‘COMMUNITARIANISM: A THREE LEVEL CON JOB’ and ‘CAFTA, the EU, & Communitarian Law’ by Niki Raapana (2006)

I. COMMUNITARIANISM: A THREE LEVEL CON JOB

By Niki Raapana
March 28, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Twenty-first century communitarianism is a philosophical, political, and legal theory. It combines every opposite theory in the history of the world. It’s a projected vision for a new global order by the year 2020. It’s what all of us should be socially evolving into.

Communitarians borrow ideas from ancient religions, Plato, Marx, Jefferson, Buber and Madame Blavatsky. Studying their theory is a nightmare. It’s unfocused and vague. And, this new theory is nothing like what Fredric Bastiat called a valid scientific inquiry, as in one that “proceeds by way of observation.” Their new ideas are unoriginal and their methods are unscientific. We’re being led into a solution which “like astrology and alchemy, proceeds by way of imagination.” (Fredric Bastiat, Economic Harmonies)

Communitarian thinking actually reminds me a lot of the “alien theory.” Communitarians base all their ideas in rituals, ancient languages, and beliefs only their adepts understand. Like the most scholarly alien theorists, their ideas use facts that prove everything except whether or not aliens actually exist. As social evolutionists, communitarian gurus claim their best evidence lies in how many people feel their vibes and embrace their values.

They’re good cons; communitarianism is introduced as a multi-layered, mystical illusion.

The unscientific logic that holds up the emerging supra-national system was not designed to be easily explained. It was designed to be misunderstood on purpose. That way, when opponents discuss any one layer of the big con it makes little sense to the uninitiated.

The communitarian theory provides justification for each level of the system. It justifies governance over the world’s human community. In order for us to fully understand their law, we must also be just a little familiar with every level of the communitarian’s games. The emerging global government’s communitarian foundation rests on three main pillars.

The three pillars for their triangular ideology are: philosophy, politics, and law.

Philosophy

The communitarian solution is the ultimate synthesis in the 1812 Hegelian dialectic.[1] Hegel posed that conflicts between opposites naturally leads mankind into embracing a form of philosophical, fascist perfection. The 1848 Communist Manifesto expanded the Hegelian philosophy into dialectical materialism. The Marxist’s natural conflict between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ justifies riots and assassinations. It was modified in 1884 to include covert, seditious activities. This is the Marxist’s “ends justify the means” theory. Hegels’ and Marx’s ideas were the theoretical basis for Stalin’s Soviet-Russian police state and Hitler’s National Socialism; both practiced eugenics against “lesser peoples.”

Politics

Political communitarianism was introduced to the world as ‘The Third Way’ in the 1990s. It’s also called ‘participatory democracy,’ ‘global democratic change,’ ‘bi-partisan,’ ‘centrist,’ ‘radical middle,’ ‘balanced middle,’ ‘socio-economics,’ ‘Glasnost-Perestroika’ and other vague terms (like community minded, Faith-Based, “new sense of purpose,” etc.). In the USA, political communitarianism was the theory used by the internationally funded Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Some of us may have heard this was Clinton’s “party.”[2]

The Third Way was often written about and discussed while Bill Clinton was in office. In the UK it was harshly criticized by opponents of Prime Minister Tony Blair. But when President Bush took office and was identified in the Washington Post as being himself a communitarian, this news was totally ignored by almost everyone in the USA. The fact that both U.S. presidential candidates in 2004 were communitarians was not reported. (In the coming 2008 elections the only way communitarian politics will become part of the public debate is if American voters get to ask their candidates about their “values.”)

Law

In my first article I explained how the US Congressional adoption of CAFTA placed our nation under supreme community law. Many readers asked for more information about where to study this new law. A few were absolutely outraged it’s not taught at every public school. Here, we’re taught we’re so free we export our freedom to the world. Then we find out we don’t even study our own global-to-local legal system.

A communitarian ruling balances the rights of individuals and privately-owned property and businesses (formerly protected by national or constitutional law) against the rights of the “community.” Every nation included in the United Nations has been modifying their local political, economic, and legal system to adopt communitarian principles since 1992.

The brutal fact is, every nation, including the USA, adopts programs “to make political and legal internal reforms.” From Portugal to Greece to Slovakia, nations are integrating their sovereignty into the EU. Under the developing EU Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina, “BiH will transfer a share of its sovereignty to the European Community for supremacy of communitarian law and its application in all EU member states.”

