Monday, August 31, 2009

Weekly South African Report

David Icke wrote a new article about Common Purpose, it's posted at Ike doesn't mention the word communitarianism once. I know Icke is an expert on the Illuminati, and I'd never question his authority on that subject. But is it really possible Icke doesn't know the actual and easily verifiable philosophy for the type of government he describes Common Purpose as administering? Is he really unaware of the EU's communitarian supremacy of law? He cites Brian Gerrish. Has Gerrish identified Common Purpose as communitarian yet?

Found this when I grazed through rense's links.. if I did decide to go to South Africa and hold seminars in anticommunitarian studies I'd sure have a lot of homework to do first!

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Copper River Watershed Project -- Something Fishy's Going On

Tim's Fish Camp
downtown Kenny Lake

Tim training Amanda to filet reds

Dog food!

Gerteeville under winter renovations

RadiantGUARD wrapped over summer walls

Corina shows where the hearts are.. in the neck

Align Center
Wanna learn how to smoke and can them now?

flowers bllomed after the rest of the garden froze

more fish table action

Vern, one of Tim's best buddies from Knik

Cornina, Tim and Amanda

Tim picked up Amanda and her friend Gus hitchhiking from McCarthy a few weeks back. We let them stay at Camp Redington and Amanda (in AK for the summer from SF, she's a potter) asked to come back for a week before she heads to Hawaii. She's trying everything here and having a great time doing it. We have to wood to cut and build a new gertee with her so she can show others how to do it. Except now that we're getting fish everything else is on hold.

Friday, August 21, 2009

The common good and other mythology

Here's one response to the last article that went to my email, from Jim G. I haven't responded yet, and probably won't besides here. It's obvious from what he writes that he's never studied any actual communitarian programs nor has he any education in EU and global communitarian law. He also stoops to assuming he knows my definition of real community, and it's pretty funny that he thinks I don't care about the homeless people in Anchorage and around the world. This is fairly representative of the best arguments communitarians can make against my thesis... they all follow the same routine. Communitarians ignore my published thesis and simply attack me for being unenlightened, wrong, and in case that doesn't convince me, some throw in a personal attack against my lifestyle, this one says I sound "egocentric."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the word "communitarian" is not anywhere in the US Constitution and the only people who EVER call the US Constitution a communitarian contract are communitarians. The exact words are "provide for the common defense and general welfare"... it says nothing about the phony communitarian phrase "the common good." US law is in direct opposition to communitarian law... so how can the US Constitution be communitarian?

If there is such a thing as the "collective unconsious" it is surely negative, since that is what's being called upon to help evil communitarians enslave the people of the world. My lifelong experience with people is they are not all basically good (and on this point I agree with the Christians that we are all born sinners). In my opinion it is always the ones who claim loudest to be good who turn out to be the most evil people.

But, really, the best part of this letter is his accusing a homeless person who's gone homeless for years in order to research and publish exposes about communitarianism of not caring about the homeless! Yeah, okay, I've never done one thing to help the homeless or anybody else, ever.

Why do you keep distorting the definition of “Communitarianism” and demonizing the term?
Communitarianism is nothing more, and very simply, a balance between individual freedom and social responsibility for the common good.
In Buddhism it would be the “Golden Mean” or comparable to the Yin Yang philosophy in China. In
Christianity, it defines a Christian community – Christian Communitarianism - as Christians who have a
brotherly commitment to one another, who share their lives, and who live interdependently as
members of a body.
Communitarianism is not communism.

You seem like an intelligent person, and I would hate to think that you are a person that takes a good word and makes it evil.

What do you mean by “real community?” Is the “real community” your home and your immediate neighbors, your town, your state, your country or just the “online” kind like My Space, Facebook or LinkedIn? Does your real community care about the homeless in Anchorage, Los Angeles, New York or Bangladesh? Or the sick in Chicago, New Orleans or Calcutta? It sounds to me that your “real community” is the egocentric “me” kind.

Maybe you should read Carl Jung. You may want to read “Carl G. Jung: Archetype of the collective unconscious” ( The collective unconscious according to Jung is an inborn instinct which all of humanity shares. "Personal unconscious rests upon a deeper layer, which does not derive from personal experience and is not a personal acquisition but is inborn. I call this the collective unconscious. I have chosen the term "collective" because this part of the unconscious is not individual but universal; in contrast to the personal psyche, it has contents and modes of behavior that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals. It is, in other words, identical in all men and thus constitutes a common psychic substrate of a suprapersonal nature which is present in every one of us." Jung.

The point is that we are all connected and related. Yes, a human family, a community as a whole.

In conclusion, your perception of “Communitarianism” is incorrect. So, please don’t demonize efforts meant for the “common good” as stated in our Constitution.

Sorry, that this was so long.

Here's a perfect example of communitarian's working both sides for the "common good:"
World Socialist's report on AIG bonuses

Looked up American homelessness and found this. Right on Clyde!

City Mayor's website on homelessness and hunger in the US:

Community Service to the World Masters of Deception

Thanks to Bobby Garner at
This is outrageous of course, but not at all surprising. Recognizing someone as a "master" of anything in this context is overtly communicating the message to all knowledgeable people that this is a "World Server" of "The Plan", and in that capacity as a "communicator", a bearer of messages from "God" as well. The story in which the message is told is only window dressing for shoppers and a distraction to mislead the consumer of such news.

So, the statement attributed to Obama, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death...", should be of special interest to everyone. The clear message is, "We have decided who lives and who dies, and this healthcare system we are proposing will implement that decision."

This man is speaking for "God", but not the one we are expected to believe. As a Master World Server, an equal to Marice Strong and other extremely powerful people, he is speaking for the hierarchy repeating the messages of Lucifer, the "bringer of light".

It's a fatal mistake to turn this into political leverage against the left. Obama is the foremost "water-carrier", "Third Way", "middle of the road", New Age Communitarian in the world today. All political persuasions are locked in a dialectical debate which will finally inflict death to all True Believer's. Politics like religion is one of the Quintessential world wide self destructive Mass Movements.

Read it in the Washington Jewish Week.

Thanks to Linda Kimball for the link.

Bobby Garner
use it if you can

Here's the full post:

21st August,2009
Obama, We are “‘God’s partners in matters of life and death”
FILED: Uncategorized
No Comments

by Adam Kredo
President Barack Obama needs some outside help pushing health care reform, and he’s turning to rabbis to get it.

