Living Outside The Dialectic

Update on 2020/TACM and Gerteeville

2012-01-26T04:12:00.000-08:00

BOOK NEWS: The revisions to 2020 and TACM are finished. I mean it's REALLY FINISHED this time! We're laying it out now and will have the pdf file ready to download within a few days and the hardcopies in hand and in the mail by February 6, 2012. Thanks for all the encouragement, support and paitence from everyone who ordered already.

Special thanks to my sister Kathy for housing us during our crisis and providing such great food! We're warm, have a place to work and sleep, and we feel very fortunate to have each other right now.

LECTURES: On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 we will be speaking about the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Bowl Plan at the Marston Theatre in the Lousac Library in Anchorage, Alaska, from 6:30 pm until 8:30 pm. Hope to see you there!

16' Homestead Gertee roof collapsed under heavy snow

New Communitarian Religions

2012-01-09T02:25:00.000-08:00

It's been a wonderful month thanks to the more than a few people who've gone out of their way to get us through these dark days. It's amazing what a few cash donations do for my self-esteem and my ability to pay my way. We've got more donations than most people would guess since we went online with our research and lifestyle, and every new supporter we get makes me think of all the previous ones. Each act our supporters do to contribute to our well being reminds me how blessed we are to live in a time when so many people from so many nations can afford to be so generous.

I am grateful and honored to be thought of so highly by so many different kinds of readers. Without the respect from you and the people you send, none of this work would continue to exist. I've been asked again why I do continue, and one supporter said I'm either stubborn or Christlike! And since I'm most certainly not walking in the steps of Jesus, that would mean I am just stubborn because I do refuse to give in to the utter ridiculousness of my attempt to "out" the communitarians. I'm more like that poor Japanese foot soldier still hiding in the hills years after WWII ended, the guy who never heard the news that the war was over... didn't know that his side had lost the war.

Press briefing on the World Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in April 2010, http://www.iisd.ca/csd/csd18/7may.html
(left to right): Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth (Nigeria), Meena Raman, Third World Network (Malaysia), Bolivian President Evo Morales, Maude Barlow, Blue Planet/Council of Canadians National Chairperson, and Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network (US). The declaration from the conference calls for $300 billion a year to address climate change, emissions cuts of 50 percent by 2020 in developed nations and an international climate court for enforcement.

Like Clinton has said, more than once, "Americans are more communitarian now." Time is only confirming it. And the pervasiveness is somewhat mindblowing to this anti communitarian researcher who still has to defend herself against allegations of fabricating the very word itself.

This year the two top Republican contenders are a Mormon Communitarian and a Catholic Communitarian. Rick Santorum is being labled a Communitarian Conservative. Suddenly both terms appeared in widely read online journals, and I'm still waiting to see where that goes, if anywhere.

Not only is the internet being bombarded with articles using the term communitarian to define new political beliefs. I'm actually finding more places where authors are claiming the very foundations for their religion is communitarianism. I started finding it as part of an update I did to 2020 called Rio+20. I ended up with a lot more new information than I could justify adding to our concise, short book. Important new quotes that show how it's all just part of the lingo now, like this one:

"Environmentalists also must realize the true glories in life are in nature, and that we must get ourselves back into nature in a communitarian way. Far from being a difficult and repressive kind of future, that is the most enlightening, liberating kind possible. This is not a common way of thinking among mainstream environmentalists, or even the grassroots. But it must be part of the vision if there's going to be any kind of sustainable future." David Kupfer, long-time environmental activist and journalist, semi-nomadic but now based in Selma, Ore.

Here's a new class that includes communitarianism in the "the Age of Reform":

Flashcards: Era of Reform, Communitarianism, Litaracy Renaissance

http://quizlet.com/2233004/era-of-reform-communitarianism-litaracy-renaissance-flash-cards/

Over the years we've learned a LOT more about Catholic doctrines from a subscription to Culture Wars provided by one of our most generous supporters since 2007. An anonymous reader sent a copy of Keys to This Blood last year, but that's pretty much the extent of my Catholic "studies." To watch them rise as one of the most organized promoters of Communitarianism makes me very sad, because I have found my Catholic readers to be some of the most supportive of what we stand against. Last year I was gifted a Rosary from a woman who read what I wrote about the Luciferian worshipers in Kenny Lake. I totally felt her concern for my protection against the demons she believes I'm fighting and it was the most touching gesture a complete stranger has made to me as a result of what I write.

We included Catholic Distributivism on the Etzioni "arguments" page at the old ACL, and I'll have to check but I'm pretty sure we don't have anything on the Doctine of Subsidiary.

The Catholic Doctrine of Subsidiary

Toward a global civil society

By Michael Walzer
http://books.google.com/books?id=tZtMrnqHCqgC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=communitarian+Catholic+doctrine+of+subsidiarity&source=bl&ots=H4MmlM3Z9_&sig=OECqxKpp31eBD5C3faWPryuxtz4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AaEHT-fBKYOMiALynPnTCQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=communitarian%20Catholic%20doctrine%20of%20subsidiarity&f=false

Subsidiarity in her/his own sphere; Women and Christian politics

http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Wearne/BCWSubsidiarity.pdf

The under-development of Christian politics in these countries is linked spiritually to the dominance of utilitarian, communitarian and pragmatistic visions of civil society which have nourished feminism. The feminist challenge has provided ongoing support for moral, industrial and political changes which are viewed now as essential to women’s role.

Do the Mormon leaders confirm this claim about Mormon roots?