In Italy, Communitarianism is defined as including and adopting the norms of EU law under Annex I, Article 41 of Communitarian Law 2001 (1 March 2002, No. 39). Every nation joining the EU is training administrators to apply and execute communitarian legal mandates in their home states. The Serbia and Montengro European Integration Office offers a program for “Harmonizators- law experts that will have to be well acquainted with the structure of communitarian law, type, and nature of the EU decisions and models of their implementation into the national legislature.”

European Communitarian Law has been a program of study for over twenty years. Araceli Mangas Martin, a Professor of International Public Law and International Relations at the Universidad de Salamanca wrote “European Communitarian Law and Spanish Law” (Madrid, Ed. Tecnos, 2nd ed) in 1987, and then became a Professor ‘Jean Monnet’ of Communitarian Law in 1991. Marco Balboni is a Prof. of Communitarian Law at the University of Bologna. Jose Antonio Sanchez Quintanilla, Secretary General of the IDEA has a diploma in European Communitarian Law from the University of Seville. Manuel Estella Hoyos, President of the Courts of Castilla and Leon has a BL (Law) from the University of Salamanca in 1962, majoring in matters related to European Communitarian Law in 1985, 86 and 87.

In other regions we see the same ongoing training for small informed groups. Africa offered a Fellowship Training Programme in International Law for French-Speaking African Countries at the Institut des Relations Internationales du Cameroun (IRIC) Yaound�, Cameroon in January 2002:

“In cooperation with the Camerooninan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Centre of Studies and Research of International and Communitarian Law (CEDIC), Yaoundï, and the University of Yaound II, the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs and UNITAR jointly organized a two-week training for 22 participants from different French-Speaking African countries (16 fellowship recipients and 6 trainees from the host country), including junior and mid-level government officials as well as representatives from law faculties of universities.”

In Latin America the progression toward community governance and international communitarian philosophy is part of every economic summit and agreement. Mexico’s Instituto de la Judicatura Federal published an essay, which:

“analyzes the way in which the Court of Justice has controlled the principle of the supremacy of communitarian law over domestic laws, as well as over the principle of uniformity in its application, on the basis of international in[s]truments, common constitutional traditions and general principles of communitarian law. In addition, the author explains the role of national courts in the determination of constitutional limits to the process of integration, mainly in what concerns issues such as fundamental rights and the power to determine the jurisdiction limits of communitarian institutions. Lastly, the author stresses the need to establish a structure of the constitutional kind as a useful tool for the efficacy of the process of integration.”

And again, in the Cartegena Agreement between Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Per� y Venezuela, we discover what is expected from a nation state which is integrating itself:

“How that interrelation or complementarity between national and communitarian law must be given, is an issue that this Court wishes to deal as follows. The provision on article 144 of Decision 344, establishes what some legal writers denominate “rule of closing” (Mat�as Alem�n), according to which, it is left to the legislation of the member countries, the legislative solution to situations not contemplated by the communitarian law, due to the fact that, it is possible that all the cases susceptible of juridical regulation have not been foreseen by it. It is necessary to point out that, in the application of this figure, the intern legislations of each country may not establish requirements, additional requisites or dictate regulations that might, in one way or another, conflict with the communitarian law or restrict essential aspects regulated by it in such a way that represent, for example, a lesser protection for the rights contemplated by the communitarian ruling. (…)”

Communitarian architects have long insisted that selfish claims to individual and national sovereignty must be balanced against the rights of the “community.” They overstress an urgent need for a more powerful global community government. They insist they must have legal and armed force. It’s necessary to protect community rights across the world.

The difficulty for communitarian strategists arises in countries where reigning government officials do not have the authority to relinquish national sovereignty to an international or regional system of laws. This could explain why so few lawyers in the United States are familiar with the legalities of supranational agreements.

The United States Constitution cannot be legally modified or changed without the legal constitutional channels required for ratification of Amendments. Under the U.S. Constitution, states reserve all other rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the individual citizens of each state. State constitutions are the seat of power in the USA.

All international treaties and agreements that conflict with U.S. Constitutional Law or State constitutional law have no power or authority over the American people, whose liberty is the only basis for a legitimate government agency in the U.S. The solution to this dilemma appears to be solved by secrecy and by not informing the American voting populace that agreements are being signed and adopted in violation of Constitutional law.