In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: “I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform,” the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner.

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” Obama went on to say, according to Moline’s real-time stream.

The 15-minute morning briefing was sponsored by the Religion Action Center of Reform Judaism, and included rabbis of all persuasions. Although the RAC hosts the call each year, participants had never before heard from a sitting president.

What stood out about the call is that Obama “is a master communicator,” Moline, the rabbi of the Conservative Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, said in an interview after the call ended.

“This was clearly a message that was tailored to us,” and not merely a generic stump speech, he added.

Moline noted that in the lead up to the president’s address, as the rabbis waited on hold, “there was a lot of chatter” among some participants who felt that the call should be seen as an opportunity “to instruct the President about [Presidential Medal of Freedom selection] Mary Robinson” and about the peace process in the Middle East.

“It was the subject of a good deal of conversation whether anyone was going to challenge him on that,” in particular Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, whose has publicly chided Obama for his administration’s stance on settlements.

When the issues failed to come up during the health care call, Moline pithily tweeted: “Yoffie praises President and does not raise any other issue. Good for him.”

“Rabbi Yoffie stuck to the subject” of health care reform, Moline said in the interview, “I think it was a good thing.”

Eyebrows were also raised by the choice of hold music that played to rabbis before the call began.

“First mistake,” Moline tweeted, as he waited for the call to begin. “Music on hold is ‘Deutschland uber Alles,’ ” a classical German anthem, the lyrics to which in part say, “Preserve and protect our Kaiser, our land.”

(The music was chosen by the company carrying the conference call, not the White House or the RAC.)

A questioned submitted by Moline also was asked to the President, the rabbi proudly noted on Twitter, writing, “WOW! My question was asked of the President!!!!!”

The question, he later explained, was about how rabbis can address issue of health care reform “in a non partisan” way when they’re behind the pulpit.

Obama responded by noting that the massive “human toll” of a broken health care system is a non partisan issue, and simply is unacceptable, Moline recalled.

The call, which was closed to the media, precedes another Obama phoner that is to take place at 5 p.m. this evening (Wednesday).
This entry was posted on Friday, August 21st, 2009 at 8:09 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Ask President Obama a question about Heatlhcare reform

I found this place because somebody there posted a link to my blog. Some of our questions will be selected and read during the online forum tomorrow. I asked if Obama shares the same philosophy as his Healthcare advisor. What's the odds he'll answer that?

Lessons in the Hegelian Dialectic: Sarah Palin versus Ezekiel Emanuel

Lessons in the Hegelian Dialectic:
Sarah Palin versus Ezekiel Emanuel

by Niki Raapana
Anti Communitarian League
August 19, 2009

The Hegelian Dialectic is the ideological blueprint for manipulating people into fighting over issues. Skillful use of Hegelian tactics is a requirement for all modern politicians. The ultimate goal of every major political player in the game right now is to weaken both sides of every argument, so that a "middle ground" for the "common good" can be formed between them. This is the simple formula for tricking the world into accepting a totalitarian central government. It's happening in every country on the planet.

When Betsy M published her article called "Deadly Doctors," she sure opened a big can of political worms. She identified the philosophy of Obama's new health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel as "communitarianism." The problem is, the gods of globalism are still not ready to explain their new philosophy to the American people. Americans are much more effective if they continue to believe their sides still exist and keep the great political divides alive. Awareness of the emerging synthesis of all ideologies (called communitarianism) is reserved for insiders. To become an insider one must agree to go along with the big lie, for as long as the lie remains necessary. Once the world has completely adopted supremacy of communitarian law, the truth about the system won't matter much, because the communitarian police will have community enforcement authority over every individual in the world.

The American public is just not ready to be told the truth about the real philosophy driving all new changes to US law. Citizens age 50 and beyond may never be told. Communitarians insist all nations must be eliminated and that would upset the people who still think the US Constitution and their state constitutions are valid legal contracts. So the former Lt governor of the state of New York provided way more information than the Americans need to know. Something radical had to be done quickly to drive the topic back into obscurity. Just as hundreds of Americans started asking what the heck communitarianism is, the global scriptwriters made major changes to the book. Enter Sarah Palin, stage right.

On the surface it certainly appears that Sarah Palin and Barack Obama's Health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, are on "opposite" sides. Sarah clearly represents the fundamentalist Christian Republican Right, while Obama and Zeke obviously represent the open-minded non-denominational Democratic Left. Their millions of followers on both sides are totally convinced the "other" side are the bad guys and their own side is the good guys. This belief in their superior side means they never have to study the other side, or God forbid, to wonder what the outcome of all this fighting may be. Like mad dogs trained to fight in the arena, true believers go for the jugular veins of their opponents without a second thought as to why.

Sarah Palin proved her worth to the communitarians when she entered the national political scene as John McCains' Republican running mate. They made her a star in the best horror soap opera ever written. It might look like they plan to kill her off, but rest assured, they'll bring her back whenever they need her to keep the story line alive. And right now, they need her. Upon entering the staged presidential campaign in a whirlwind of exposure, Palin made an easy target of herself and successfully fueled the inflated egos of every deluded Republican and Democrat in the country. All it took to keep (nonexistent) American attention away from any possible awareness of Obama's communitarian philosophy was to bring a superstar like Palin into the campaign. And all it took to steer (possible) attention away from Emanuel's exposed communitarian philosophy was to bring Palin into the "debate."

Now the debate is between the most uneducated politician on the national scene and the "esteemed" bioethics professor who cares about people. Their most dumbed down followers argue over who's the nicer, more credentialed player. Communitarian agents scour the Internet forums and steer any discussion of communitarianism back to outdated (and now discarded) left and right theories. The substance of the debate never became centered on the actual and verifiable philosophy that drives the National Healthcare agenda. The only political argument allowed is between the left and the right (just as the only religious debate allowed is between the Christians and the Muslims). These phony, misleading debates are led by second grade bully's who won't acknowledge communitarianism until their teachers make them write it a hundred times on the blackboard. When the American followers are finally told that communitarianism is their new political and justice system, their assigned Borg leaders will make sure everyone reaches consensus and agrees that it's a "good" thing.