"Mormonism came out of that period in the 1840’s that was called the Age of Reform. You had a variety of utopian socialists both spiritual and secular in nature. Many of them had interesting marital patterns or economic views outside the mainstream. Mormon communitarianism was very much apart of early nineteenth American communitarianism"

http://troydwilliams.com/2011/12/08/a-history-of-utah-radicalism/

What Does Islam Have to Say?

http://acmadtoqueromacarimbang.webs.com/apps/blog/show/3414045-what-does-islam-say-about-communitarian-and-universalist-approaches-to-ethics-and-what-implications-does-this-have-for-interfaith-dialogue

So what, if anything, does all this new communitarian religion information have to do with the proposed Rights for Mother Earth at Rio+20? There is a lot more research I'd like to see on this now, because the only references to communitarianism I could find in religious works years ago were so scarce it was alomost non existent. It was a fluke we found a Jesuit in Brazil who confirmed our exact thesis that communitarianism is the synthesis between capitalism and socialism. The only confirmed religious sources I had were in Jewish history and Catholic writings about the 2nd Conversion. Now there are multiple Protestants saying Christianity was always communitarian and Indigenous tribes around the globe advertising their ancient communitarian virtues and morality. The Baha'is, the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, and the Earth worshippers all share one thing in common now. Their ancient Big Mother is communitarianism.

http://cwyjaguar.blogspot.com/2009/02/humanistic-communitarian-socialism.html

This remarkable remarketing of the world's major religions has profoundly affected our understanding of our work. How absolutely humbling to watch the world's religions follow the same process for integration as the world's political systems, and for the same reasons.

http://www.paragonhouse.com/product.php?productid=148

I'm sorry I haven't been actively responding to all the comments I get, sometimes I'm barely able to get into email and I'm so behind on my internet obligations I'm going to taper down where I post. I do make sure I check blogger comments though and try to post your feedback here as soon as I can.

My further apologies for posting things and not explaining what relevance they have to my work here, I used to do that at the top of every topic page at the ACL. It seemed important to clarify what role the topic plays in the bigger scenario, and I should have stuck to that format. If all goes as planned I'll be moving this blog back to the ACL website and posting all the new research there, in a new library or encylopedia layout that even I can find what I'm looking for! And I'll try to make it open to contributing editors, because there is just too much now for 2 people to keep up on. I'll be contacting everyone who's ever offered to help put the site back up.

found this at http://www.writersontheloose.com/writers/RichardMichael/index.cfm?story=49084

Happy New Year to all our friends, readers and supporters! You're the best!

Conservative Communitarianism comes out in the US Press!

2012-01-06T16:55:00.000-08:00

I'm barely able to get online right, old blogger is making life difficult, but I have to post that Rick Santorum was identified as a communitarian. Be interesting to see how far this story goes. From what I've seen few comments address the term in their responses, but that could change.

"The Communitarian Crush on Rick Santorum", by Alec McGillis at New Republic

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/99294/the-communitarian-crush-rick-santorum

SMART GROWTH CENTRALIZING WEALTH IN THE NEW EARTH AGE

2011-12-28T04:51:00.000-08:00

10' Gertee Travelers ~ home ~ winter 2011

I submitted one of the new chapters in 2020/TACM to newswithviews. The book revisions are underway and it won't be much longer before everyone who pre ordered will have their copies. I know some people are very upset with us because of the long delays and I don't blame them one bit. It has been over a year since some people ordered theirs.

There are several reasons it's so overdue, all of them are of a personal nature and partly health related, so I am extremely grateful to the majority of our customers who have shown us such patience. I am humbled by the people who became so concerned that we were unable to fulfil our obligations that they wrote not to ask for a refund but to ask where to send donations and how else they can help us to finish it. Some people know (from following my blog) how little we have and how we live. There have always been people who respected the way we didn't try to make money off our research, they appreciated the fact that we had no advertisements and flashing banners saying "Buy now!" I always wanted to maintain that kind of presentation, in spite of the reality that sites without ads usually have funding coming from someplace else.

For years I avoided the whole marketing scene because I really believed that this was such essential information that it had to be free. I managed to survive on part time jobs for many years so that I could keep studying and writing continuously. And then my body just gave out after years of sporadic eating, the stress of the topic and constant studying in primitive conditions. I started this work when I was 43 and still felt young enough to go winter camping to research and write ACL articles in a tent. I'm 55 now, and sleeping in a tent on the ground in the rain about killed me this past summer. Anyone who's ever had pneumonia will understand why I almost wished I would die. But somehow a brush with death also brings on a new sense of purpose and determination. Now I feel inspired to put these books out for sale and put the free research back online in the new format. One last time I'll forget about eating and spend the winter writing in a wood heated unplumbed Gertee. But this has to be the last time I do this.

SMART GROWTH
CENTRALIZING WEALTH IN THE NEW EARTH AGE
http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki121.htm

On furthering the Capitalist versus Communist conflict

2011-11-21T22:05:00.000-08:00

Last night I looked at how compelling the forces working within the dialectical games are. I see steady pushing in the right v left arena. I see the conflict written out in plain English everywhere I go. And, what's really interesting is to see how the synthesis is being more often lumped back in with the sides against capitalism. It's apparent to me now that no matter how much right or left patriot Americans learn about the communitarian synthesis, they usually revert right back to the communist versus capitalist arguments, which do nothing but help push the solution!

In my humble opinion, we would all be much better off in opposing the horrible solution, the political, social and legal framework for regional and international Communitarian Integration. The new planning law, this new spiritual law that in some nations is now part of their revised constitutions, is not called communism or capitalism. If it's called socialism at all, it's called Communitarian Socialism, or in less official documents, Market Socialism.

Americans could so easily find the premise for many new laws in the United States if they stopped using the outdated words communism and socialism AND capitalism. We'd be much better off focusing serious attention on the growing body of regulations that balance individual liberty against the common good. Our people should be looking for the words Communitarian or Community when studying recent, drastic regulatory changes to local, state and national standards and norms. Citizens could find their newly formed agencies enforcing the new communitarian laws, if only they knew the legal term Community is different from the word.

Communitarian Law and Community Law are exactly the same terms and are used interchangeably in the international legal arena. All UN, EU and WTO and Regional Unions are based in the Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause. The real and verifiable name of the emerging global governance bureaucracy is called Communitarianism. The documentation to support this is all over the world now, and new publications such as this one appear online daily:

The European cooperation for development policies: between national interests and communitarian norms

Drd. Victor NEGRESCU1 is currently a PhD candidate at the National School of Political Science and Administration (SNSPA), with an MA in International and European Studies at IEP Grenoble and Pierre Mendes France University, and a member of the teaching staff of the Faculty of Political Science of the Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University. He is a member of FOND – National Federation of the NGOs for Development in Romania and member of several research working groups on development policies.