The entire world is already familiar with the armed forces portion of the communitarian’s plans. Nobody doesn’t know there’s a war going on. But, how often does the President go on TV and identify the war as part of a communitarian plan to rebuild the world? As far as I know he’s only done it once, during his State of the Union Address in January 2002.

Due to a media and education blackout in the USA, very few are aware of the depth and breadth of the law and training that supports the communitarian’s global armed forces. Only a tiny, elite group of Americans understands each level of communitarian thinking.

If nobody around you knows what it is, you can pretend to know it. It was designed to be lofty and vague. Tell inferiors your indefinable terms are standard operating procedure.

Attorneys across Europe, Russia, Latin America, Africa, Asia and China are preparing for the supranational-national integration, and for their roles as communitarian lawyers and judges. As foreign students progress, few Americans will have the necessary knowledge or legal educations to compete for international or local communitarian law positions.

However, global law enforcement is fully trained and armed with shared technology for the transition to an international communitarian system of government. There are graduate programmes that teach European law enforcement. This include CAFTA’s “basis of wider general theory mainly of the European communitarian law.”

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

In the United States, the new Community Policing Consortium is ensuring that the process in the new Northern American Region will proceed smoothly. Forward thinking elitist progressives and conservatives are smart to study the supranational communitarian system of law. Join Homeland SS. Why cling to outdated ideas of national sovereignty?

Note: Communitarian law, not defined as such in the U.S., is rarely (if ever) included in online English language law dictionaries. Internationally, it is defined under various (obscure) titles, such as Community Aquis, Community Law, the Code de raction interinstitutionnel, Le Systeme Judiciaire Communautaire, acquis communautaire, and Divided Sovereignty. In Greece, Communitarianism is called Marco Polo System geie. Communitarian law was added to wikipedia.com’s communitarianism page in 2005.

References

1. We published our anti-thesis online on December 19, 2003. What is the Hegelian dialectic? and The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking have been studied by laymen, scholars and academics from around the world. Our thesis remains undisputed.
2. In December 2005 the ACL website received a donation from European artist and poet Jan Theuninck to reproduce his painting, English title: The Third Way is No Way. We take this as a good sign that some Europeans haven’t forgotten the ultimate Third Way agenda. Mr. Theuninck’s abstract art hangs in some very prominent buildings in the Hague. He shares a new way of looking at the “red v. blue” dialectic
3. Law Sources: all the above citations and hundreds more community law links are posted at the ACL’s Communitarian Law page:

See also wikipedia.com’s community law page or join Amitai Etzioni’s communitarian law e-list at George Washington University for all the latest news and updates on the law.

2006 Niki Raapana- All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Niki Raapana was trained in government document research at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Raised by a career Army NCO, she traveled the U.S. most of her life. Her dad taught her it is every American’s job to defend the rights of people who are unable to defend themselves.

After her landlord complained that the city was out to steal his land, Niki agreed to study Seattle’s development plans for him in March 1999. In September 1999 she found out the city planned to do a lot more than steal Hugh’s land. She identified the Communitarian Network’s connection to the plans in March 2000.

Niki filed many public disclosure requests for Hugh Sisley and in the fall of 2001 the City of Seattle ceased actions against his properties based on Niki’s research. By 2002 she had provided 2500 documents for Dawson et. al. v. The City of Seattle et. al, a 4th Amendment lawsuit currently under consideration before the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

Niki co-founded the Anti-Communitarian League with her (then) teenage daughter Nordica, in April, 2001.

E-Mail: nikiraapana@gmail.com

II. CAFTA, THE EU & COMMUNITARIAN LAW PART 1 of 2

By Niki Raapana
January 25, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

How both parties sold America down the river
After wading through all the publications and websites representing both support and opposition for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-approved by the U.S. Congress July 2005), it’s astonishing to realize how very few of them bother to explain the legal foundation for the agreement. CAFTA, like most international trade agreements, is based entirely in the supremacy of communitarian law.

This isn’t Bush and Clinton quietly slipping in communitarian programs like Local Agenda 21 that bury communitarian laws deep inside hefty grants and incentives. The U.S. Congress has officially denounced their own Constitution as Supreme Law. When the United States Congress approved CAFTA they endorsed a regional trade agreement that places U.S. Constitutional Law below Communitarian Law. While communitarian law is without a doubt the most important legal topic in the world, American experts on both “sides” of the free trade arguments completely ignore it. Consequently, it’s the rare American who has any concept of how prevalent or powerful this new system of justice is.

