'Celebrating Freedom' Series

July 31, 2006
Communitarian Law: Individual Rights vs. Good of Community
marty Kleva

This is the last in our July Series on Celebrating Freedom. I promise you that it is as heartening as the previous ones. It isn’t easy to constantly have pie thrown in our faces. But I for one will not stand there and continue to remain in the line of fire without having something to say about this.

"Communitarian Law: Individual Rights vs. Good of Community" brings together all the previous articles in July to show where we are headed.

In “What Price Freedom” we looked at the road individual freedom has traveled since the birth of this nation and reviewed how our forefathers felt about the institution of freedom and the Constitution.

Then we discoursed “From Democracy to Theocracy: Replacing the Torch of Freedom with the Cross” and warned how dangerous it is to replace the position of the Constitution with a theology, albeit a Christian one. That danger being that there are so many different Christian factions, who's to decide on the version of Christianity that should replace the Constitution? The Constitution needs no religion to give it power. All the people give it power no matter what their theology is. That is the beauty — it provides a common ground across religious beliefs.

In “Breaking the Chains of Freedom” I gave substantial evidence that the
U.S. Government's plan is not to close our borders to illegals, but rather to further expand our borders to blend and harmonize with our neighboring countries of Canada and Mexico. I introduced the lingo that it used across the U.S. and world political spectrum to mollify 'we the people' into feeling safe with words like harmonize, cooperative, balanced communities, global community, safety and protection, just to name a few.

Here I presented CODEX and the plan to harmonize all health related issues between our North American neighbors, soon to be a blissfully wedded family, and how it is entwined with all the free trade agreements the U.S. has signed, CAFTA and NAFTA, and including the WTO, all being private organization agreements, and how CODEX is already integrally involved in the European Union. Here I introduced the “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Progress” (SPP) agreed and signed by all three political leaders, Bush, Fox, and Martin in 2005.

The next article “The Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP) ~ Coming Soon: The ‘Amero’”
extended information about the SPP and how it is operating without authorization from Congress. How Pres. Bush signed that pact usurping Congressional powers and Constitutional powers from the people, placing all power into the hands of the private, wealthy, elite, corporate complex.

The SPP is a private deal between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. for the Harmonization of our three health systems in a Trilateral Cooperation Charter without knowledge of members of the Congressional Oversight Committee.

We looked at the Real ID Act of 2005 requiring biometric identifiers on our drivers licenses that includes all medical information, financial credit information, up to date home location and who we live with, iris scan, and DNA information. Adding to the mix is the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) in a public move that forwards the SPP agenda to “help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy.”

And if that were not enough, we also have the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, a non-profit group ‘dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.’

NASCO is directing its private industry corporation members how to plan, organize and build a super highway from the Pacific coast ports of Mexico linking up through the US in Texas and further into Canada at Detroit/Windsor, to then travel eastward to Toronto and Montreal, and westward to Vancouver, BC.

All this is meant to make it easier, safer and cheaper to move goods between the three nations without having to have all the border safety checks, based on the fact that our borders will geographically be changed, and that we three individual and sovereign nations will give up our sovereignty to become one big, very happy, harmonized family called the North American Union — No U.S. Constitution, which according to George Bush is “just a piece of paper.”

And speaking of paper, the Dollar will also be harmonized by the Amero, a new form of currency that this one big happy family will institute, again being brought about by a private interest group like the Federal Reserve.

In “The Many Faces of Love”, I wrote about the Space Between, which is where we as a country are right now. That space where there is little comprehension during a period of extreme change and upheaval.

Upheaval removes all that is known and familiar, and we search for comfort and security. One thing that is clear to me is that we will not return to where we once were. But until recently, I could not see where we were headed.

Which brings us to the topic of this post, and an ideology I had never heard prior to a month ago — Communitarian Law.

Also referred to as Communitarianism, this is the principle behind the European Union. All sovereign countries must give up their individual principles for the good of the European Union as a whole. Following suit, the U.S. will give up its sovereignty, along with its Constitution, for the right to belong to a greater union named the North American Union.

You don’t hear about this principle unless you dig, and then you find that it is everywhere disguised in a caring, compassionate and loving façade that feigns the deceit and guile behind it. Words do not match actions.

Communitarian Law is being practiced in the war with Lebanon and Israel. Condi Rice talks about the “pangs” of birthing a ‘new middle east’ while a child has his eyes melted shut by the use of outlawed chemicals by Israel, and close to a thousand civilians are killed, one third of them children, UN Peacekeeping Forces are deliberately targeted and killed by Israel, and an oil supply installation is bombed allowing the worst fuel disaster in that region’s history to pollute the eastern Mediterranean Ocean.

What she really means is that those thousand lives are forfeit for the good of establishing Communitarian Law in the New Middle East.

