Sunday, July 12, 2009

Obama annoints another communitarian to GAG the Internet

Do a google search for Cass Sunstein Communitarianism. If there's a shread of doubt left in your mind about Obama's rise to power coming from the Communitarians, this newest appointment should eliminate that shread once and for all. As Kyle Smith writes, "Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs." And in case you still think nice, bland sounding communitarian phrases and titles are non threatening to human existance, Kyle also writes, "It's the bland titles that should scare you the most."

While Obama surely had his share of dialectical Communist teachers, his career as a community activist and his Harvard Law School attendance were entirely set-up for him by members of the Communitarian Network. Why are so many writers who claim to "expose" the New World Order STILL leaving out any mention of the Communitarians? I think it's because they don't want you to look at the actual way the New World Order is coming to pass. They want you to be able to choose to believe the Pope (who's openly calling for redistribution of wealth) and Obama discussed the way Jesus lives in their hearts and how they want to help people.

To understand communitarianism is to understand the lie, and we're not supposed to understand anything. We're just supposed to allow our (cloned?) guru president and his blind followers to use their government power to "gently force" us to become "better human beings." Good thing I know exactly what my role in this government is. Do you?

Communitarianism is not just a political theory, it's most important aspect is the law which criminalizes BEHAVIORS and eliminates the very foundation of U.S. Law which is PROPERTY DAMAGES. Under real U.S. law, we the government protects us the people from the bad guys in our midst. Under Communitarian Law, the bad guys have the power to control how we behave. The ONLY reason the comms have been able to successfully change our system to a communitarian system is because most people in most nations haven't got the FIRST CLUE what it is. It's not only a Communitarian EU:

We should be bombarded with exposes of the actual system, instead we're bombarded with articles still calling (or reverting back to calling) it communism. Is there anyone left on the side of legitimate national and state LAW? Has the entire world given up their freedom for a pack of liars and thieves? How many Americans does it take to change the world into a communitarian torture chamber? Thanks to Chris Bieber for forwarding this article:
"Sunstein was appointed, no doubt, off the success of "Nudge," his previous book, which suggests that government ought to gently force people to be better human beings."GAG THE INTERNET! AN OBAMA OFFICIAL'S FRIGHTENING BOOK ABOUT CURBING FREE SPEECH ONLINE, by Kyle Smith, New York Post
Book excerpt from Macmillan Reference USA:
implicit constitutional status to a RIGHT OF PRIVACY, asthe Supreme Court did in ROE V. WADE (1973) and subsequent cases protecting a woman's right to choose ABORTION. The same purported right of privacy is at stake in cases involving state regulation of SEXUAL ORIENTATION and assisted suicide (or the RIGHT TO DIE). The problem communitarians have with the privacy cases is not necessarily with the results reached but with the legal reasoning that insists constitutional analysis must bracket or put aside any substantive moral discussion of the public good at stake when individuals make private choices. In regard to abortion in particular, communitarians thus would prefer to reframe the issue along lines suggested by Justice RUTH BADER GINSBURG, who has argued that abortion regulations should be analyzed in reference to legal principles prohibiting SEX DISCRIMINATION as a violation of democracy's commitment to equal respect for all persons.

Communitarians also distinguish between two senses of citizenship implicit in the Constitution. One is the liberal view of citizens as individuals who enjoy the protection of legal rights against the state. The other is a stronger, republican vision of citizens who enjoy the legal status of participating in democratic self-governance and the rights and responsibilities of public service. This participatory notion of citizenship stands behind the constitutional status of TRIAL BY JURY of Article III and the Sixth Amendment's stipulation that criminal juries must be chosen from the district within a state where the crime occurred. The battle to amend the Constitution to protect the so-called jury of the "vicinage" or community affected by the crime, communitarians point out, was waged along civic republican lines and shows a continuing commitment among many in the Founding era to preserve opportunities for local communities, through the jury system, to participate in shaping governing principles of law. Likewise, the SECOND AMENDMENT embodies a philosophy of localism insofar as it protects state militias and the right to bear arms in them against the dangers of a single, standing national army. Historically, communitarians have also defended the constitutionality of the military draft (as in the SELECTIVE SERVICE ACTS) by stressing the Framers' commitment to the civic duty and public service obligations of democratic citizens.

When it comes to issues involving the state and religion, communitarians more readily accept the liberal view that RELIGIOUS LIBERTY should be the same everywhere in the United States, protected by federal courts against local, majoritarian preferences. For instance, communitarians' view of open and egalitarian communities premised on participatory opportunities for all leads them to accept the leading Supreme Court cases prohibiting public SCHOOL PRAYERS, which rest on the principle that public schools best educate children to be democratic citizens when they teach children both to respect RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY and to share civic ties despite those religious divisions.

Finally, communitarians balk at the increasing judicialization of politics, a process whereby resolution of core issues about justice and liberty is removed from the power of the people and entrusted to unelected federal judges. The result is dimunition of democracy and the disempowerment of citizens and their representatives. Communitarians concede that individual rights sometimes trump majority power in our constitutional government and that courts therefore need to enforce constitutional guarantees even against the contrary will of political majorities. But communitarians believe that a better balance can be struck between the rights-based liberalism that controls constitutional interpretation currently and the older, civic republican ideals of the Framers, ideals that stressed public duty as well as private rights and that praised participation in self-governing communities, rather than the protection of individual against community, as the key to political liberty.



ABRAMSON, JEFFREY 1994 We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.

ETZIONI, AMITAI, ed. 1995 New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions, and Communities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

——, ed. 1998 The Essential Communitarian Reader. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefeld.

GLENDON, MARY ANN 1991 Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press.

SANDEL, MICHAEL J. 1996 Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

SMITH, ROGERS M. 1997 Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

SUNSTEIN, CASS R. 1999 One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism and the Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

TAM, HENRY BENEDICT 1998 Communitarianism: A New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship. New York: New York University Press.

TUSHNET, MARK V. 1999 Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.


Copyright © 2000 by Macmillan Reference USA

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

So what do you think of the prevalence of Jews in Obama's cabinet?

Probably means nothing, huh?