The European Court of Justice is occassionally referred to as the Communitarian Court of Justice. CAFTA officials openly discuss using the EU as their model for communitarian case law. Communitarian Regulations govern the archiving of EU legal documents. The term communitarian law is in hundreds of online law journals. It’s taught in several foreign law schools and there are degreed law professors of Communitarian Law. The Jean Monet program sponsors symposiums on it at U.S. universities. The D.C. Communitarian Network sends out a communitarian law newsletter. It’s a widely understood term in Europe, Central, and South America. Still, Communitarian Law is so unfamiliar to U.S. Americans (and their attorneys) that most have never once heard the terms used.

One reason for its obscurity comes from the fact that communitarian law is also called Community Law, community aquis, and aquis communitaire. But another reason for its obscurity is the simple fact that globalists don’t want our people to know anything about it. The European Constitution was defeated at the polls by the Dutch and the French voters because of its supremacy of communitarian law. The last thing the communitarian supra-nationalists want to happen is for all of America to learn the whole truth about communitarian “free trade.” Remember, universities in England, Spain, Portugal, and Romania offer coursework and masters programs in Communitarian Law. Only a few elite American universities offer courses in communitarian law, and barely a handful of American students have ever studied it.

The vice-president of the EU Constitutional Convention sums it up nicely:

“One must act ‘as if’ in Europe: as if one wanted only very few things, in order to obtain a great deal. As if nations were to remain sovereign, in order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty. The Commission in Brussels, for example, must act as if it were a technical organism, in order to operate like a government … and so on, camouflaging and toning down. The sovereignty lost at national level does not pass to any new subject. It is entrusted to a faceless entity: NATO, the UN and eventually the EU. The Union is the vanguard of this changing world: it indicates a future of Princes without sovereignty. The new entity is faceless and those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected … That is the way Europe was made too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that they were being subjected to a higher power.

That is how the Court of Justice as a supra-national organ was born. It was a sort of unseen atom bomb, which Schuman and Monnet slipped into the negotiations on the Coal and Steel Community. That was what the ‘CSC’ itself was: a random mixture of national egotisms which became communitarian. I don’t think it is a good idea to replace this slow and effective method – which keeps national States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power – with great institutional leaps – Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble pieces of sovereignty up litle by little, avoiding brusque transitions from national to federal power. That is the way I think we will have to build Europe’s common policies…”

– Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, later Vice-President of the EU Constitutional Convention, interview with Barbara Spinelli, La Stampa, 13 July 2000. Posted in a great list of quotes compiled by Free Europe Blog.
How is it possible that Americans, with their “free press” and literate population are completely unfamiliar with the term communitarian law? The problem appears to be a constitutional issue over the definition of treason. Communitarian law is designed to over-rule all national law, including the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why do so many Americans flat out refuse to consider the possibility that current events resulting in federal legislation and Executive Orders are related? Communitarian laws balance individual rights against “safety” (as do the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act). This shows a pattern of thought, doesn’t it? Part of the problem is the American people don’t believe there are any more Hitlers or Stalins.

They believe communism “died” in the eighties, and that former evil colonial rulers all magically, spiritually evolved into nice, kind “helpers.” This amazing under-education promotes such a naive approach to modern politics that admitting the unknown is almost impossible for them. Indeed, many prefer to “shoot the messenger” rather than admit they somehow missed the most important legal development of the 20th century. The fact is, communitarian law and philosophy are so well hidden from the American people that many have accused this author of making the terms up as a part of my own personal “conspiracy theory.”

European voters, on the other hand, are much more familiar with the terms of the new agreements. Dutch and French voters rejected the European Constitution because of its basis in the supremacy of communitarian law. With a rare openness regarding the controversy, James Kanter reported in the International Herald Tribune on Sunday, January 1, 2006 that, “There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes,” he said, notably “an extension of communitarian law by the European court.” ( From Austria, ‘new thoughts’ for EU)

Besides CAFTA, many other “soft” communitarian legal agreements have been made between U.S. officials with international and supranational organizations. The U.S. has been governed by communitarian laws for decades. Communitarian legislation is before every legislative body in the country. Readers who’ve been studying the meaning of Sustainable Development will immediately recognise the true meaning of communitarian law. Communitarianism puts the rights of the community “at large” over the rights of the individuals living in the community. This is the entire foundation for anything communitarian. Global communitarians came to the U.S. to “shore up the moral, social and political environment.” They came to “balance” American’s selfish individualism (and outdated and dangerous nationalism) against their definition of the collective good.