Abstract: In the context of the growing importance of the cooperation for development in the European Union and the appearance of a common growing public opinion agreement supporting this kind of initiatives, it is necessary to understand if we can talk today about a true common European policy. Still covered on intergovernmental level and considered to be a part of the national foreign policies, EU development aid is still far from reaching the maximum of its efficiency.

In this paper we try to introduce a new evaluation method of the cooperation for development policies and interpretation of the degree of communitarisation of the national policies that will enable us to appreciate the stages that have to be completed by the member countries but also by the EU to realize a completely uniform European assistance strategy and of the activities, so necessary for raising the efficiency of the funds allocated by the EU, but also in the perspective of achieving the Millennium Development Goals

Keywords: Developing countries, world economy, communitarisation, Europeanization, public opinion, international society.
http://stockholm.sgir.eu/uploads/The%20European%20cooperation%20for%20development%20policies%20-%20between%20national%20interests%20and%20communitarian%20norms.pdf

There are stages that have to be achieved before the next level of social evolution can be reached. Everyone who studies Marxism learns the basic formula for helping reluctant, unenlightened people to change like butterflies into the next stage.

The revolutionary process called dialectical materialism is the core foundation for Marxist thinking. Marx modified the Hegelian theory of dialectical idealism. Unlike Hegel's theory of ideals driving history, dialectical materialism is the idea that material conditions drive ideals, and more importantly, can influence human history. Marx proposed mankind embarks on an evolutionary series of MATERIAL conflicts between the classes, and the bloodier the battles, the better. Hegel provided the Big Idea that mankind achieves perfection when the state becomes God, and that the highest form of freedom is only achieved through complete submission to the state as God. Marx and Engels took the conflict further and made it a physical struggle as well.

Dialectical Idealism and Dialectical Materialism are the two main forces driving every 20th century and onward revolution on the planet. The part most conservatives refuse to accept as a possibility, is that without their support for the opposite theory of capitalism, communism could not exist as the force that it became. These theories of economic systems were designed to feed off each other's never ending natural breeding grounds for animosity, and it has the most potential to turn vague senses of wrongdoing into seething anger into violence. Both Hegel and Marx agreed violence is the best scenario for moving humanity toward its destiny.

Capitalism versus Communism is designed to be most effective when there are only two classes left, the poor and the rich. Naturally the American middle class has much to lose in this "final" battle between the top and bottom class. Recent history of Marxist inspired revolutionaries extends beyond Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, it includes capitalist funded imperialist puppets, like the Somoza family in pre-Sandinista Nicaragua. Neither "side" of the Capitalist versus Communist debate can claim perfection over the other. Both economic theories have contributed their share to global poverty and deaths in the millions. The Capitalist versus Communist conflicts are also a bit inconsistent. The United States sided with Stalin and still sides with Israel, a nation founded on an kabbalistic communitarian system called the kibbutz.

Our thesis is global communitarianism is the final stage that balances all of the conflicts. We pose that this is the final, unnamed system planned to unnaturally occur at the end of the dialectical conflicts of opposites game. Some schools still teach that both Marx and Engels were vague about what that final perfect middle between all opposite ideologies would be called, but in the U.S. patriot news communism is usually taught as the ultimate goal of Marxist revolutions.

If you follow the line of Marxist logic, communism cannot be the final synthesis of Ideas. The final perfect solution has to be a combination of the conflict between two previously posed ideas. It cannot be one or the other, because the final solution is totally Balanced and new. Even the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was only a phase toward ultimate harmonization of all people under one set of values and norms which requires no enforcement. Since there is a direct, ongoing dialectical conflict between capitalism and communism/socialism, then none of those ideologies can be the synthesis. Any one of the familiar theories that has existing opposition cannot be the final, perfect solution, according to the forumla for human social evolution.

Each new synthesis has to be identified as something that merged the thesis and the antithesis into a new Idea. Political synthesis can only be something that brings people from both sides to a middle compromise. Up until Communitarianism was introduced, the middle compromise has continued to become a new thesis with an established opposition camp. According to the theorists, the way we would know when we had reached the final stage of human social evolution was when there arose no opposition to the synthesis. Perfection is reached when nobody alive claims the most recent synthesis is imperfect. Communitarianism is the most recent synthesis, and so far, the only organized opposition is us. We are nobody lowborn commoners without titles of nobility or degrees. That basically means there's no opposition.

Our anticommunitarian argument is based on a few basic ideas:

1. Capitalism versus Communism, in a Hegelian/Marxist equation, equals Communitarianism. (Or Individualism versus Collectivism, Right versus Left, Republican versus Democrat, etc.)

Evidence for Communitarianism being the final Marxist/Capitalist solution between the two supposedly opposing "sides" exists in abundance. Our argument has, so far, proved incontrovertible. Our argument, our reasoning, and our version of the evolutionary history of Communitarianism have never once been disputed, nor have any of the documents we cite been proven to be fraudulent. We have, since 2003, openly solicited responses from Dr. Amitai Etzioni and his Network. We have also had our thesis introduced in graduate level classes where we offered to print anything the students wanted to write about it. We have never received any papers disputing us. Our ACL research website has had over a million visits, and over half of them have been to our thesis. If our poll and stats data can be trusted, we've had more than one school review board visit our Hegel page. I still feel this should qualify us for a nice fat grant and admission to a formal anticommunitarian studies program, but that offer is still forthcoming. :)

Back to the argument:

2. Communitarianism, a recent modification of the U.S. legal system, did not arise naturally from the people of the United States, it was never approved or adopted by the U.S. House (of directly elected) Representatives, or any directly elected state legislatures.

