One of my articles at the old ACL was called "What is Communitarian Law," it said:
"This new law circumvents national law via a program of "balancing,"
Here's the link to Dave's article at Freedom's Phoenix:
He opens with a graph that includes this:
"This new legal system circumvents, or reinvents, national law via a program of "balancing""
So, here's what I wrote to him last night:
Dear Dave Hodges,
Please tell me how you ended up with the same research I have posted at the ACL under communitarian law: http://nord.twu.net/acl
About an hour after I emailed him, a brand new member at leftrightunite.com left a cryptic comment on my profile. (It's still there.) I sent him a message asking if he was harassing me, and he replied "Define harassment," and pasted in 2 links to Christian researchers writing about Hegel. I checked his profile after I read the links. bush_is_a_moonie claims to be a man named Dale from Phoenix, Arizona. Hmmm. His only friend is, gee, a member of the Constitution Party. So then a little while later I went back to his article and somebody had posted a comment. I opened the link and, what do you know.. it was supposedly from me!
Comment by: Tent Lady Party: None Send Email
Entered on: 2007-03-19 10:03:58
Dave, this article is fantastic. It's wonderful to read how others grasp the horrendous implications of the new law and what it means to Americans. Thank you! I'm sorry it took me so long to find it. Please stop by the ACL when you have a chance, I think you'll find a lot of material there that you may be able to use in your future articles about communitarian law and policies.
I just began using the "handle" Tent Lady after I finished nikiraapana.com a couple months ago, and I changed my blog name to Tent Lady from niki r just last week! So even if I had written him an email last March it would NOT have been signed Tent Lady. I vaguely remember writing this to somebody, probably Nancy Levant after I found her work at sierratimes.com.
So here's a guy with zero original research anywhere online who apparently just somehow knows all kinds of things that it took other researchers years to study and compile. He gives us 2 references for his article and cannot explain where he got any of the other information. I'm guessing there are other writers who will find his knowledge fascinatingly similar to their work.
Definition of Plagiarize- Websters Online- Main Entry:
- \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
- Inflected Form(s):
- pla·gia·rized; pla·gia·riz·ing
From the U.S. Copyright office: Can I Use Someone Else’s Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch
"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights."
"Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law."
Copy of Dave's article below:
The Loss of the American Constitution: Constitutional Law vs. Communitarian Law (Part Two)
Communitarian Law, also known as "acquis communautaire", is being implemented by regional and local governments, including the United States, affiliated with the emerging global government (e.g., Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), European Union (EU), North American Union (NAU), etc.). This new legal system circumvents, or reinvents, national law via a program of "balancing" the old with laws with the new system of justice in a process referred to as "harmonizing". This new Communitarian legal system is often implemented by a small group of self-appointed, elite decision-makers who achieve consensus, not by voting. This Communitarian system is neither democratic nor transparent.
The development of Communitarian law of the European Community (i.e., the EU) has been largely molded by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the landmark case of Van Gend en Loos in 1963, the ECJ ruled that the European Community is bound by Communitarian, not national law, as the court stated, "This constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights albeit within limited fields." Essentially, this decision gave international treaty precedence when treaty principles conflict with national law. This is precisely what the United States agreed to when CAFTA was passed in June of 2005. CAFTA is illegal because it champions Communitarian law at the expense of what is supposed to be our supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. Therefore, every Congressman and Senator who signed CAFTA is guilty of treason because the provisions of CAFTA supersede American administrative law as well as United States Constitutional law (e.g., the provisions of CAFTA's Codex and CANAMEX, etc).
In summarizing the recent court ruling which reaffirmed the supremacy of Communitarian Law, within the European Union, over previously sovereign national law, professor Ján Mazák, President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, stated that several precedents were set forth by a 2004 court ruling which established the supremacy of international Communitarian law over nation-state legal systems through the establishment of the following set of principles:
1. "Legally binding acts of the European Communities and of the European Union (EU) shall have precedence over laws of the Slovak Republic (Authors note: This also applies to all European nations).
2. The primary rule is that the national courts of member states are obliged to apply directly to those communitarian standards which fulfill the communitarian conditions of the immediate applicability.
3. The duty of the national courts, and other public authorities, to apply preferentially the applicable Communitarian rules prior to the incompatible national rules means that the national courts in case of such a conflict always have to apply the Communitarian rules and at the same time they have not to apply or not to take into consideration the national regulation which is incompatible with these rules". (1)
Private individuals, under the Communitarian system of law have rights. However, unlike the American Constitution, individual rights are not granted by God, nor are they inalienable. Under Communitarian Law, individual rights are granted by government so long as it is in the common interest to do so. Inalienable rights, granted by God, can never be taken away by government. However, if government can bestow individual liberties, it can just as easily take them away! This is the fundamental danger facing all Americans as we move headlong into this emerging, Communitarian system of justice through our continued participation in CAFTA and the NAU.
