Mon. Aug 8th, 2022

Title quote via MSNBC from a pro-democracy demonstrator celebrating in Cairo’s Tahrir (Liberation) Square following the resignation of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, Feb. 11, 2011.

The US media reported yesterday that Hosni Mubarak had finally resigned, the message conveyed to the world by his Vice President and Torturer-in-Chief, Omar Suleiman. Of course, the pro-democracy demonstrators wildly celebrated Mubarak’s resignation – think of it: in 18 days they had toppled a tyrant without resorting to violence, even in the face of provocation from Mubarak’s street thugs and vicious secret police — but I also thought it was interesting that Hosni is now ensconced in his estate on the Red Sea, surrounded by razor wire and heavily guarded. Some may interpret this arrangement as protecting Mubarak’s corrupt hide, but it could also be seen as a prison from which he could be quickly transferred to a jet bound out of the country, forced into exile by the praetorian guard now ‘protecting’ him from his own people. Then again, perhaps they are merely holding the deposed dictator for trial – the people have demanded Hosni be held responsible for his brutal reign, and they want to know where all the money went. In the wake of the news that Swiss banks have frozen Mubarak’s bank accounts purportedly containing billions in purloined US dollars, they just might find out.

While we celebrate with the Egyptian people emerging from 30 years of darkness under Mubarak, it must be said that, now that Mubarak’s gone, only a part of Egypt’s journey to a free democracy is complete; next, the pro-democracy forces will have the hard work of purging the government of Mubarak’s corrupt cronies, if they won’t leave willingly, and pressuring the military, which has dissolved parliament and taken control, to allow a democratically-elected civilian government to flourish. On the latter score, it’s heartening to note that while the top officers are Mubarak appointees, the rank-and-file in the military are conscripts closer to the demonstrators than the generals, and the scenes of peaceful protestors happily riding on the tanks US foreign aid purchased should have brought that point home to the brass hats. Without the lower ranks solidly behind them, there can be no military coup d’etat.

Meanwhile, public crackpot Glenn Beck has been regurgitating bizarre conspiracy theories alleging that the overthrow of the vile Mubarak is part of some kind of dingbat Marxist-Muslim ‘New World Order’ plot with US progressives to bring about an Islamic Caliphate that will rule the Middle East and Europe. Fox News’ squirrel-bait embarrassment apparently believes freedom and democracy are fine for white Americans, but should be off-limits to darker-skinned Egyptians. (Perhaps this is why his TV audience has dropped by half in the past year – most of us, whatever our political leanings, think democracy, individual rights and liberty are good things for the world.) However, Beck is almost right – there does seem to be a New World Order brewing, but not the evil Commie Caliphate he imagines. Instead, all across Africa and the Middle East, from Tunisia to Iran, the citizenry is yearning for secular government of, by and for the people, dedicated to equality and justice, with the same rights and freedoms Americans are supposed to enjoy. Of course, to corporate scambots like Rupert Murdoch’s rodeo clown, the idea of self-rule and freedom from foreign exploitation is anathema, and the events in Tunisia and Egypt should be sending a chill up spines in the other corporate suites of the world; these non-violent revolutions were also about economic justice as well as getting rid of tyranny, an economic justice the corporate autocrats despise and fear. Whatever meaningless label the Becksters want to hang on it, it is not religious in nature and neither is it some silly strain of Islamic Communism – it is the same thing Americans fought for over two centuries ago: freedom from distant powers and homegrown despots taking your money and deciding your fate without your consent.

© 2011 RS Janes. LTSaloon.org.

By OEN

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joyce Lovelace
Joyce Lovelace
11 years ago

I read this article in The Nation last week. Wow. It’s hard to believe the lunacy we are up against. The violent spewings of some of Beck’s fan base is really worrying.
http://www.thenation.com/article/157904/stealing-constitution
This essay is adapted from a work in progress, tentatively titled Unhinged: Reclaiming Our Constitution From the Lunatic Right.
 
“In October I spent a crisp Saturday in the windowless basement of a suburban Virginia church attending a seminar on “The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution.” I was told the secrets the “elite” have concealed from the people: the Constitution is based on the Law of Moses; Mosaic law was brought to the West by the ancient Anglo-Saxons, who were probably the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel; the Constitution restores the fifth-century kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons.” ….

“The instructor was Lester Pearce, an Arizona judge and the brother of state senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law”

Ken Carman
Admin
11 years ago

the First Amendment establishes “The Religion of America,” which is “nondenominational” Christianity.

(From the link.)

Just the opposite, of course. Typical. Expected. These folks are far more dangerous than most Lefties will ever admit. And they consistently, persistently, underestimate them.

Wiki

T

he amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”,

What part of “prohibit” and “establishment” don’t they understand? More like refuse to understand?

House majority leader Eric Cantor supports a constitutional amendment to permit the state legislatures to repeal federal laws.

Promptly pissing on the graves of Union soldiers who died in the Civil War.

Scalia… recently said that the Equal Protection Clause provides no protection for women against discrimination because when it was adopted “nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination.”

Don’t you understand? That’s only for Supreme Court justices to use to decide a presidential election. And then only if it;s a fellow Reich Wing crank.

That seems elementary, but the right claims that the Constitution was designed to prevent America from abandoning the tallow-candle purity of the Anglo-Saxon past. Any innovative government program, the argument runs, must be unconstitutional, or the framers would have predicted it in so many words.

Love to see what proof they have of the first, except the compromise when counting African Americans.

The second is a common misconception held by biblical literalists. Scratch “misconception” in many cases. “Lie” they say over and over hoping it will take root. The Constitution was never meant to be some oracle from on high never meant to be altered, changed and especially mention everything legal, or not. It’s an open ended document: the ability of citizens in the future to change it by various methods, especially amendments.

Conservatives also claim that the Constitution was set up to restrain the federal government.

Skipping over a little failed thing called the Articles of Confederation that made strengthening the role of the Fed again, are we?

The original Constitution prohibited oppressive practices, and the Bill of Rights added other restrictions.

Interesting to note that some of our forefathers objected to the Bill of Rights because they thought it would make some idiots think the Constitution had to mention something specifically for it to be Constitutional. Of course, as 300 years of having a Constitution closes in no “idiots” would believe that, right?

But the document as a whole is much more concerned with what the government can do—not with what it can’t.

Bingo!!!

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x