3. Anything that changes or modifies the constitutions of any states or the federal constitution, without full disclosure and full consent of the people who legally govern in this nation, is sedition against the authority of the legitimate rulers here, who are the American people. Sedition and treason are criminal offenses under US Code.

International environmental and trade associations, councils, and courts, established under WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, UN Local Agenda 21, and the Earth Charter, have never been officially explained to Amercians, nor have the provisions inserted into the above documents. New terms in American law that adopt the supremacy clause have never been approved by 3/4 majority of the state legislative bodies, as is required to revise the Constitution of the United States. (People call for a new Constitution all the time now, but it was already quietly invalidated by Communitarian supremacy under international agreements over 20 years ago!)

All dissent against the insane expansion of government power over private lives and national economies is funnelled into groups that play a role in the conflict or the pre-prepared solution. I have found more and more people from every side of the political and religious spectrum clamoring for a communitarian solution to the global economic crisis. From the Occupy movement to the Pope, to the leaders of many nations and major NGOs, they all repeat the same three things: Elimination of 1.Degradation of the environment, 2. Poverty, and 3. Social Equity.

Many agreements to reach these goals by specific dates already exist. Agenda 21 and sustainable development are just the tip of the iceberg. Related agreements like The Millennium Goals, and their significance to the radical legal and structural changes now happening to existing national systems, cannot be overemphasized. Remember what Victor said about the Millenium goals in his paper about Communitarian norms? Didn't he say, "In this paper we try to introduce a new evaluation method of the cooperation for development policies and interpretation of the degree of communitarisation of the national policies that will enable us to appreciate the stages that have to be completed by the member countries but also by the EU to realize a completely uniform European assistance strategy and of the activities, so necessary for raising the efficiency of the funds allocated by the EU, but also in the perspective of achieving the Millennium Development Goals"?

We're so lucky, because Victor told us the method. He provided the link between sustainable development, human development, and communitarian norms. Notice Victor didn't write a paper about communist or socialist norms that would help in the perspective of acheiving the Millennium Goals.

What's Going On?

Environmental problems threaten human development progress, UN report says
The annual UNDP Human Development Report was released on 2 November. In the lead-up to Rio+20, the upcoming UN conference on sustainable development, this year’s edition entitled Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All focuses on the link between human development and environmental sustainability. The report calls for urgent action to slow climate change, prevent further degradation and reduce inequalities as environmental deterioration threatens to reverse recent progress in human development for the world’s poorest.

The emerging supranational system of global governance, or the New World Order (NWO) as many of our esteemed leaders prefer to call it, is based on a philosophy of law called communitarianism. It's basic, most simple concept is explained as the "balance" between too much liberty and too much servitude. It's a balance between unfettered anarcho capitalism with limited government intrusion, and state controlled collectivism with total government intrusion. It's the perfect middle, and it is being presented as the most reasonable compromise between all the forces gathering to fight the dialectical battles in the streets of America.

The global system has already been built that will replace all national governments. In Russia, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Africa, Israel and the EU, the ideology for the new system is well understood by officials. In South America and portions of Africa and the Middle East it's been used to rally the Indigenous people's support for global enforcement of protections of Human Rights and the Environment. Sustainable Development, one of the programs under Communitarianism, has been adopted not only by global to local governments but by most businesses as well.

Bolivia, leading the call for full Human rights for Mother Earth, modified their national constitution to openly embrace a new form of socialism called Communitarianism. The social evolution of humanity as planned is well into the advanced stages.

Many Americans say they are ready to fight, but armed struggle is a two edged sword for Americans. An armed rebellion or conflict within our national boundaries would be disastrous for anyone clinging to any sense of freedom. There are many new law enforcement agencies dedicated to preserving global communitarianism, and not only have our forces become militarized peacekeepers, the datagathering capabilities and interdepartmental sharing between Community Police around the globe continues to grow.

I still say we all need to ask for our COPS' "file."

We, as a nation, remain totally out of the loop when it comes to Communitarian integration of standards and norms, even as our nation adopts the laws that solidify our collective status in the international courts. So, why do so many people steer concerned citizens away from knowing what system the UN will activate after they "save the day?" All evidence suggest the UN expects us to beg for them to help change the world we live in. I didn't think we would. I was wrong.

Twelve years ago when I started my rants against communitarianism, nobody had heard of the term. Today more than some of our people are saying communitarianism is a much better way to live. The "masses" still believe in the dialectical lies, much the same way 20th century Russians and Germans did,. My studies have shown that historically, as well as today, the masses aren't always the 99%, until membership in the ruling party becomes mandatory.

Every former nation in the world has been subdued and forced to committing to the same efforts. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't just about oil pipelines or poppies, it can't only be that, not when the primary result is their adoption of the global system for a sustainable planet.

21 November 2011 – The General Assembly called today on countries to reiterate and scale up their support for Afghanistan during its transition period, and outlined six major areas the country should focus on to ensure its long-term stability and progress.
In a resolution adopted unanimously this morning, the Assembly called for increased efforts in the areas of security, justice and governance, social and economic development, reconciliation and integration, regional cooperation and strategic partnerships. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40472&Cr=afghanistan&Cr1=

The only thing that leads us to finding Communitarian Law is a familiarity with the term communitarianism. There exists no confirmable source for "communist law" or "socialist law" in any of the important global governance documents (although it does exist in some national documents that cede communitarian law is supreme). The name of the law of integration, and of the principles for which it stands, is Communitarian Law, also known as Community Law.

The principles for supremacy are defined as Communitarian. Capitalism, communism, socialism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, anarchism, fascism etc are not nor have they ever been globally supreme. They were all only stages in the dialectic. Much like the movie Alien with Sigorney Weaver, our familiar political and economic systems are all brothers and sisters working to protect and eventually crown their Big Mother Sucker, Communitarianism.