The New World, the New World Order, all these are by-words for Communitarian Law.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Courts ruled in Kelo v. The City of New London, a land rights case that “balanced” individual property rights against a communitarian development goal in the city of New London, Connecticut. When nine landowners declined to sell their property to New York drug manufacturer Pfizer who planned to build a new research facility; a plan that the city of New London expanded into the surrounding region to include a hotel and pedestrian “riverwalk.”

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property "for public use without just compensation." The landowners sued, claiming that the redevelopment wasn't a "public use." The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected that theory, prompting an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The individual property owners with supporters asked the Supreme Court to draw the distinction between clearing slums and acquiring property for plans to boost the local economy. The court's opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, refused to make this distinction saying that, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government," and sometimes better achieved through promoting private enterprise than state ownership.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the dissenting vote, warned that now "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Here is a clear case of the practice of Communitarian Law. We used to have eminent domain under the Constitution. That is no longer the case.

Other terms for Communitarian Law are Community Law, Community Aquis, Communitarianism, the last of which you will find in the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, but which you won’t find in online law dictionaries.

The European Union recognizes, teaches, practices and endorses Community Law. U.N. Declarations like the Earth Charter are all communitarian documents. Communitarian law is taught and studied at universities in the U.S. It is a master's program at many international law schools, and there are many professors of communitarian law around the world and lawyers who are revising their national law to submit to the supremacy of Community Law. For more on this little known area of education, go to http://nord.twu.net/acl/commlaw.html.

According to Niki Raapana, founder of the Anti-Communitarian League, (ACL), “in the E.U., Africa, South America, Asia and across the globe, many international documents and resolutions and organizations (U.N., E.U., WTO, NAFTA, etc.) use the actual term ‘communitarian law’ to define the legal precedent for the new global order.”

Niki states “the way to recognize a communitarian program is one that eliminates individual property, privacy or independence” as the “outdated guarantees against government intrusions have become identified barriers to public health, safety, or livability.” She believes that “mandatory volunteer service law is entirely communitarian based” and that the “recently exposed Pentagon database of high school students is a communitarian program, as are the numerous domestic spy programs used at every level of government.”

She further claims that the “Jewish Encyclopedia explains the areas of Talmudic Law that influenced the development of communitarian behavior controls (of every day life), and evolving regulatory practices that use dialectical conflicts to achieve synthesis. The process is often called a new paradigm. Unlike U.S. Constitutional law, communitarian law and Talmudic law are constantly changed and modified by the whim of the leader enforcing the rules. The U.S. Constitution is being balanced by the Talmud and communitarian ideology. ”

She says, “The most incredible thing is thousands of Americans are charged and sentenced to jail and prisons for violations of community law every day. All new intervention and prevention programs required under Congressional Acts (such as the Violent Crime Act, Domestic Violence Act, Patriot Act, National Intelligence Reform Act, Homeland Security Act, etc. are based in communitarian legal philosophy. Communitarian "values" justify all wars on inanimate objects too, such as the War on Terror and The Wars on Drugs, Poverty, Crime, Obesity, and any other "idea" we can be convinced to support.”

This helps explain why so many people who base their defense case in court on Constitutional Law are baffled when they go before a judge. Last year, I happened to be part of the general public in a municipal court hearing on a traffic violation. At one point in the proceedings, the judge looked up from the bench into the audience and stopped the proceeding to ask a man sitting two rows in front of me what he was doing.

It so happened that he was part of a group of us who went to learn more about what goes on at the local level. He basically did not understand what the judge meant, and the judge further asked him what he was writing down. The man was taking notes. So was I and every other member of the group. He told the judge he was noting down the proceedings on paper.

The judge ordered him to stop and for the bailiff to take the notes away. The man protested asking why he couldn’t take notes. The judge got very upset at this, and threatened to place the man under arrest for contempt of court! Of course, by now I had put my notebook away as quickly as I could without the judge’s notice. He told the man that this was “NOT A COURT OF RECORD”! He was sentencing people to jail and determining fines for motor violations, yet this was “not a court of record.”

Now if I had not a clue that there was no Constitutional Law in force before, I surely had a huge clue after that night. Along that line, notice that regional justice centers have replaced City Halls and County Courts. Administrative Hearing and Review Boards now replace constitutional courts altogether.

According to Niki Raapana, ”Community police and sustainable developers teach the new law. Community change agents gather the data necessary to enforce the new law. COMPASS and Community Policing assist communitarian visionaries to implement the Community Imperial Laws.” From what I can see, these new “Community Police” are schooled by corporate business.

Who will be the one to make the law that is currently legislated by Congress, and whose positions are gained by election? With Communitarian Law, would there still be elections, for a corporately run court to interpret the new law? Who is qualified to determine the difference between Constitutional law and Communitarian Law?

Aimee Kanner, BA, attended the NAFTA-EU Conference held in Miami last year at which this problem was addressed. Her B.A. is in International Relations from George Washington University, which is also home to the Communitarian Law Network. She reports that the conference’s solution “appears to be the creation of an actual court where lawsuits can be tried. The way it works now is all cases are tried at the WTO.”