Each member state choosing to join the supra-national organization must modify their national constitutions to accommodate communitarian principles. Communitarian Law balances the rights of individuals and nations against the rights of the “community.” It requires nations to make political and legal internal reforms. Communitarian law integrates nations into the global communitarian justice system. The term “community,” when used by global communitarians, can define everything from smallest rural area to the entire region, as in the “European Community.” Today the EU Communitarian Court is used as the model for all regional trade agreements in the works.

The United Nations is also based entirely in the supremacy of communitarian law. Communitarian law supports the mandates for sustainable and smart growth principles established in UN Local Agenda 21. Besides the communitarian supremacy of CAFTA and in other proposals for a North American Free Trade Agreement, there are also plans to create a communitarian code of justice for the Middle East.

Communitarian Community based Development is the structure for implementing the new system of law. Bush called it Re-Building Community when he explained the new War on Terror in February 2002, and he wasn’t kidding. The idea for re-building every community in the world under the control of a powerful community government is well underway in every nation. It’s being violently exported to Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and discussions have begun to export the law into the entire Middle East. It’s being quietly adopted by local stakeholder councils across the U.S. Everywhere, from Mexico to Peru, Serbia to Malaysia, the Philippines to Russia, China to the UK, the EU to Central America, all are in the process of subordinating national law under regional communitarian authority. No place in the entire world has been left behind.

The original American system, now much denigrated and ridiculed, was based entirely in the idea of protecting local markets from imperialist monopolies. When we “threw out the British,” we threw out their banker’s control over our trade, production and land. The U.S. federal government was later designed to protect our national borders from continual imperialist invasions. It was authorized to regulate trade and commerce between the free and independent states and to establish a national bank to coin American money. The bank had private investors but it was regulated by officials in the U.S. Government, who were responsible to the states. The first bank funded state banks who provided loans to build a transportation infrastructure, and it made small loans to small businessmen and cottage industries along the routes.

The plan was to make the U.S. entirely self-sustaining both economically and politically. We were working toward a balance between agriculture and industry, whereas after achieving it we would slowly begin to engage in foreign trade with equals. During those years, before taxes, the U.S. built up a huge surplus in the U.S. Treasury. The American national system worked so well here it was copied by almost every imperial colony during the first half of the 19th century. (The early 1800s could be described as the “Declaration of Independence” Days.) But that didn’t last long before the international bankers were back in control of everybody’s land.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Now we have the private corporations called the World Bank and the Federal Reserve. We have a progressive tax and an unfathomable national debt. Today the “idea” of a national system or a national bank is ridiculed as a capitalist, elitist idea. Protected trade and tariffs are regarded as selfish, anti-human sentiments. Individual rights are really just a barrier to peace and social justice. Private land is ecologically unsustainable. The communitarian banker’s plan is more “fair,” or you’re an uneducated buffoon. Click below for part two.

Click here for part —–> 2

References:

1, www.fas.usda.gov/itp/CAFTA/cafta.html
2, Why We Oppose Cafta by the Oakland Institute.
3, The Creation of a Communitarian System of International Law cyber.law.harvard.edu.
4, pdf-Harmonization and harmonizing measures in criminal law, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
5, Court Buttresses Eminent Domain: Local Governments Cleared to Take Private Property if Projects Promise Growth
6, Integration to the EU and Economic Transformation: State and Its Role on the Example of the Export-Promoting Policy by Marek Csabay
7, Presentation by Dr Jan Mazak, President of the Slovak Constitutional Court 21.10.2004.
8, University of Oradea Faculty of Law and Jurisprudence
9, From Aquamont to Berlaymont: On the Integration-Friendly Features of the Slovak Constitution by RADOSLAV PROCH�ZKA
10, EDUCATION IN EUROPEAN LAW AT THE POLICE ACADEMY OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
11, commlaw@hermes.gwu.edu
12, THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY* by Mattias Kumm and Victor Ferreres Comella.
13, Historical Archives Service of the European Commission “ARCHISplus (French ARChives HIStoriques) is the Historical Archives of the European Commission’s database which contains references to files of European institutions from their beginnings to today. It is extracted from an internal database, Archis, and includes those references only which are helpful to access historical files open to the public according to communitarian regulations pertaining to their archives (30 years rule).”