If we can't see the most powerful enemy to ever invade our lands and our homes, how can we possibly come up with ways to kill (or at least table) it? We don't even know what we're up against. It's so confusing, we need lawyers to study the laws from a constitutional perspective. We need local politicans who are aware and on the lookout for the terms inserted into proposed legislation. But the term Community isn't being taught alongside Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 by the leaders of the pro freedom opposition. Locals aren't being taught the one thing that could be the basis for the biggest class action lawsuit in the history of American civil courts.

Many of the communitarians operate in our neighborhoods as both concerned citizens and government paid agents. This is a glitch in the system, according to my unlawyerly observations, and even though we failed miserably in our Dawson lawsuit, I still think it's an avenue worth pursuing if you go after the actual terms inserted in legal documents. I was once told by a Washington State Supreme Court Justice that he could not rule on anything that didn't come before his court. Dawson never made it to the State Appelate Court, it was bumped up to federal because we cited federal statutes, and a Clinton appointee ruled in favor of the federal community police. Maybe if we'd only cite state laws in our filings we could keep the cases at the level where we have the most power to pack the courtrooms with our neighbors and our local media, and in some states, take our cases before justices who are directly elected by us.

Citizens across America have been subjected to communitarian laws, penalized for violating communitarian laws, and lost their property under communitarian takings. The basis for all these new laws that "balance individual rights against the rights of the community," or the collective, the Common Good or Mother Earth, is the Communitarian philosophy of law. And yes, the neo global ideology has a soft side and a more muscular side.

As our most revered Communitarian guru wrote on his blog in on January 08, 2010:

Now: Muscular Communitarianism
The time for muscular communitarianism has come. In his second year, President Obama best reveal that his communitarianism is not powerless, but indeed has muscles of its own, although these have so far been rarely exercised.

The president has gone the extra mile to show that he is willing to talk, consult, and collaborate with allies and foes alike -- foreign and domestic. Nor has this form of kumbaya communitarianism been without results. Russia and China are supporting sanctions against Iran. The fever of anti-Americanism overseas has subsided some.

But, all said and done, Obama's soft communitarianism has yielded relatively little. Iran continues to thumb its nose at his solicitations; the GOP is mocking it; and the business elites are paying out their bonuses using taxpayer dollars, as if Obama never railed against them. Obama can maintain his positive posture, continue to refuse to hector nations whose regimes are different from ours, and even keep extending an olive branch to the business elites. But he would be much more effective if he would show that communities whose norms and leaders are ignored can twist the arms of, even give a kick in the pants to, those who refuse to collaborate. http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2010/01/now-muscular-communitarianism.html

One more time, because it's well worth repeatng:

.. he [Obama] would be much more effective if he would show that communities whose norms and leaders are ignored can twist the arms of, even give a kick in the pants to, those who refuse to collaborate.

To a communitarian thinker, especially an Israeli commando who fought as a terorist for Israeli independence, nuking Iranian civilians may be little more than a swift kick in the pants. To the rest of the thinking world, it's more like an explosion that blows uncollaborating pants into tiny pieces. Remember, in Orwellian doublespeak, war means peace. And nobody speaks doublespeak better than Amitai Etzioni, the Tree of Knowledge from Zion.

A well known intellectual on social policy who first rose to prominence in the 1970s, Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at George Washington University and founding director of the Institute for Communitarian Studies.[1]

Although best known for his work and theories on sociology and domestic policy, Etzioni has, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, become an increasingly strident—if often idiosyncratic—proponent of military solutions to U.S. foreign policy problems, in particular those dealing with Israeli security. (For more on Etzioni’s history and ideas, see Marsha B. Cohen, “Muscular Nonrationality: Amitai Etzioni and War with Iran,” Right Web, July 21, 2010.)

An illustrative example of Etzioni’s militarist views is his May 2010 article for the U.S. Army’s Military Review titled “Can a Nuclear-Armed Iran Be Deterred?” In the article, Etzioni claims that once armed with nuclear weapons Iran will be impervious to nuclear deterrence and thus, the United States should bomb the country to derail its nuclear program. He contends that a concerted bombing campaign targeting civilian infrastructure—including “bridges, railroad stations, and other such assets, just the way the U.S. did in Germany and Japan in World War II”—is the only way to dissuade Iran from attempting to develop nuclear weapons.[2]

Because the objective of such attacks on non-nuclear targets would be causing pain to the entire Iranian population, “it matters not if one misses some,” Etzioni said. He even proposes that the strikes be carried out at night, and with “proper warning,” in order to minimize civilian casualties.[3]
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/etzioni_amitai

Etzioni didn't found the Communist Network. He didn't found the Socialist Network. Etzioni founded the Communitarian Network, an advisory organization that came to the United States to "shore up the moral, social and political environment." Our laws against premeditated murder of civillians is considered an immoral barrier to global communitarian wars. Our laws may be the only thing left on the planet that can stop the final horror in its tracks. We'll never know for sure unless we try. There just have to be other ideas that haven't been thought of yet.

But first we'd have to stop fighting each other and turn our wrath toward our common enemy. We'd have to stop furthering the phony dialectical conflict between rich and poor and not allow ourselves to be swayed anymore into helping to hasten our own defeat. We'd have to put all America first to find a way to come together to ward off the creeping invasion. We'd have to find a way to respect our many differences, because it's that lack of honor among men that's costing us our freedom, our lives and the lives of countless innocents around the globe. The more hate we promote toward our countrymen and other nations and religions, the more we fuel the communitarian bonfire. Our nation is one big spark ready to blow. I'm gonna pray for rain.

Liberty's Last Stand by Robert F. Beaudine

2011-11-20T07:24:00.000-08:00

From my friend Jo D, this article provides a lot of research leads that may be worth the time to investigate further. The website this was posted at is owned by a Christian minister whose work has proved invaluable to ACL research. Berit has also republished portions of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto and our communitarian research, with a disclaimer that she cannot endorse all our views. We agree that we don't all need to believe the exact same way. Thanks Jo!

Liberty’s Last Stand©

By Robert F. Beaudine

October 27, 2011

Will the real American community please stand up?