EU Communitarian laws pretend to blend individual liberties along with the "safety" of the community. This is based on the exact same premise as the Military Commissions Act, the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Acts. The similarities with EU Communitarianism are striking. Despite the fact that there is a new wave of American legislation which is paralleling the Communitarian based legislation being implemented across the Pond, most Americans refuse to see the similarities because between the EU's slide into a Communitarian controlled region and what is happening in America under CAFTA and the NAU. Americans simply do not want to believe that our political leaders would ever circumvent the Constitution. However, Americans should pause and ask themselves how constitutional is it when Communitarian law never defines WHO should decide what is in the best interest of the community? Also, exactly who, or what, constitutes the "community" is not clear, either. Is the "community" the new regional state of Canada, Mexico and the United States (i.e., NAU)? Could it be the member nations of CAFTA? Is it the United Nations? The definitive answer is not clear. With the continued advocating of massive guest worker programs, which will conceivably bring millions of foreign workers to America, and the continued exodus of American manufacturing jobs to foreign countries, it is safe to say that the community that will be protected by the new Communitarianism will not be the American middle class.
The United States is witnessing the supplanting of our national sovereignty with massive regional governmental overlays which are being implemented in almost total secrecy and whose ultimate impact cannot fully be measured at this time. However, there is one thing that you can bet on, when something is done with this much secrecy; it cannot be good for somebody. And we, you and I, are more than likely that somebody!
When did Congress give President Bush the authority to place the United States into a regional government (NAU)? If the NAU is so good for Americans, then why are the meetings held in secret? Where is the media coverage and subsequent outcry from traditional supporters of the American Constitution? Why aren't these nation-altering trade agreements, based upon Communitarian rule, front page news in this country? Why does CNN's Lou Dobbs continue to be the lone media voice in the night covering these critical issues? Where are the Fox News and CNN legal scholars explaining what these Communitarian based trade and regionalized governmental agreements mean for the United States and the future of her citizens? The NAU agreement becomes finalized and will be fully implemented by the end of 2007!
What is increasingly clear is that the decision makers, for the "free trade agreements" based on Communitarian law, are beyond the reach of the American public as they are never elected. This shadowy group is very much intent on rendering the United States Constitution into a state of total obsolescence and replacing it with the Communitarian legal doctrines emanating out of the European Union.
The Europeans seem to be much more aware of what is befalling their nations than are their American counterparts. At the polls, the Europeans (e.g., the Dutch and the French) are overwhelmingly rejecting the EU arrangement! Sadly, Americans do not even begin to understand what we are in the process of losing. American ignorance will continue to be bliss until Joe Six Pack awakens to a society where he is working for far less and under a far different set of circumstances including the present ability to protest.
Philosophical arguments which serve to lessen the absolute power of American civil liberties are beginning to surface in this country. For example, in a very clever twist of the facts, many constitutional scholars now claim the Bill of Rights was constructed as a communitarian-based document in an attempt to neuter our civil liberties. For example, famed sociologist, Amatai Etzioni, insists the 2nd Amendment was written with a "communitarian clause." Therefore, according to the self-appointed spokesperson for Communitarian's in the United States, Etzioni states that your right to bear arms is dependent upon some elite group which will decide what is in the best interest of the community. (2) And thanks to the United States Supreme Court and the Kelo decision, your 5th Amendment right to own property is contingent upon your municipal leaders not being desirous of your property and what it could mean to a politically connected developer or a politician's desire to increase tax revenues through the conversion of your property to a bigger money-maker (e.g., resort hotels, condominiums, etc). After all, to do so, would result in the betterment of the "community". To strip private property owners of their right to own and control their personal property in the name of what is best for the community is a classic communitarian concept. And the overwhelming majority of the mayors and city councils, 209 of them to be exact, have fully embraced this Communitarian notion of property rights. In later articles, I will explain how these Communitarian policies are being ushered in by your mayor under the banners of "Smart Growth", "General Plan Amendments", "2020 Growth Plan" and "Sustainable Development".
In Arizona, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 207 which prevents municipalities from seizing private property and bestowing the property to another private interest. The mayors and city councils from the Arizona League of Cites and Towns employed every piece of misinformation designed to fool the voters into defeating the measure. However, Arizona, in a victory for individual liberties, approved the measure by a 2 to 1 margin. I fear that this may be a short-lived victory as mayors and city councils are quickly deciphering the measure in an attempt to, once again, defeat the will of the people in the courts which are increasingly using "community interests" as the basis for many of their decisions. Arizona's Proposition 207, and Arizona's cities opposition to it, is a classic case of Communitarian law vs. Constitutional law.
Parts one and two have provided the data which demonstrates how the American Constitution is being neutralized and supplanted by Communitarian law. This, of course, leaves the average American defenseless against their government. Now it is time to get personal. Part three will begin to examine the winners and losers of the Communitarian trade and governmental overlay agreements and what they will likely mean to you and your family.
An Amero for your thoughts?
(1) Presentation by Dr Jan Mazak, President of the Slovak Constitutional Court, October 21, 2004,
Retrieved May 1, 2006.
(2) Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society. New York: Touchstone, 1993.
Here's a Nancy Levant article which may be a partial source for Dave's plagiarized piece: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18642
Speaking of Nancy Levant.. what the heck happened to her? We haven't heard from her in months. Please contact me if you have any news on how she's doing. Nancy is a lot like me, she gave up nearly everything she had to research and write for America... and got nothing in return. Our sacrifices make what Dave Hodges has done even more disgusting.