Hegelians don't care what the issues are. Neither do they care which "side" they are perceived to be on. Their role is to be a barrier to any authentic political discourse that may arise from thinking people. Hegelians do not think for themselves, they follow orders. They repeat words that have no meaning to them, throw around words they cannot define and have no interest in defining. When asked directly what they mean by a particular word, they always respond with "what do you mean what do I mean?" as if you're just too stupid to be answered. Most followers haven't got the first clue what livability, health and safety, and quality of life means. They build "good communities" and only stupid people ask them what they mean by good.

Appealing mainly to the egotistical and self-centered, the Hegelians promote the idea that they and their followers are superior to the common man in every way. Born again Hegelians may not be able to tell us who they follow, but they will always insist their ideas are more "enlightened" than common folks. Over educated, upper academic Hegelians believe God told Hegel the only reasonable future society is a friendly, caring, global police state. Uneducated Hegelians don't even know they're Hegelians.

All unenlightened sheep are to be kept locked inside very publicized dialectical conflicts of opposites. Only the unseen, enlightened few understand the actual goal of all the conflicts. The most useful idiots are the ones who believe their side is the side that cares oh so much more about "people" than the other side. Completely brainwashed Hegelian thinkers go so far as to believe they are born smarter than the other side, with many convinced they were chosen by God himself to rule over all of mankind, forever. Taught to use any stupid argument at their disposal that enrages their assigned opposite "side," their job is to fuel established conflicts and say anything they want, as long as it keeps the masses distracted.

The more outrageous their behaviors, the more outrageous the response is from their gullible public followers. This is why hateful slurs, mocking, sneering, racial insults, un-humorous "jokes," accusations, slander and Godlike condemnations are such a big part of our national political discourse. Like Hegel taught the leaders of the emerging supranational system, ideological conflicts that grow into violent clashes between huge groups of people are the best way to "help" save the world. Follower's on both sides of every conflict use the same, tired arguments because both sides follow the same Hegelian playbook. To the Man, Straw Man, Wag the Dog or fists and guns... they do whatever it takes.

It's not an accident that every rebuttal I get to my articles on communitarianism insist it's an insignificant term that means nothing. I actually just got new comments on my blog that explained the "difference" between liberals and socialists. and never mentions the word communitarian once! The debate between communitarianism and US constitutional law will never reach the public until it's completely over. First we all have to come together for a purpose greater than self. Then we can all rise together in perfect harmony, or we can fall into the pits with the others who refuse to be "free."
"Clinton said Obama's election was the first one in which people were "self-consciously communitarian - understanding we are going to rise and fall together.""

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

White House Blames E-mail Controversy on "sinister conspiracy theories"

Lots more going on behind the Healthcare debate than I was aware of, but I think I need to submit my impression of what's "fishy" about this whole debate to Big Mother. I know she monitors this blog and I've always hoped she'd jump in a make a comment sometime. :)

How is it possible that the United States is considering implementing a COMMUNITARIAN program and yet Americans completely ignore that word and continue to call it socialism? This misdirection back to the antithesis steers attention far, far away from the synthesis. Why is it so important to stop any real debate about the actual philosophy and law that establishes a world government from ever coming before the voting public? Don't their agents realize people are so gullible they'd vote for it even if they knew what it is?

I just read a facebook comment on Palin's post about Emanuel by one of the people who lived with me when I began researching communitarianism in 1999. She accused Palin of not beng able to have a factual debate, and yet never once mentioned what the real debate is about.. even though she was introduced to communitarianism almost a decade ago. I have to say that makes the pointlessness of my efforts glaringly clear. I am so pushing the river here... and I'm drowning in the ignorant bs that continues to roll off American tongues. My reality check doesn't come from the White House, it comes from my friends.
"People can still submit "fishy" information about health care reform through the "reality check" Web site, set up by the White House last week to rebut health care rumors. "
So how many reurns does the White House website have for "communitarian?"
"Did you mean?
Search was unable to find any results for communitarian, you may have typed your word incorrectly, have entered an empty phrase or are being too specific.

Try using a broader search phrase.
"socialism" has 384 returns.

I also could not find any reference in Palin's posts re Emanuel's communitarianism. Hmmm. What an amazing word... it's like it has the ability to disappear right before our eyes.

Refuting the philosophy of Ezekiel Emanuel

Still think communitarianism is an obscure philosophy that's basically just communism? For $160.00 you too can know what the globalists know. All Palin supporters should throw in and buy her a copy of the "knowledge":

Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations (The New Internationalrelations) (Hardcover)

Laid awake in my bed for hours last night after I posted the new article. I decided I hate the opening graph (too much sarcasm and not enough intro) but mostly I was thinking about the last few quotes I added to it just before I published it. The sneer against Palin and Gingrich for not disputing Emanuel's philosophy is a key to understanding how disinformation agents work.

The article I posted by the former New York Lt. Governor that opened the topic of Emanuel's communitarianism was picked up by several writers and republished on more than one website. Somehow it ended up becoming a topic on Palin's facebook page. Just the fact that it was posted on facebook gave Palin's enemies ample space to target her credibility.

Emanuel is calling Palin's accusation of his Death Panels "an absolute outrage," and the comments are not about Emanuel's philosophy. A google search for "Emanuel Palin communitarian" brings up the same exact quote about what Emanuel "believes" on almost every return. No new sentences have been added that use the word communitarian. The word "communitarian" has been sucessfully removed from the debate:

My final thought before nodding off was the idea that Palin could be the only one "allowed" to debate the actual philosophy that Ezekiel Emanuel follows. It's almost as if she were groomed for the role... I'm curious now how she first came across the former NYC Lt. Governor's article. Maybe I should ask her to be my facebook friend so I can see her posts. :)

From Stanford Encyclopedia:
John Rawls (b. 1921, d. 2002) was an American political philosopher in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice as fairness envisions a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights cooperating within an egalitarian economic system. His account of political liberalism addresses the legitimate use of political power in a democracy, aiming to show how enduring unity may be achieved despite the diversity of worldviews that free institutions allow. His writings on the law of peoples extend these theories to liberal foreign policy, with the goal of imagining how a peaceful and tolerant international order might be possible.
So, to whoever sent Palin the link to Betty's article "Doctor of Death," here's another book Palin needs:

Monday, August 17, 2009

Palin Sidetracks Scrutiny of Obama's Communitarian Plan

Palin Sidetracks Scrutiny of Obama's Communitarian Plan
by Niki Raapana
Anti Communitarian League
August 17, 2009

Yes, President Obama is a socialist. He's a free trade communist. He's a free trade capitalist, too. He's Christian, he's Muslim, he cares about people and he has lots of hope. Obama is all of this, and much, much more. Obama knows that all opposing economic, religious and social theories were finally resolved in one perfect solution, called communitarianism.
"Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good. Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy. Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism."
The communitarian theory of Community Rights is shared by every appointee in Obama's administration. From his Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske (who created the COMPASS database when he was a Grants Director at COPS) to his new Health care advisor (Zeke Emanuel, who advises we withhold medical care from citizens unable to "participate"), the Obama administration follows the Clinton and Bush leadership into merging the former United States under a global justice system rejecting US constitutional supremacy in favor of the supremacy of Communitarian Law.
"Emanuel's thesis adviser at Harvard was Prof. Michael Sandel, a noted communitarian who has argued that our political debates bracket gut-level values to our detriment. Emanuel writes in the tradition of a communaritan who believes that procedural liberalism -- the reigning philosophy of government today -- does not allow for priorities among health care services because it "cannot appeal to a conception of the good." Emanuel writes: "But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services." Emanuel sketches out a "civic Republicanism" telos -- that is -- our health care decisions as a society should be yoked to a system that "promote[s] the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic." He notes that such a system would deny "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." "
The "change" Obama promised to bring to America is entirely based in his expert, high level training in communitarian thinking. Communitarianism, like communism, socialism and capitalism, has a history and a philosophy that can be verified by a second grader. A simple google search for the word "communitarian" produces millions of returns. With more mainstream and credible sources describing the Obama administration as communitarian every day now, you'd think the Americans would be all over it and wanting to know more. Every day I do see a few more who are interested and studying it, but, (and especially since Palin jumped in) for the most part, Americans are not even considering it. They ignore it at their national peril.

This isn't the International Jewish Banker's theory or the Illuminatti and Alien agendas, although many would hope that you think it is, just so that they can easily discount you and laugh at your racism, ignorance and gullibility. The Communitarian Philosophy is well documented in upper academia and insider news reports since 1990, it's the topic of numerous grad school programs and international legal seminars; it's just not often discussed in view of the "unwashed masses." They have a Communitarian Network at George Washington University in D.C. They have extremely well connected leaders and mentors, like Dr. Amitai Etzioni, MaryAnn Glendon and Dr. John McNight, as well as an entire active network of Community activists (including Michelle and Barack Obama). The Communitarian Network published a Platform, it's signed by real people (some of the names you may even recognize) and they've published thousands of documents about their agenda. Dr. Etzioni isn't called a "guru" and the "everything expert" because he wrote one or two unread, obscure books. His latest book, "Security First" is quoted as an expert source in daily Pentagon briefings (and I still think I should get daily Pentagon briefings too, since I am the one who alerted a Pentagon intelligence analyst to Etzioni's Palmach terrorist ties to the Israeli Defense Force. As of June 2008, Etzioni was not even in the US Army's database of known international terrorists operating inside the USA!).

It should come as no surprise that the Communitarian Update #36 begins thus:
"The first ever workshop on bioethics from a communitarian perspective will take place at George Washington University on 6/5/2001. Papers by Ezekiel Emmanuel (A Communitarian Perspective on Research), Mark Kuczewski (Organ Donation and the Common Good), Leonard Fleck (A Communitarian Perspective on Health Resource Allocation), and Eric Meslin (Human Cloning). Participation is by invitation only. Send nominations to Joanna Cohn at with "bioethics" in the subject line."
In Europe, the terms for communitarian legal supremacy over national courts and political systems exists in thousands of EU documents, national integration departmental procedures and established free trade (WTO) case law. To say there is no evidence for communitarianism or that the theory is benign or ineffective is a lie of epic proportions. The reason the Anti Communitarian League website grew to become such a huge research site is because there's more evidence for communitarianism than one person has time to gather in one lifetime. How much longer can it remain so neglected and unimportant? How many communitarian accompanying laws must be passed before the American people are allowed to examine the principles it upholds?

Obama's communitarian mentors came to the USA from the 1850s to the 1990s to "shore up the moral, social and political environment." They continue to come here from the UK, Europe, Israel, the Soviet Union, the Vatican, the City of London, Brussels, the Hague and Communist China, advising US officials to make significant illegal changes to our political system. Communitarians open doors formerly locked and guarded by We the People under state and federal constitutional law. They help formerly free state citizens to advance harmoniously into a new specific idea of responsible global citizenship (aka slavery). They guide our leaders to foster interdepartmentalized privacy and property invasions. They advise our elected officials which people should be allowed to live, and ominously predict which people need to die for the "good of the community."
"Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96). " (Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor writing in "Deadly Doctors" about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's health policy advisor and brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel)
An ever changing target is difficult to identify or to launch an counter-attack against. That's why adept communitarians continuously shift their focus and hide their true ideology behind whatever ideology upsets you the most. When the American "right" accuses Obama of being a socialist or a communist, they play directly into the "capitalist-libertarian versus socialist" debate. The final outcome of the debate is not allowed into the debate itself. The left owns an ample arsenal of dis missives (red-baiting, McCarthyist, etc.) that keeps the controlled "right" exactly where the communitarians need them -- stuck in the outdated (and over) capitalist v communist divide. For example, Sarah Palin's right wing introduction of leftist communitarian policing to her hometown of Wassilla was never an issue in the last presidential campaign. Palin's recent facebook attack on Emanuel may be designed to take the focus OFF communitarianism ( Here's a place where the 103 comments show where the attention's been diverted to:

The true nature of the current debate cannot be exposed to the average American, as it appears close to 91% will be most likely to object to eliminating the US Constitution in favor of Communitarian Values (see ACL homepage poll:

As for Obama's new advisor on health care,
"His views aren’t limited to this one [the Lancet ] article. In 1996, he wrote a short article for the Hastings Center, in which he expounded upon the role that communitarianism might play in healthcare. Dr Emanuel’s bio-ethical views are heavily fueled by adherence to this philosophy of communitarianism. Briefly put, communitarianism is a fairly new political philosophy that emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarianism focuses on the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities."
What happens when Americans are actually introduced to the term communitarianism, and why is is always placed inside special quotes?
"Finally (really), because this is a blog about discrimination, I need to relate Dr.Emanuel’s health care “communitarianism,” i.e., his subordination of individual rights to the needs of the community, to the “communitarianism” that is at the root of much racial preference theory. Mickey Kaus noted, in the first of his posts linked above, that civic republican communitarianism is a version of modern liberalism popularized (to a degree) by the Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel. As some of you with long memories may recall, we have encountered Sandel and his theory here a couple of times, way back in 2003, in discussing how preferentialists have abandoned individual rights in favor of group rights (discriminating against individual whites and Asians isn’t discrimination because whites and Asians as a group suffer no undue hardship)"
There's no doubt what-so-ever that Obama's (and Hillary's) National Health Care program is based entirely in communitarian principles. Nobody's ever explained it better than the writers for the natural health site did almost five years ago:
"A communitarian ethic increasingly governs health care in the U.S. It places a greater value on the health of the community, on society as a whole, than on the health of particular individuals. Public health officials have put together a vaccination schedule designed to eliminate infectious diseases to which the population is prey.

"Officials recognize that these vaccines will harm a small percentage of (genetically susceptible) individuals, but it is for the common good. The communitarian code posits that it is morally acceptable, if necessary, to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. Or as one observer more bluntly puts it, "Individual sheep can be sheared and slaughtered if it is for the welfare of their flock." This information is provided by, the world's most visited and trusted natural health website.
Communitarianism, by Obama's mentor's definition, is supposed to be the final synthesis of all conflicting political, racial, and religious ideologies. It's based entirely on Georg Hegel's interpretation of "God's Idea." Hegel said men will only be free when they make themselves total slaves to the state. He also said only a very enlightened few can comprehend how this works out for mankind. Hegelians helped force the world into social evolution by promoting violent conflicts between opposites. Now they brilliantly offer us their preplanned and more "moral" solutions to their own staged conflicts. The real conflict, the one between us and them, has barely surfaced as a possibly yet. That's the one they know they'd lose.

The only thing the communitarians have not been prepared to debate is an anticommunitarian argument. Since they claim their final synthesis is so perfect it gives rise to no antithesis, they can never acknowledge the existence of any credible counter-theory, no matter how well presented it is or how well backed up it is with published documents. All American colleges teach communitarian programs and policy, but most are savy enough to disguise it with vague terms like sustainable community development and rebuilding faith-based communities. On the rare occassion that our anti thesis is introduced to a class as an assignment or under "further reading," the result is always the same -- dead silence.

When a communitarian uses the word "community" in a public program, they're quietly imposing Community Rights on unsuspecting people holding legal claim to the protection of their natural born Individual Rights. The term "community" can be used to define anything from the global merchant community to the local community's Neighborhood Watch program. The emerging global communitarian system is a data driven experiment in micro-managing all aspects of human life. It's no accident that the US Census expanded into the invasive American Community Survey, just as it's not an accident that rural college programs like the Natural Resources and Community Development Program offered by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks primarily teaches "Workshops using GPS for navigation and mapping." How can they make us all "participate" if they don't know who we are, where we live and how many guns we own?

Communitarianism is the global change ideology of the 21st century. It's the foundation for global COPS, US-UK peacekeeping invasions and UN-NATO wars of liberation. It's the purpose for intrusive international efforts to achieve sustainable community development. It's the foundation for the European Union (and CAFTA/NAU/SPP/Wildlife & Trade Corridors, and the primary reason for the failure of the Lisbon Treaty. Considering the recent anticommunitarian developments in Germany, Ireland, Portugul and the Czech Republic, now might be a very good time for Americans to get up to speed on Obama's real agenda and join their allies in what's left of the free thinking world.
"In essence, the court has ruled that by passing the so-called "accompanying law" to the Lisbon Treaty, which determines the rights of the German parliament to participate in European legislation, Germany had relinquished significant monitoring rights to the "Brussels EU". According to the judges, this unconstitutionally subjects the German people to the whims of a bureaucracy that lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy." (
The EU constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are being soundly rejected by the voters and judges (?!?!?) in several European countries. Nothing bothers the communitarian promoters of global peace and democracy more than people's insistance on peaceful, fully informed democratic voting. The Responsive Communitarians feel they have zero obligation to respond to legitimate questions and requests for their insider planning documents. If the communitarians have their way, Americans in the US will never get the chance to vote on communitarian integration. Obama and the fully committed communitarian US Congress will just slip it down our throats like we're all special guests at Jim Jones' cocktail party.

Their superior community morality knows no limits and has no organized opposition in the USA. The communitarians don't even worry about public scrutiny... the left v right divide works wonders at keeping people confused and way off target. How did the American press miss the fact that Obama appointed a communitarian to the US Supreme Court (Sonia Sotomayor)?
"Anyone who, without preconception, examines the life of Norman Thomas emerges with the sense of a deeply moral and morally subtle man who called himself a Socialist - even while he was repudiated by myriad Socialists - because he believed that a communitarian philosophy is truer to democracy than the everyone-for-himself libertarianism that represents the opposite pole in American politics." ("So, Who the Hell is Norman Thomas?")
Today I think anyone who still calls communitarianism a conspiracy theory or too difficult to pronounce or understand is purposefully diverting your attention from the only thing you may need to know about Obama. If you understand communitarianism, you understand it all. If you know just a piece of it, like the communist piece or the socialist agenda, you may not be able to see how capitalism and libertarianism play a role to further the overall communitarian agenda. Each "side" had a role in the final solution, so yes, they must all be studied and understood. But why stop midway in the dialectical drama? We're already into the final act where everything balances into one perfect theory of achieving world peace and harmony.

Etzioni assumed that once Obama won the presidency, all Americans would learn the actual terms for the new American system of injustice. Apparently Americans still need be kept in the dark regarding the purpose and objectives of the Obama administration. References to communitarianism continue to be short and appear benignly insignificant. It's so not. As Marc Ambender at the Atlantic assures us,
"Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich aren't debating the moral philosophy of John Rawls, whose formulations Emanuel borrows." (Zeke Emanuel, The Death Panels, And Illogic In Politics)
There's a very short window of opportunity being presented on the global stage.. who will speak for the Americans before the final curtain falls? The Irish? One can only hope.

