectly respectable if not fashionable neighborhood near the SW Freeway. Some big money wanted to build a city within a city on that property, an area roughly the size of downtown Chicago. The difference is the developers did not CON the city into doing their dirty work for them. They bought up the property at market value. The homeowners could even be said to have benefited from the sale of their homes. They were not "condemned" and told to move out, make way for the fascists. And that's in Houston, for chrissakes, a city that never turned down a chance to throw up a fancy development.

It was NOT just a condo development, and the entire argument hinged on that point. Read the opinions before you comment on them. Free speech is great, but it comes with the responsibility to use it wisely.

You might practice what you preach. Try posting some of the opinions of homeowners who told reporters that they were perfectly happy in their lakeside homes. Secondly, read every word of the SCOTUS decision in which were published the opinions of the justices on both sides.

SadButTrue said...

It seems almost a moot point to be discussing eminent domain when the banks will soon be acquiring homes through the twin miracles of the housing bubble and sub-prime mortgages.

Shakespeare had one of his characters say 'first we'll kill all the lawyers.' I think maybe the bankers deserve first place on the chopping block. In fact the lawyers are belatedly raising objections to the decline of the rule of law under the Bu$hCo™ regime. I guess they finally realized that their profession has no future if everyone realizes that the game is fixed.

Anonymous said...

You say the public doesn't have access to a shopping complex the way it has access to lots of other "traditional" uses of public domain. But how does the public have access to a railroad or canal, the #1 historic example of the use of eminent domain? I can't put my car on the train tracks, and I can't even put my own train on the tracks if I were to have one. The public has "access" to those goods through their economic value, just the same way that the public in New London benefits from the economic development of a shopping/housing/office complex. If anything, the benefit is MORE direct in New London--in the case of a railroad the train might pass right through town without stopping, but you know that office workers have to eat lunch, buy gas, shop for flowers, etc.

Anonymous said...

It seems almost a moot point to be discussing eminent domain when the banks will soon be acquiring homes through the twin miracles of the housing bubble and sub-prime mortgages.

SBT, the banks are facing some problems here. Deutsche Bank recently failed to grab the properties of defaulting mortgage payers because the only paperwork they had were CDO’s -- Collateralized Debt Obligations. Someone conveniently forgot to transfer all the mortgages to the banks when the CDOs were being written up and now a judge in Ohio has said the banks can't claim the homes because they don't have legal proof of ownership! In the words of Nelson from the Simpsons "Har! Har!" It will be interesting to see how big a problem this is, but I can't imagine it will go down well with the shareholders.

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

You say the public doesn't have access to a shopping complex the way it has access to lots of other "traditional" uses of public domain. But how does the public have access to a railroad or canal, the #1 historic example of the use of eminent domain? I can't put my car on the train tracks, and I can't even put my own train on the tracks if I were to have one. The public has "access" to those goods through their economic value, just the same way that the public in New London benefits from the economic development of a shopping/housing/office complex

Indeed, and there remain objections on those very grounds. In Houston, the creation of a mass transit system upon existing tracks was opposed --successfully --on for that very reason. A system of "trains" are being constructed now but along easements already owned by the transit authority.

Even so, "public" transportation is essentially different than seizing a private home in order to give it to other private (as opposed to governmental) entities (in this case corporate) is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on its face.

If anything, the benefit is MORE direct in New London--in the case of a railroad the train might pass right through town without stopping, but you know that office workers have to eat lunch, buy gas, shop for flowers, etc.

Respectfully, that is not the issue. The "public" often benefit from private ownership. I benefit from the privately held store next door and shop there. But that does NOT means that the city council can seize my home so that the privately held store can build a new wing where I live! And to think so is absurd. We might as well all just turn everything over to the corporations now.

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

You say the public doesn't have access to a shopping complex the way it has access to lots of other "traditional" uses of public domain. But how does the public have access to a railroad or canal, the #1 historic example of the use of eminent domain? I can't put my car on the train tracks, and I can't even put my own train on the tracks if I were to have one. The public has "access" to those goods through their economic value, just the same way that the public in New London benefits from the economic development of a shopping/housing/office complex

Indeed, and there remain objections on those very grounds. In Houston, the creation of a mass transit system upon existing tracks was opposed --successfully --for that very reason. A system of "trains" are being constructed now but along easements already owned by the transit authority. The transit authority is a public entity. It is NOT a private corporation like Pfizer.