2011-11-19T11:08:00.000-08:00

UN Agenda 21 is finally making national news in the USA. After nearly 20 years in the making, the American people are being told it exists. But the way they are learning about it is a shame. National "exposure" is primarily coming from conservatives like Beck and Newt, who're telling their listeners it's a socialist plot to take away American's private property rights.

By not telling us Agenda 21 is only one of hundreds of communitarian programs and initiatives underway in the United States, the phony right can easily control and limit the debates to just a couple issues. This ensures the much bigger communitarian plan associated with Agenda 21 remains as obscure as Agenda 21 was for almost two decades.

The "leaders" in the fight against global communitarian plans decided years ago to not use the correct terminology in their teachings. More than one told me to stop using the word altogther if I wanted their endorsements or support. This is why the ACL has remained a lone endeavor. Our ACL research about the communitarian philosophy driving the plan was not ever supposed to be part of the discussions. Then there was a glitch in the plan... and it came in the shape of a dynamic professional whose contribution to the awareness of Americans is truely American.

One thing is certain. If Rosa Koire, a liberal lesbian Democrat, hadn't mentioned the word "communitarianism" in her now famous East Bay Tea Party speech, the word wouldn't even be part of the Tea Party lexicon. http://thepartyofknow.com/2011/06/14/the-blazeis-the-soros-sponsored-%E2%80%98agenda-21%E2%80%99-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government/

Why did Rosa talk so openly about communitarianism and put it on her website? Because a nice man named Kevin Eggers lent her his copies of our books, The Anti Communitarian Manifesto and 2020: Our Common Destiny. After she read them, Rosa contacted me and said our ACL work put everything she had learned about sustainable development into perspective. She told me that she really appreciated our communitarian legal research and verifiable sources. Armed with the knowledge we provided, and her own professional background in high end real estate assessments, she put aside all party politics and became willing to reach out to the only groups that were interested in any of this, predominantly Christian conservatives.

Americans conservative groups didn't know anything about Agenda 21. Starving for some solid information about the transformation of the entire American system, Rosa quickly became a highly sought after speaker. And true to her nature, she's also begun reaching out to the Occupy movement because she understands that ultimately we all share the same concerns about the future and the way things have gone down the tubes in this country.

I was given my first opportunity to talk about communitarianism only because Rosa made it an integral part of her website and Behind the Green Mask conference. I wanted more than anything to go to her conference, but I'm still living on barely nothing, and I certainly didn't have enough money to travel outside. Plus, after years of harsh winter camping and near starvation due to my non stop research and writing for the ACL, I've got some serious health challenges. This past summer I was bedridden three separate times and if I don't see a dentist soon, I'm not going to get any better. I made the free choice in 1999 to give up my life to do this work if I had to, but I never really expected I'd die from it.. heh. Were I to stumble upon the plan today I don't think I'd do things quite the same way, nor with the same fervor or dedication.

Agenda 21 was ten years old by the time I found out about it. Back then, all the officials in Seattle denied any association with the programme for international development. Now they don't hide it, they just gloss over any cumbersome details and insist the plan is benign. If it were truely benign, why would officials have gone to such trouble to hide its very existence?

When President Clinton took office, he established the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Do you remember hearing anything about that? I sure don't.

Between June 1993 and June 1999, the PCSD has advised President Clinton on sustainable development and develops bold, new approaches to achieve economic, environmental, and equity goals. We are commited to the achievement of a dignified, peaceful, and equitable existence.

By 1994, every federal agency in the USA had changed their mission statement to promote UN communitarian goals. Many other programs were also established alongside Agenda 21 that promoted communitarianism, including Bush's Faith Based Initiative, Communities of Character, Volunteer America, Community Policing, Community Economic Development and VP Al Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The NPRG

recommended action on about 1,500 issues in 1993 and 1995. Agencies completed about 58 percent. Of the original recommendations, they report 66 percent completed. For those requiring Presidential or congressional action, President Clinton signed 46 directives and Congress passed and the President signed over 85 laws.

(According to the above website, Seattle was one of three cities used in a pilot test called "Hassle Free Cities". I didn't know that, my research only identified 5 pilot tests I was used in, and that wasn't one of them. It's somewhat ironic; the reason I learned about communitarian plans in 1999 was becausethe City of Seattle began hassling all the poor tenants in my neighborhood!)

The NPRG mentions nothing about Agenda 21 or sustainable development. Other than calling citizens "customers" it looks, on the surface, like it was a sincere attempt to reduce government spending and waste. But what it did was create a whole new set of standards and laws that most Americans will never have the time or the inclination to read. It also mentions nothing about the Building Livable Communities Initiative or its sub-program, the Creating Safe Streets Initiative, which included the community policing/datagathering pilot test my neighborhood was part of.

The Clinton-Gore Livability Initiative, "Building Livable Communities for the 21st Century," helps communities across America grow in ways that ensure a better quality of life and strong, sustainable economic growth. This initiative, launched a year ago, is strengthening the federal government's role as a partner with the growing number of state and local efforts to build "livable communities" by encouraging coordination on new initiatives, improving coordination of existing programs, and conducting appropriate outreach to key constituent groups. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/00mayjun/liability.cfm

A google search for the "Creating Safe Streets Initiative" gives only 2 returns, and both of them are to me. One is to an article I wrote from July 2000. I didn't have any websites back then, it was republished by an indy media site: http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/33597. Why was the official information about it pulled off the internet? I recall it being a very long initiative with a lot of different policing programs included in it. The federal program isn't on the web anymore, but the exact same phrase, Creating Safe Streets, is used in cities across the country.

The Federal Transportation Livability Initiative - Building Livable Communities for the 21st Century by Elizabeth E. Fischer promotes the same thing LA21 (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf) promotes, except it never uses the words Agenda 21 or references it in any way:

The Three E's: Environment, Economy, Social Equity

The livable community concept is based on the principles of sustainable development that focus on patterns of economic activity that produce environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity. The Livability Initiative goes further by providing tools and resources to encourage communities to collaborate to find new ways to manage land use, transportation, and other resources to ensure a high quality of life and strong, sustainable economic growth. Because communities know what is best for themselves, the community's perspectives are emphasized in all decision-making processes.