Stop Communitarian Laws. The country you save may be your own.

Further reading:

Volume 10, Number 4, December 2000
E-ISSN: 1086-3249 Print ISSN: 1054-6863
DOI: 10.1353/ken.2000.0025
Gauthier, Candace Cummins.
Moral Responsibility and Respect for Autonomy: Meeting the Communitarian Challenge
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal - Volume 10, Number 4, December 2000, pp. 337-352
The Johns Hopkins University Press

"The principle of respect for autonomy has come under increasing attack both within health care ethics, specifically, and as part of the more general communitarian challenge to predominantly liberal values. This paper will demonstrate the importance of respect for autonomy for the social practice of assigning moral responsibility and for the development of moral responsibility as a virtue. Guided by this virtue, the responsible exercise of autonomy may provide a much-needed connection between the individual and the community."

About -- Niki Raapana is the co-founder of the Anti Communitarian League,, a tiny, unfunded private research tentsitute that studies communitarianism from a commoner's perspective. Her blog is Living Outside the Dialectic, and with her email box so spammed by right and left wing propagandists lately, she now prefers all online comments about her articles be presented there. Niki is also the author of "2020: Our Common Destiny" (an introduction to communitarian law and the corresponding global political system) and co-author of "The Anti Communitarian Manifesto," presented in 2 parts, "Part One: What is the Hegelian Dialectic?" and "Part Two: The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking."

Despite saying No, Irish are not alone

Long live the fighting Irish spirit! A thousand thanks to the anticommunitarians in Ireland, Portugul, Germany, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands, Italy and the Chech Republic! You are NOT alone and you also have allies in the USA (us!), Indonesia, South Pacific, South and Central America and everywhere else the "healthy instincts of the plain man" survive. Let's give EVERYONE in the world the chance to vote on national subordination to international communitarian injustice! Send global communitarians the message that NO means NO!

Stop Communitarian Laws.
The Country You Save May Be Your Own.

Despite saying No, Irish are not alone

Sunday July 06 2008

THE FICTION that the other 26 countries of the EU watched in dismay as Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty is just that -- a piece of fiction.

The UK voters would have done much the same, only more so, had they been given the chance. It was because the Blair government was saved by the French and Dutch referenda on the EU constitution that they were able to wriggle out of their election manifesto to have a referendum, claiming speciously that the Lisbon treaty was a mere tidying-up exercise and nothing like the Constitution. Everybody from the EU Constitution's creator, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, downwards knows that this is arrant nonsense.

So the failure to bring the revised "constitution" into being can this time be lain at the Irish door. For a second time the Brits have had a let-off.

Or have they? There is a growing feeling in continental Europe that the ungrateful Irish should be told, as they were after Nice, that they had better think again or be condemned to the slow lane in a two-speed Europe.

The bullying will start in earnest in the autumn. Irish ministers have inevitably pronounced the mantra "the people have spoken", but they will be told that that is no excuse.

The package to be put to the Irish voters in say, a year's time, can already be discerned. First, some deal will be done to save the Irish commissioner.

Most UK voters are mystified as to why the Irish care so much about retaining "their" commissioner. (In theory, all EU commissioners pledge themselves to operate as Europeans, not nationals of a member state; in practice they tend to regard themselves as extensions or outposts of their national Embassy.) But as I heard many times when I was UK Ambassador in Dublin, the big countries have other ways of exercising their power and influence in the EU. The smalls rely on the Commission and their national commissioner in particular.

Retaining the national commissioner for every nation state is of course not sensible for the efficient working of the Commission, which is already overblown -- and what happens when the next enlargement takes place? But it can probably be handled as a "temporary" derogation from the Lisbon treaty to avoid everyone being asked to vote on the revised treaty again.

Then we shall probably see a series of protocols which will spell out what the Lisbon treaty is not about. No conscription, no mandatory euthanasia, gay marriages or abortion, no tax harmonisation, no dilution of Irish identity, no abandonment of the Irish veto on World Trade talks, no to all the other porkies which the No side so effectively peddled and which the Yes side were so abysmal at countering -- and very slow out of the traps into the bargain.

It cannot, incidentally, have been helpful that some of the key protagonists on the Yes side -- like the Taoiseach and the Irish EU Commissioner -- confessed not to have read the document fully. It takes some chutzpah to expect the voters to vote for a document you can't be bothered to read yourself. Charlie McCreevy's comment that he hadn't read it completely and "would not expect any sane person to do so" may have been endearingly honest and typically forthright. But was it politically wise?

I don't think so. A view supported by the Eurobarometer poll on why people voted No. The predominant reason by far was unfamiliarity with the treaty. "How can I vote for something I'm not familiar with?"

So the conclusion some are tempted to come to -- that the Irish are an ungrateful lot who, having pocketed around €50bn in EU grants in recent years, are now unhappy at becoming net contributors and have fallen out of love with Europe -- is a complete misreading. The Irish may be nostalgic for the EU as it was, "the way we were", but they have always shown generosity to those in need.

The No vote was largely down to a failure to have the Lisbon treaty properly explained and the myths debunked. The Nos have always enjoyed a core vote of around 20 per cent of the electorate who generally turn out, so, unless there is a pretty high participation rate, they are likely to garner a high percentage of the vote.

How realistic is it to expect Irish politicians to put the Lisbon treaty back to the people with a few knobs on it to make clear that Irish neutrality is inviolate etc? Certainly they will come under enormous pressure from France, Germany and the Commission, but if they choose to resist they may find allies just across the Irish Sea.

The British, like the Irish, are resolutely opposed to the whole idea of a two-speed Europe -- though they are often erroneously attracted to an equally pernicious idea: that of a directory of the three bigs, UK, France and Germany, to act as the new motor of Europe. Not only does this alienate the smalls, but it also puts Italian, Spanish and Polish noses out of joint. Both ideas need to be firmly squashed if something of the original concept and, yes, idealism of a European Union is to be salvaged. But the British will stand with the Irish in opposing a two-speed Europe -- and if, as seems likely, the Conservatives win the next election, they would probably be staunch allies in defending the Irish from being bullied into a new referendum.