Even so, "public" transportation differs essentially from seizing a private home in order to give it to other private entities. Doing so is a violation of the Fifth Amenmend which reads:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You write...

If anything, the benefit is MORE direct in New London--in the case of a railroad the train might pass right through town without stopping, but you know that office workers have to eat lunch, buy gas, shop for flowers, etc.

Respectfully, that is not the issue. The "public" often benefit from private ownership. I benefit from the privately held store next door and shop there. But that does NOT mean that the city council can seize my home so that the privately held store can build a new wing where I live! And to think so is absurd. We might as well all just turn everything over to the corporations now.

Anonymous said...

Big business and gov't (all branches) go hand-in-hand. After all, corporations and gov't are merely quid-pro-quo whorehouses sold to the highest bidder. When the gov't needs illegal wire-taps, Verizon and Sprint allow them secret rooms to listen in on calls. When Haliburton (and KBR) need more revenue, the gov't hands out no-bid contracts. When the gov't dislikes literature, Amazon and Wikipedia ban the book America Deceived (book) . We The People had our gov't (and our land) sold out from beneath us.

Anonymous said...

Len-

You said that youd like to hear a follow-up to the Florida Taser incident?

No media outlet has not followed up except one, one with the balls to get 'er done...Hustler!!!
March 2008 issue, pg 121:

"Andrew Meyer, the tased kid eventually caved in to pressure by the University of Florida and Meyer issued an apology to UF, UF President J. Bernard Machen and the school's police department in exchange for being allowed to stay in school and no criminal charges being brought against him if he completes an 18 months probation."


WHAT? He appologized for being tased for exercising free speech? This kid is JUST the pussy that everybody thought he was by crying, "Dont tase me bro."

If I was him, I would have quit school, went to another school and sued their asses off...they must have had his balls in a vice to get him to cave so easily...so much for freedom of speech!!!

Anonymous said...

How do you deal with Midkiff v. Hawaii Housing Authority? It's a Supreme Court case about the state of Hawaii taking land from large land owners and selling it to individuals. The Supreme Court said the transfer was OK because the few large landowners in Hawaii were acting like corporations and charging monopoly rants to small landowners.

Under your theory that either land must be publicly managed or accessible to the public (or perhaps both?), that would be unconstitutional. But the case was the exact opposite facts of this case--the government was taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Do you come out the same way there, where the Hawaii state government asserted an economic reason to take from the rich and give to the poor?

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

How do you deal with Midkiff v. Hawaii Housing Authority?

If your characterization of the facts of the case are correct, it is not entirely analogous. I would oppose Hawaii doing so but, as the cases are not analogous, my argument would, of course, differ.

Anonymous said...

How can you say that there's no relationship between Kelo and Midkiff? In Midkiff the court said "look, we're going to defer to the democratically-elected legislature when they decide what's good for an area" instead of getting picky about it. So, there they transferred from rich to poor for economic development. In Kelo the court said "we're still going to defer to the democratically-elected legislature when they decide what's good for an area" and the transfer happened to be from poor to rich for economic development.

In the absence of any actual evidence of corruption, the two cases are nearly identical, with the sole difference of the direction of the transfer. If you think Midkiff was constitutional (not a good idea or a bad idea, but constitutional) then you have to admit Kelo was constitutional as well. If you think Midkiff was not constitutional then you have to admit that this isn't about big corporations versus little guys, it's about a general principle of deference to legislatures. Deferring to the legislature might be right or wrong, but Midkiff proves that it's not about which side the big corporation is on.

Unknown said...

What can you expect when they are not hiding the fact at all that they are trying to abolish the Justice Deptpartment filling it with crooks that are against the Constitution?

Anonymous said...

@Zena --

What does the Justice Department have to do with this? Kelo was a case about a LOCAL government exercising the power of the eminent domain. The Justice Department didn't plan the project, didn't approve the project, and didn't litigate the project. The Justice Department had nothing to do with anything. Same for New Orleans -- again, a LOCAL government is taking action. Get your facts before you sling accusations.

Unknown said...

anonymous,

The article is about Kelo. If the facts as YOU have stated them are correct, then the two situations are NOT analogous. But --then again, maybe those aren't the facts of the case. My response, as you most certainly noticed, were conditional upon your representation. My case is about Kelo. Period! I consider the taking of private property for the benefit of any thing but the public interest to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment on its face. What is the standard by which public interest is determined?