What our research proves is that "community" members who have a different perspective from the community planners are denied input into the community planning meetings, if they are lucky enough to even know there's meetings happening in the community. I attended a lot more than meetings faciliatated to write our neighborhood's Local Agenda 21 plan. I went to the police station for their COPS meetings, to the COMPASS Privacy Council meetings, and Town Hall noise revision meetings. I went to one meeting where Jody Kretzman was doing his dog and pony show for Asset Based Community Development (ABCD), a VERY IMPORTANT PIECE, and Local Agenda 21 is never associated with ABCD. I wasn't focused on just the comprehensive planning, and if I was led to be only interested in Agenda 21, I would have missed all the other things that were going on in my "community."

The one word many Agenda 21 "experts" never emphasize as important is the new use of the term community. The key to understanding Agenda 21 and sustainable development is the word community, because that leads us directly to the guru of rebuilding livable communities, Dr. Amitai Etzioni, and all the community oriented programs, agencies and laws.

There are hundreds of programs that introduced communitarianism into the US (and around the world), which is why the ACL website grew to be so huge and unmanageable. Now that it's gone, (we took it all down and planned to reorganize it before we went under) it makes me just sick that after ten years of writing about it, Agenda 21 is finally being mentioned by a national politician, which means it's also being discussed by Americans. Of course what's being said is enough to make me cringe in embarassment for the people who have never heard of it but who insist they know what it is. I know I've said things that made me look like a fool, we all do at some point in our lives, but I hope I'm not around when they realize just how wrong they are.

If we don't learn enough about the way the new system uses the term "community" Newt Gingrich's comments about UN Local Agenda 21 on CNN sets the stage for another phony dialectical ruse and takes everyone back to the climate change argument. As Mary Oden wrote, in her editorial in the Copper River Record about what a selfish horrible person I am, because I oppose fake rebuilt communities... "community, community, community." This is their mantra, their chant... and they've set themselves up as the only people who "care" about community. The truth is, they're a small group of elitists who believe they control our communities, and if Americans don't start taking their communities back from these usurpers, they will.

Local Sustainability 2012 - Rebuilding a Communitarian World

2011-11-18T06:48:00.000-08:00

I'm working on the final updates to the Agenda 21 chapter of 2020. Here's one of the things that struck me as important enough to add. Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, Secretary General of ICLEI — Local Governance for Sustainability based in Bonn, advised future attendees that the focus of Rio has to be to find new ways to tie local governments to the process. He wrote, in 2011:

"Let’s tie local governments, subnational governments and business into a global framework of policy setting, implementation and accountability, and link this to the multilateral structure national governments are part of."

In his opinion, Otto-Zimmermann sees difficulties in achieving the goals of global environmental governance, and in a section titled Governance Upgrade through Responsive Evolution he explains how he would revise the UN Charter:

So let’s look at international climate governance involving national governments, subnational and local governments, business and civil society stakeholders. Again I will focus on cities and local governments as it is my specialty. Would we start by revising the UN Charter, adding a Local Government Chamber to the UN General Assembly, and adding a new constituency to the UN? There are already models for this. One example is the Council of Europe, an inter-governmental body that maintains the Congress of European Municipalities and Regions as a chamber. The European Union maintains a Committee of the Regions as a standing reference body. Could this regional European approach be scaled up to the global level? As one can easily appreciate this might be the preferred approach for experts in international law and the law-makers guild.

According to Otto-Zimmermann, he's been talking to many key players, and there is

... talk about merging functions of International Environmental Governance into one single World Environment Organization modeled on the World Trade Organization.

The WTO began expanding its role in global governance, climate change and social justice legislation during the Doha Round:

In the Doha Round, countries decided to combine the positive role that opening up trade plays in efficiently allocating resources, with a set of negotiations specifically targeted at the environment — the first time environmental issues have ever featured in the context of a multilateral trade round. The negotiations include the relationship between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements. While there is no conflict between trade and environmental regimes — and the Appellate Body has repeatedly confirmed that the WTO can take other bodies of international law into account when interpreting its own rules — they nevertheless seek to ensure that these legal regimes operate harmoniously. They also encompass the issue of accelerating the opening of trade in goods and services that can help protect the environment or conserve natural resources – such as air filters, catalytic converters, windmills," OUR PLANET MAGAZINE GLOBALIZATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT, http://www.unep.org/pdf/OurPlanet/OP_Feb07_GC24_en.pdf

Numerous high level calls for a WEO make it seem likely the Rio+20 Earth Summit will include this "idea" on some level, either up front on the public agenda or in private meetings.

The globalization of environmental problems means that environmentalists -- and economists, labor leaders, and other citizens -- need to embrace a concept increasingly being touted, albeit in rarefied policy circles: a single global group with real power, a World Environment Organization.

Global problems require international strategies and coordination, particularly for such goals as maintaining biodiversity, keeping the oceans clean, and lowering carbon emissions. But all too often, national sovereignty divides the world into untenable slices. The European Union, for instance, has developed a coordinated approach to tackling greenhouse gases through conservation measures and technological development. Yet, absent cooperation from the United States, China, and other major powers, such a task might come to seem quixotic. The formation of a World Environment Organization would provide global environmental standards with real teeth. It would also provide an umbrella for environmental organizations, and counteract the problem of single-issue solutions for linked problems.