Whether the Irish will enjoy being driven into the UK's embrace, when one of the attractions of the European venture was precisely to escape from Ireland's historic over-reliance and dependence economically on the British market, is of course a very different matter. Europe offered Ireland the opportunity of marrying political independence from Britain with a far wider dimension for her economy and trade.

To face becoming semi-detached from Europe with only the British for company is every Irish government's bad dream. They will be hoping that it remains just the stuff of nightmares.

Sir Ivor Roberts is the President of Trinity College, Oxford and former British Ambassador to Ireland, Italy and Yugoslavia

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The "responsibility to protect"

John Cameron (Blackheath Books) sent this link to the International Crisis Group. Their about page assures us their goal is world peace. Good thing their colonial ancestors went around the world causing economic havoc and creating philosophical con-flicts of Hegelian proportions, or there might not be so many global conflicts that need such upper academic, European "help."

About Crisis Group

  • 1995, the year Crisis Group was founded
  • US$15.5 million, annual budget for 2009
  • Some 130 permanent staff worldwide, from 46 nationalities speaking 53 languages
  • Over 60 conflict and potential conflict situations covered
  • Over 80 reports and briefings published annually
  • Over 70 issues of the monthly CrisisWatch bulletin published since 2003
  • Over 850 full-length reports and briefings published since 1995
  • Over 25,000 targeted recipients of reports
  • Over 130,000 people subscribing online to receive reports
  • Over 2.2 million website visits annually
  • Over 14,000 media mentions annually
  • Over 150 opinion pieces published annually
  • President and CEO: Louise Arbour, Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (since July 2009)

1. The International Crisis Group is now generally recognised as the world’s leading independent, non-partisan, source of analysis and advice to governments, and intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations, European Union and World Bank, on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict. Our work has been applauded by, among others, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (‘a global voice of conscience, and a genuine force for peace’); former U.S. President Bill Clinton (‘in the most troubled corners of the world, the eyes, the ears and the conscience of the global community’); successive U.S. Secretaries of State (Condoleezza Rice: ‘a widely respected and influential organisation’, Colin Powell: ‘a mirror for the conscience of the world’ and Madeleine Albright: ‘a full-service conflict prevention organisation’); the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso (‘a highly influential and inspiring voice in the field of conflict prevention’); Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos (‘an indispensible source of information for governments and a wide range of institutions actively working towards peace and conflict resolution’); and U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke (‘a brilliant idea ... beautifully implemented’ with reports like CrisisWatch ‘better than anything I saw in government’). Crisis Group has regularly received similar endorsement from influential media, such as Quentin Peel of the Financial Times (‘an essential dose of detailed analysis and hard-nosed realism’) and The Economist (‘invaluable’ reports).

2. Crisis Group was founded in 1995 as an international non-governmental organisation on the initiative of a group of well known transatlantic figures who despaired at the international community’s failure to anticipate and respond effectively to the tragedies in the early 1990s of Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia. They were led by Morton Abramowitz (former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, then President of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace), Mark Malloch Brown (later head of the UN Development Programme, UN Deputy Secretary-General and UK Minister), and its first Chairman, Senator George Mitchell. The idea was to create a new organisation – unlike any other – with a highly professional staff acting as the world’s eyes and ears for impending conflicts, and with a highly influential board that could mobilise effective action from the world’s policymakers.

3. From small beginnings – a two-person office in London, and a tiny field staff in the Balkans and West Africa – Crisis Group has grown very rapidly over the last decade . It currently employs worldwide some 130 permanent staff, representing between them 46 nationalities and speaking 54 different languages, plus at any given time around 20 consultants and 40 interns. They are located on the ground in nine regional offices and eighteen other disclosed locations covering between them over 60 countries or situations of actual or potential conflict; in four advocacy offices, in Brussels (the global headquarters), Washington DC, New York and London; and as liaison presences in Moscow and Beijing. Crisis Group publishes annually over 80 reports and briefing papers, as well as the CrisisWatch bulletin assessing every month the current state of play in some 70 countries or areas of actual or potential conflict. Publications are distributed widely by email to over 25,000 targeted recipients and over 120,000 website subscribers, and are available free of charge on our website, which has grown enormously in popularity in recent years, with over 2.2 million visits in 2008.

4. What distinguishes Crisis Group from other organisations working on conflict analysis, prevention or resolution is a unique combination of field-based analysis, sharp-edged policy prescription and high-level advocacy, with key roles being played – very unusually for an NGO – by a senior management team highly experienced in government and by a highly active Board of Trustees containing many senior statesmen and women used to making things happen. Crisis Group’s Board is co-chaired by Lord (Christopher) Patten, formerly EU Commissioner for External Relations, Governor of Hong Kong and UK Cabinet Minister; and by Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador and Nigeria and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and former Senior Vice President for International Relations at Boeing. Crisis Group’s President and CEO has been, since July 2009, Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. She succeeded Gareth Evans, former Foreign Minister of Australia (1988-96) and a member of many international panels and commissions, who served as President between January 2000 and July 2009.

5. Crisis Group’s reports, and the advocacy associated with them, have had a very significant direct impact on conflict prevention and resolution in regions across the world, as policymakers wrestle with how to handle Islamist terrorism, nuclear proliferation, local conflict and the multiple problems associated with failed, failing and fragile states worldwide. We are generally seen as playing a major role in six main ways:

  • ringing early warning alarm bells, in the monthly CrisisWatch bulletin, and in specific ‘conflict alerts’, eg in Ethiopia-Eritrea, Darfur, Georgia-Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan;
  • contributing, on both process and substance, behind the scenes support and advice to critical peace negotiations, eg in Sudan, Burundi, Northern Uganda, Zimbabwe, Aceh, Nepal and Kenya;
  • producing highly detailed analysis and advice on specific policy issues in scores of conflict or potential conflict situations around the world, helping policymakers in the UN Security Council, regional organisations, donor countries and others with major influence, and in the countries at risk themselves, do better in preventing, managing and resolving conflict, and in rebuilding after it: recent examples include Iraq (particularly the Kirkuk issue), Guinea, Colombia, Sudan’s Southern Kordofan, Haiti, Tajikistan and Bangladesh;
  • providing detailed information unobtainable elsewhere on developments regarding conflict, mass violence and terrorism of particular utility to policymakers, eg on the Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia, the many jihadi groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Islamic Courts in Somalia.
  • offering new strategic thinking on some of the world’s most intractable conflicts and crises, challenging or refining prevailing wisdom, eg on the Iran nuclear issue, the role of Islamism worldwide, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the way forward in Myanmar/Burma, Cyprus, Kosovo, Iraq and the Western Sahara; and
  • strongly supporting a rules-based, rather than force-based, international order, in particular significantly influencing UN resolutions and institutional structures in relation to the new international norm of the ‘responsibility to protect’.

