Friday, December 25, 2009

Obama establishes communitarian supremacy of law

I agree with Pete who sent this, it doesn't look good to me either.
"In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves."http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
Communitarian policing was introduced to the world in the mid 1990s. One of the first "triggers" for me, the thing that pushed my involvement into high gear and led to Dawson v. Seattle, was when Community Policing Officer Hope Bauer told the Dawson hostages to shut up about their "rights" because, "You people have too many rights in this country as it is."

I spent years looking for the answer to why she said that. Starting with the new concept for community policing naturally led me to the new concept of international community justice. Now I finally understand WHY Americans could not be told about this new legal system, and still can't be told, even when they're being told.

It drove me bonkers when the term "communitarian law" was discounted as unverifiable. I've since posted hundreds of links to case law, universities and seminars openly teaching communitarian principles for international justice. At some point the Americans have GOT to start studying the actual LAW, don't they?

Now our fellow citizens (my son included?) can be arrested on US soil for communitarian crimes by international communitarian police and tried in an international communitarian court practicing international communitarian law. But don't worry everybody, we can rest assured they will be well defended by local communitarian lawyers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425

4 comments:

Sean said...

Fear not kind friend, they cannot yet arrest the free and utterly common flow of our thoughts.

Regular old thinking. Most people take it for granted that "what seems right" or what some call "common sense" tends to have more power and effect than: ALL EXECTUTIVE ORDERS, INTERNATIONAL LAWS, TREATIES and TYPICAL INTELLECTUAL BULLSHIT.


I know it offers no solace. But one day, when the common sensibilities of the people at large ("community?") are FINALLY affected and offended... The 15th round of this one sided fight will turn out to be one we can be proud of. I hope. I know you've been waiting a long time to see it happen. No guarantees I know. But I'm still holding out hope against hope that one day people will feel the cold touch, they'll recoil, they'll become confused>enlightened>ANGRY and take action.

I don't think it will make the world stop turning, but I do think it will hold up their plan for another hundred years or so.

MERRY CHRISTMAS.


-s

P. Barnes said...

Along the same lines, an interesting blog post of late:

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html


"...anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials..."

and

"...And now, once again, 144 years after the Civil War, we have established as the law of the land and the policy of the United

States government that whole classes of people can be declared "non-persons" and have their liberty stripped away -- and their torturers and tormentors protected and coddled by authority -- at a moment's notice, with no charges, no defense, no redress, on nothing more than the suspicion that they might be an "enemy combatant," according to the arbitrary definition of the state..."

Reading one version of Black's law dictionary and how it defines person:

"A human being is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. Specifically the person is that legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. But not all human beings are persons, as was the case in Old England when there were slaves."

So, what do we make of that? In Old England everyone was deemed a person thus many were deemed slaves. How is it that the benefit of person-hood allows slavery? Is voluntary slavery illegal?

The Obama administration, according to the above blog post, wants to deny legal recourse by stripping those arbitrarily deemed "enemey combatant" of there person-hood and thus labeling them "non-persons."

So then is a "non-person" the same as a human being without person status? Or is a non-person now a human being devoid of rights or the obligation of the duties that are inherent in person-hood? Or are they saying that all human beings are now persons, one and the
same? Thus because of the duty that come with rights they have a collective right to strip a man not only of his/her person-hood but also of his/her god given in-alienable rights.

Is society a prison? Person's are men and women that enjoy a standing or status in society. That standing clothes you with certain rights, but the other side of that coin are duties inherent in accepting those rights. Americans are taught that they have god given in-alienable rights, how is it that they can take these with a deeming by those empowered to "serve?"
And how is it that a deeming by TPTB(the powers that be) can override a so called Universal Declaration of Human Rights and strip a man of his "human rights" whatever they are?

If you care to look at some early law dictionaries the words human being were defined as "Monster."

human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

Shall we all now beg for our universal "human" rights? Are we all being led down the garden path?

Just some thoughts....

Bobby Garner said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
the tent lady said...
This comment has been removed by the author.