2006 Niki Raapana- All Rights Reserved

III. CAFTA, THE EU & COMMUNITARIAN LAW PART 2 of 2

By Niki Raapana
January 25, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Here’s how communitarian rulings create a new quality of life:

“Adams offered an illuminating example of the questions arising from the interaction between European institutions on the one hand and society at large on the other. Only keen observers of communitarian matters are aware that the European Court of Justice has been an active policy maker, in a role similar to that played by the U.S. Supreme Court after World War II. By enforcing on individual countries, sectors and firms the laws approved at the level of the European Community (now Union), the Court has profoundly affected long-standing national practices.

In the exemplary case chosen by Adams, the German beer market, regulated since the Middle Ages by strict purity laws, was suddenly thrown open to producers following looser practices. As typical of judicial decisions, the Court was not concerned with the question of what rules ensured the production of the best beer (provided no harm to consumers would ensue, of course); it merely weighed different legal principles against one another. The Court thus decided that the principle of free movement of goods and services in Europe trumped local German norms, because these de facto created a protected market for German producers.” The Euro: A New Currency for a New Millennium By Daniela Gobetti.

None of this is new. The European Commission tells us their Communitarian Court of Justice has established communitarian environmental case law precedent since 1957. Legal permission from the locally elected officials for enforcing new laws in rebuilt sustainable communities is almost always granted. It’s the rare Smart Growth Plan in the United States that wasn’t unanimously passed by states, counties and municipalities. Communitarian environmental law was the first major breakthrough back in the 1970s. By the 1990s every state in the U.S. had jumped on the bandwagon.

Communitarian environmental laws are supreme to any national law or individual right that conflicts with the collective rights of the member states included in supranational organizations. Regional justice centers have replaced City Halls and County Courts. Administrative Hearing and Review Boards replaced constitutional courts altogether. (Try to use the Bill of Rights to get your driver’s license back from the DMV.) Revised zoning violations and public nuisance abatements are used by government and NGO partners to assume control over private land. Eminent domain has been expanded to include “best use” policies. All American cities, towns, and rural areas have the exact same new Community Development agencies; they enforce all the exact same new communitarian laws.

United Nations Local Agenda 21 was adopted just before Clinton took office. The U.N. sponsored Bruntland Commission defined the new way to explain the principles of a communitarian system; communitarian law came to be defined as “sustainable development.” It mimicked Marxism’s motto of “each according to their need, each according to their ability.” UN Sustainable Development means to protect all resources for future generations and make everyone in the present quit making anything useful or productive that comes out of the earth. The whole theory is based on the idea that humans kill the planet by using its resources. [Must see video: Liberty or Sustainable Development]

Communitarians promote a thing called human rights, a theory of justice which is totally the opposite of individual rights. Individual rights are what the U.S. Bill of Rights was established to protect. Human Rights covers every aspect of human suffering and death. Unlike clear laws that protect individual liberty, Human Rights can only be enforced by a supreme global communitarian legal system. What Americans really don’t understand is that ultimately, Human Rights includes the Marxist mandates for confiscation and “equal” distribution of private property and goods. In the logic of the globalists, individual rights to protect yourself, your property, and the freedom to choose ones’ own life path, are ancient, outdated barriers to global peace and justice. Does it matter to Americans (or Iraqis) if individual rights are being criminalized under communitarian laws?

Community Development agencies partnered with Community Policing in almost every American community. Many towns have a whole lot more COPS on the beat now. The new cops prevent crime before it happens and their new job includes helping rebuild livable communities. This is why new COPS walk right in people’s private homes all the time without knocking or wasting time getting a legal search warrant. Modern cops are part of action teams who write innovative communitarian laws. Modern COPS can require our citizens show ID (Hiibel v. State of Nevada). Communitarian COPS visit nosey neighbors and gather “anecdotal information” that may indicate who’s a “problem.”