6. Crisis Group’s international headquarters are in Brussels, with major advocacy offices in Washington DC (where it is based as a legal entity) and New York, a smaller one in London, and liaison presences in Moscow and Beijing. The organisation currently has regional offices or local field representation in Abuja, Baku, Bangkok, Beirut, Bishkek, Bogotá, Cairo, Colombo, Dakar, Damascus, Dili, Islamabad, Istanbul, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Kabul, Kathmandu, Kinshasa, Nairobi, Ouagadougou, Port-au-Prince, Pretoria, Pristina, Sarajevo, Seoul, Tbilisi and Tehran, with analysts working in over 60 crisis-affected countries and territories across four continents. These include in Africa, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe; in Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China-Taiwan, Indonesia, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar/Burma, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; in Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Russia’s North Caucasus, Serbia, Ukraine and Turkey; in the Middle East and North Africa, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Gulf states, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen; and in Latin America and the Caribbean, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, Guatemala and Venezuela.

7. Crisis Group’s annual budget is now $15.5 million. It raises funds from governments (some 50 per cent), institutional foundations (27 per cent), and individual and corporate donors (23 per cent), most in the welcome form of core funding (over 70 per cent) rather than being earmarked for specific programs. For a full list of donors please click here. You can also consult our mid-2008 Financial Statements and Auditors’ Report. For a full list of donors please click here. You can also consult our mid-2008 Financial Statements and Auditors' Report.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Brussels EU

This just came from Bobby Garner.. kind of incredible. Can't wait to study it!

“Brussels EU” construct further eroded

The recent ruling by the German Constitutional Court, on Germany’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, does not merely threaten Berlin's schedule for the ratification of the treaty: it also further erodes the very credibility of the “Brussels EU” itself. As eloquently described in the comprehensive analysis published in the German Der Spiegel newspaper, published on 6th July, the court’s ruling and its possible ramifications are a political bombshell that could tip the scales for the other European countries that have yet to ratify the treaty – namely Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic.

In contrast to the premature and disingenuous pronouncements of those commentators and politicians who claimed that the ruling was favourable to Germany’s ratification of the treaty, examination of it reveals that the legal challenge filed with the court was largely successful – especially so given that the complainants and applicants are to be reimbursed their necessary expenses in proportion to their success in the proceedings.

In essence, the court has ruled that by passing the so-called "accompanying law" to the Lisbon Treaty, which determines the rights of the German parliament to participate in European legislation, Germany had relinquished significant monitoring rights to the “Brussels EU”. According to the judges, this unconstitutionally subjects the German people to the whims of a bureaucracy that lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy.

Moreover, the concluding statements of the court's decision make clear that the EU is not a state but rather an "association of sovereign states". As such, it follows that there can be no sovereign citizens' union and no completely representative organ in the form of the European Parliament – the latter of which the judges clearly state to be terminally undemocratic.

Significantly, therefore, the court has submitted a request to the German parliament to pass a new trial law. This could allow every German citizen to file a special EU suit with the Constitutional Court against unpopular European regulations and standards. As a result, no matter what German representatives agree to in Brussels, they will now always run the risk of a complaint being filed against them. The effect that this would have upon the Brussels EU dictatorship is nothing short of profound.

Little by little, therefore, it is becoming increasingly clear that we are witnessing the beginning of the end for the “Brussels EU” experiment. Whilst Chancellor Merkel and her friends may still be trying to pretend to the outside world that the treaty has cleared an important hurdle, the reality is that their deeply undemocratic plans for the future of Europe are now falling around them in tatters.

To read an analysis of the ruling published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper, click here.

For further analysis, from an Irish perspective, describing how the German judgment fundamentally changes the “Brussels EU” experiment, read Bruce Arnold’s insightful article in the Irish Independent by clicking here.

To read the German Constitutional Court’s ruling, click here.

To read the German Constitutional Court’s press release that accompanied the ruling, click here.

Monday, August 10, 2009

"Deadly Doctors" by BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Chris Katko found this recent article by a former Lt Governor of NY while researching Obamacare. This line caught his eye, and he sent the article link on to me:

"Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care." (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel)

This bothers you? Now just wait, don't even think you need to know what communitarianism is, or what principles the Emanuel children have. These boys' dad was an Irgun terrorist who invaded and massacred the innocent, friendly Muslim people of Dier Yassin, and their father is an associate of the former Palmach terrorist turned guru Herr Amitai Etzioni (who cleaned up the Irgun mess and helped them become became respectable soldiers of Zion.) Like Patrick insinuates in his comments about my article "Who the Falk is Amitai Etzioni?", we're all just cattle so we can't ever be allowed to know what our superior masters have planned for our future or bother to try to stop them. Cows can't fight back... can they?

Communitarianism is not only the synthesis between capitalism and communism, it's not only the basis for Human Rights and the Earth Charter, it's also directly tied into the British-Zionist-Christian UN Local Agenda 21 for the Middle East. Communitarian law is based in dialectical Talmudic legal principles, and this is the big "truth" barrier to patriotic American Right Wing Christian NWO police state protestors. The Christian Right supports Zionism, they are Israeli patriots first, so they will never expose the threat Zionism poses to the USA or a free world. The Americans must remain stupid and stuck in believing Obama is a communist, a socialist and a Muslim. If it ever gets out that Obama and his staff (and his first Supreme Court appointee) are adherants to a verifiable political, social and legal theory called communitarianism, genuine investigative reporting and intense academic scrutiny could result in an educated, enraged public. Real American attention to actual living communitarians would severely damage the overall communitarian plan for a Supranational World Government, so be sure to never name the global to local players or their actual theory of justice, at least not before the American cows are safe in their pens. Mooooo... shhhhhh.

July 24, 2009
Posted: 1:03 am
July 24, 2009

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infec tion Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.