Remember, the WTO is a private organization made up of member governments that make agreement to abide by the rules of the organization. The U.S. is a member.

What is equally interesting, Aimee reports that “Emil Kirchner, who received the Cross of the Order of Merit from the German Government in 2002, showed up to discuss “integration efforts of Muslim countries” into Communitarian Law.

The European Union requires national constitutions to be restructured to conform to communitarian rule of law.

In a presentation by Dr Jan Mazak, President of the Slovak Constitutional Court October 21, 2004, he stated in his general remarks on "National judiciary after the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union" as follows: (note: these remarks are in part, and not in total)

On the immediate applicability of the communitarian law

The primary rule is, that the national courts of member states are obliged to apply directly those communitarian standards which fulfill the communitarian conditions of the immediate applicability.

The immediate positive application of the communitarian rule means the direct application of this rule instead of an incompatible national regulation, or application solving the legal situation not defined by any national regulation.

On the proceedings on the preliminary question

The law of the European Communities is superior to the law of the member states.

Some Communitarians say that Communitarian Law is already part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and also that the Constitution is outdated and superseded by Communitarian Law. From all that I have read to date, Communitarian Law does not date back as early as Constitutional Law and the documents of the founding fathers of the U.S. It is a “newcomer” in ideologies which seems to me to contain a whole lot of giving up of individual rights for supposedly stated rights of the good of the community. Yet nowhere do I see the people being represented by themselves, but rather the decisions as to what is for the community good are made by appointed, not elected, corporate councils who have a vested interest in how much of a profit they make from the decision.

One place that I have personally seen land being taken out of the people’s hands is the San Luis Valley In Colorado. Beneath this beautiful valley is a huge aquifer whose rights were in the hands of a private individual who owned a massive amount of land there. As things will go, he saw a way to make a big buck, and he gathered a few partners to form a business group to export the water out of the valley to places that were very thirsty, reportedly to as far away as California and Texas. The people were up in arms — lots of farmers in this valley as well as environmentally aware individuals.

Well the upshot of the entire deal is that the voters turned it down and it got taken into court. From there, as a method of negotiation, the Nature Conservancy entered the picture and offered to buy the place. Along with a deal with the government, it raised enough money to have the deal go through. The people of the valley were elated. I was not so sure that this was in fact a good thing for the people. Within time, the entire land mass was included into a government owned facility which is now a National Park. Sounds wonderful doesn’t it.

But what remains to be seen is that when we become part of the North American Union, it is no longer in American hands, but in the hands of international corporatists who will use it for the “good of the international community” under Communitarian Law . . . and that means for the good of the international corporations to make money.

Nancy Levant, writes in “It is Time To Stop This Tyranny”:

If you have entered your businesses into the grant-funded apparatus, you are 1) sending information about your neighbors to global orchestrators and databases, 2) you are mandated by your grantors to perform tasks that are contrary to the health, safety, needs, and wages of your local community, and 3) you are destroying American freedom and Constitution. The NGO/stakeholding/partnership/grant-funded, non-profit apparatus was mandated by the U.N. Agenda 21 in order to 1) control your business, and 2) to force you into operating under Communitarian principles and law.

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."

This points out that there is always a ‘cost’ to our actions. Didn’t out parents tell us that if it looks too good to be true, that’s because it isn’t true?

What most people fail to notice is that our governing bodies are corporations. See: Update on the Dubai Deal.

Every municipality is an incorporated entity.

If you still have doubts as to the reality of Communitarian Law, here is a quote from the vice-president of the EU Constitutional Convention who sums it up:

"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 little 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.

This is why the Dutch and French voters rejected the European Constitution last year, because of its basis in the supremacy of Communitarian Law, putting the rights of the community "at large" over the rights of the individuals living in the community.

George Bush calls it “Re-Building Community” in his new “War on Terror.” The idea of Communitarian Law is being violently exported to Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, and now to Lebanon, which has a democratic elected government.

Niki Raapana says, “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.”

We are warned! We are being told that they will use any means to camouflage and make this more palatable, “in order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty.”

We are told outright that our “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”, and now to the North American Union.

The new entity will be “faceless” so that “those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected.”

We are told that the implementation of Communitarian Law has been deliberately slow and methodical “which keeps national States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power.”

Boiled frogs anyone?

Will we hear this very clear and arrogant boast of an official who blatantly and publicly informs us of exactly what they are up to?

Or will we prefer to bury our heads and say, “Nah, it won’t happen in this country.”

I offer you dear friends and readers, that we do still have a choice to exercise our freedom.

Do so while we may.

Read the links I have provided and inform your Congressional representatives that this really exists. If your representative’s office says it’s a conspiracy theory, show them the government sites I have included in the articles for July. They are not the figment of anyone’s imagination. We will have to be the lobbyists to educate them. Do not take no for an answer.

This is our country. Let’s not allow any “faceless entity” to replace the Constitution.

Go out and raise some hell!

Be well and remember to love each other.

con amore,

~ mek