In Kelo, the justices LOWERED THE BAR. The standard they came up with in Kelo is "rational relation". What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I will wager, the justices themselves are not be able to answer that question. They most certainly did not answer that question in Kelo itself. I read it. It's a sloppy decision. It's bad law. Moreover, under that exceedingly vague standard, any corporation can CON any municipality into condemning and confiscating for private use anyone's property at anytime for any reason.

"Rational relation" is absurdly imprecise. The decision, in effect, reduces property owners to mere custodians of a property at the pleasure of the state. That --I believe --to be an odious outcome whether one is conservative or liberal.

Anonymous said...

Seems like the people of the United States need to throw in their lot with the rest of humanity in the Global South as we share the same common predators.

The following is an excerpt from an article: http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/11/re-gathering-storm.html

and while it addresses the nations presently slated to be torn asunder in the so called 'arc of crises', as this Supreme Court decision is testimony, all humanity is in the same boat at the hands of the hierarchy of the world's ruling elite. It is only a matter of time when "affluent Global North-West" will only include its handful of the richest while its peoples now still enjoying vast disproportionate luxories in comparison to the rest of the planet will be brought down to share the fate of plunderous misery rather equitably!

Only stratgic and tactical 'full spectrum alliances' transpiring among the minnows now can neutralize the predatory impulses of the handful of the ruling elite whose only overt face is today the neo-con 'hectoring hegemons', but whose power-base is entirely derived from the 'new rulers of the world' of which they form an integral part.

This decision of the Supreme Court and many other hints continually occuring throughout America should be a wakeup call for its slumbersome majority peoples!


begin quote:

The 'arc of crises', defined since the Berlin Wall fell - to redraw these borders in precisely the same interests as Mubashir Hasan notes (as reported in the Dawn article): "... It wanted an elected government of millionaires under civil and military establishment to serve its interests and those of millionaires in Pakistan...", except it is not only true for Pakistan but in the entire 'arc of crisis'.

All of it is together serving the ruling interests of a handful of very elite multi-billionaire ruling class worldwide in the natural culmination of this pyramid path into a "one world government" by the world's ruling elite on the top.

We already see the world's financial control exclusively in their grubby hands – and these already transcend national boundaries – money can already come and go across geographies in the bare fleeting of a butterfly's wings, and most of the developmental economics and national policies of nations in the entire Global South are already entirely beholden to Western arm-twisting institutions like the WB and IMF and their sister organizations that are entirely dominated by the same ruling elite.

Their multi-millionaire henchman in the developing nations methodically implementing the deftly crafted neoliberal policies and trade and commerce laws favoring the global corporate interests of their multi-billionaire masters - the new rulers of the world that transcend national boundaries.

It matters little what is used in local geographic governance - full freedom there to have any local administrative domain with its own local 'police force' which is where the once wondrous creation of the twentieth century, the nation-states, are headed in the 'one world government' of the twenty-first century that will command one set of global laws that matter and one global armed to the teeth military to enforce those laws and to keep the "American peace" - so long as the 'independent' local governance is contained in the macro box that sits on the same neoliberal train that is headed to only one destination.

The destination in which the rich and affluent Global North-West will harvest the poverty stricken but resource rich Global South-East with the help of the local indigenous ruling elite.

This isn't a speculation at all but entirely rooted in empiricism as can be gleaned by the systematic privatization impetus and theft of the public commons of almost every developing nation under the arm twisting agendas of various instruments of hegemony!

And this is all 'legal' - just as our PCO and our illustrious leadership is now 'legal'.

This emphasis on 'legal sanction' is least understood by the vast polity in the developing nations, including our own, for it is indeed the graft of the West!

'The rule of Law' - yes the laws made by the 'emperor' and duly approved by the 'parliament', the 'judiciary', and all systems of 'democracy' - must be followed!

The legal rape of nations and the people!


end quote

Unknown said...

Anon seems very 'prickly' on this subject...me thinks the person protests too much. What I am saying is that this sickness of corruption has it's tenacles into the very heart of our Justice system. It has everything to do with it, as the fact is, if our Justice system is entirely destroyed the rest of our laws and government will crumble like so much tissue paper. And I think that if anyone is 'SLINGING' something, it's anon.