In the communitarianized U.S., former KGB spies and Mossad assassins train cops to use high-powered technology. Some COPS are military snipers. Cops wear bullet proof vests all the time now. New COPS have fifty nifty new gadgets hanging all over their uniforms (while our troops in Iraq send home for 12 gauge shotguns). And, in a major shift in American public policy regulations, communitarian COPS sit on “citizen” committees. New cops help rewrite local zoning regulations to incorporate communitarian laws. Actually, the COPS help suggest the problems. Then they suggest new ways to get around the individual rights of the problem people, rights which are too strongly guaranteed by a binding legal contract called the U.S. Constitution. They write the exact same laws in every community in America to address the exact same locally identified, citizen suggested problems. They call it holistic, local, grass roots, “participatory democracy” in action.

COPS are trained to stalk and patrol targeted neighborhoods. More and more neighborhoods in the U.S. are ghost towns at night. It’s creepy to drive through neighborhoods where the only cars are cops who play cat and mouse games. COPS keep computer logs of patrons at local watering hubs, and the statistics on Americans who’ve been arrested by them for DUIs is astounding. Our President has openly admitted to have ordered illegal surveillance on private citizens. This is communitarian “law” in action. Communitarian data-gathering requirements are now part of every state driver’s licensing agency. Our private information is being cross-referenced with data gathered from our family members, work associates, and our friendly, patriotic neighbors. Our private communications, via phone and our personal and work computers, on and off the internet, are all being monitored in the name of community security. Does it matter that the justification for this is communitarianism?

Now you must ask yourself. Can this possibly be true? This is a big revelation. It’s much too important to come from a nobody. Something so fantastic would never be left to the small-time, rank-and-file, American home based researcher. Grassroots is only a good word when it applies to community plans, not to opposition research. This should be a New York Times or a Washington Post story. Who the hell is the ACL? I wish I could list off all my degrees and Ph.ds, but the fact is we have no credentials, none, what-so-ever. We’re just two freedom loving American women who asked the wrong questions at the right time. You’ve gotta figure that if this article were factual and verifiable, obviously, somebody much more credible would have broke the story a long time ago. But they didn’t, did they? “CAFTA eliminates the U.S. Constitution!” was never headline news, was it? And now, maybe you’re just a little curious.

Once you verify our sources and confirm the existence of communitarian law, you’ve got to ask yourself the only thing that matters anymore. Why? Why didn’t your schools or your elected officials or your TV news stations or your newspapers publicly explain U.S. integration into a communitarian juridical system? The U.S. has been integrating communitarian legal principles for several decades, and what’s obvious to us is, the last thing the plotters want is for you to identify how they’re doing it.

What would happen if Americans began identifying communitarian laws and programs AS communitarian? What happens when our citizens question the authority of communitarian law in the United States? Would it make any difference if Americans were able to recognise and therefore legally disobey communitarian laws and programs? And, not that it will ever happen, but could it have any affect on the elections this November if U.S. voters were pre-informed of the proposed Andean Parliment? I can’t help but wonder about the depth and layers to this entire Hegelian ruse. Sponsored by Republicans who support “free trade,” CAFTA passed with just enough votes to get it through. Only a thorough understanding of the Hegelian dialectic explains why our most committed communitarian senators and representatives vote against it. Click below for part one.

Click here for part —–> 1

References:

1, www.fas.usda.gov/itp/CAFTA/cafta.html
2, Why We Oppose Cafta by the Oakland Institute.
3, The Creation of a Communitarian System of International Law cyber.law.harvard.edu.
4, pdf-Harmonization and harmonizing measures in criminal law, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
5, Court Buttresses Eminent Domain: Local Governments Cleared to Take Private Property if Projects Promise Growth
6, Integration to the EU and Economic Transformation: State and Its Role on the Example of the Export-Promoting Policy by Marek Csabay
7, Presentation by Dr Jan Mazak, President of the Slovak Constitutional Court 21.10.2004.
8, University of Oradea Faculty of Law and Jurisprudence
9, From Aquamont to Berlaymont: On the Integration-Friendly Features of the Slovak Constitution by RADOSLAV PROCH�ZKA
10, EDUCATION IN EUROPEAN LAW AT THE POLICE ACADEMY OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
11, commlaw@hermes.gwu.edu
12, THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY* by Mattias Kumm and Victor Ferreres Comella.
13, Historical Archives Service of the European Commission “ARCHISplus (French ARChives HIStoriques) is the Historical Archives of the European Commission’s database which contains references to files of European institutions from their beginnings to today. It is extracted from an internal database, Archis, and includes those references only which are helpful to access historical files open to the public according to communitarian regulations pertaining to their archives (30 years rule).”

� 2006 Niki Raapana- All Rights Reserved