… Internationalizing knowledge is the easy part. Granting a WEO real authority to enforce best practices, and to punish those who most harm the environment, is the hard part. Following what the WTO says rather than what it does, a WEO must be intensely democratic, transparent, and take into consideration the needs of developing countries. It must provide for an inclusive spectrum of voices and look beyond short-term business interests. It must be run by leading environmental thinkers who occupy a place of real power. And it must have a guaranteed source of substantial funding, perhaps partly via an international tax on polluters." Are WEO There Yet? Why we need a World Environment Organization, by Ethan Goffman, http://www.grist.org/article/goffman

While the UNEP and other United Nations organizations push the agenda from the top down, there are just as many organizations pushing the agenda from the streets. These are the kinds of "locals" who will have a seat at the UN's new enforcement agency:

It goes without saying that politics is a dirty system. It's so dirty that I believe there are only three reasonable approaches to politics: apathy/despair, overthrowing the system, or playing dirty to win. I'll assume that the apathetics either aren't reading this or will soon stop reading to go watch cat videos on YouTube. The second option, revolution, is growing more plausible, and the climate movement should fully support those efforts. The occupations of Wall Street and D.C. have found a weak spot in the wall of corporate power that keeps people out of the halls of influence. Everyone needs to push that spot until we break through the wall and have a new constitutional convention to establish a democracy in this country. 11/14/11

Tim DeChristopher is a climate activist and cofounder of Peaceful Uprising. He has been beatified as a saint in the Church of Earthalujah by the Reverend Billy and convicted as a felon by the United States Government. http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-11-14-letter-from-a-climate-activist-in-prison-tim-dechristopher

So who trains Americans like Tim DeChristopher to become criminal activists calling for a new "democracy" in the United States? Academics like James Gustave Speth, Dean of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University...who wrote in UNEP Magazine Our Planet, Connected Dreams, February 2011:

Individuals and communities can also exert influence as voters and citizens, as investors, as consumers, as association members, as workers, as activists, and as educators. This is already beginning to happen in the United States, where citizen initiatives and local action are beginning to address the global problems of energy and climate change. Meanwhile, Washington itself does little.

Before the big Rio+20 conference, there is a preparation for the Rio+20 conference:

Local Sustainability 2012
http://local2012.iclei.org/iclei-and-rio-20/local-sustainability-study/

The Local Sustainability 2012 study will lay the ground for the local government contribution to the Rio+20 conference:
documenting the variety of local processes for sustainability that have emerged all over the world, across the most diverse political and economic cultures;
analysing the impacts of such local processes and their success or failure to initiate the necessary transition process towards more sustainable cities;
proposing new ways forward for local governments to make their cities more resource-efficient, resilient and people-friendly, and to green their urban economies;
outlining the governance framework necessary to be implemented on national and international levels in order for local governments to successfully contribute to global sustainability.
The study will consist of a global overview report, outlining a typology of local sustainability processes and a collection of local innovation case studies from all over the world.

Watch this space - first results available soon!

Based on the results of the study, ICLEI will develop policy recommendations to be presented in the run up to the Rio+20 conference.

The study is co-funded by The Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind and the Rio+20 vor Ort project, coordinated by the Institute for Future Studies and Technology Assessment.

What I'm learning from social networking

2011-10-22T13:06:00.000-07:00

I signed up for facebook a couple years ago after an 18 year old started a group there called the Anti Communitarian League. He designed the group page himself. He filled it with quotes from people like Margaret Meade and Ayn Rand, both of whom I think were players in the dialectical games, and their purpose was to lead us into the ultimate communitarian solution.

Even though I could see young Nick C. didn't quite understand all of the pieces and players who make up the communitarian scam, I didn't challenge him for quoting questionable sources to define his anti communitarian stand. I figured everyone grasps this new concept within the confines of their own understanding. His was clouded with a modern American Marxist education (the same one Nordica received). My perception is clouded with my American Zionist military patriot upbringing. Others use their religious beliefs to define it, and just as many others use their anti religious beliefs to condemn it. I've found there are as many different reactions to the communitarian theory as there are different variations on the theory. And up to this time, I've held to the assumption that it's best to allow people to figure it out on their own.

It didn't seem right for me to push my anti communitarian stand on anyone else, and while I often cajoled the American "patriot right" into looking at the law, I didn't hammer away at what I think we ALL need to think about communitarianism. I thought it was much more meaningful and important for everyone to determine for themselves where they stand on the most powerful social and political platform in the world. (And I didn't fully realize all this hammering at the Right made many people assume I am a rightwingnut too!)

What I had to finally face and admit is that it is impossible to grasp the pure evil of the communitarian ideology without letting go of every attachment we have to the bankers' economic and social theories. We cannot let go of the theories while clinging to the favored authors who taught us to join in the conflicts between all these theories.

As long as we adhere to a portion of the thesis or antithesis, we cannot see the final synthesis as the culmination of a whole process. I've spent 2 years on fb posting things that I thought would help people to explore the unnatural nature of communitarian thinking, and I've had some amazing conversations with insightful and thoughtful people.

I began calling the Occupy Wall Street movement communitarian months ago. Since then there have been members who self-describe the protests as "communitarian" and a few other mainstream writers have picked up the term. Still, I'd guess close to half my fb friends support the "Occupy" protests because they cannot see how they lead to a communitarian "solution."

"Is there a solution? Well, that depends on us. Can we live with less? Can we learn to use available resources — neighbors, vacant public spaces, social networks, community organizations — to maintain or enhance our health? Can we accept that overconsumption never really was the route to happiness anyway?"
http://rachelsigner.com/2011/10/13/how-it-all-went-down-why-we-have-the-99-percent/

It should have come as no surprise last month when the same kid who started the fb ACL page told me he doesn't see eye to eye with me politically and unfriended me.

The advantage of having a vague theory that combines all others is there's something in it for everyone. Something to hate and something to love.

2020/TACM update: We've got the pages laid out and are filling them in, shouldn't be too much longer now. While it's been a terribly embarassing long time trying to get it finished, it's been necessary time as well. There are a lot of new communitarian developments that will be part of this revised edition, and hopefully it's written with a better understanding of our readers. Again, thank you all for your continued paitence.

Contemporary Communitarianism - Yale University Lectures

2011-08-03T13:35:00.000-07:00

Part I

Part II

Alasdair MacIntyre: On Having Survived Academic Moral Philosophy (1 of 4)

Bernard Williams on the Spell of Linguistic Philosophy: Section 3

LANGUAGE OF SUSTAINABILITY class in Anchorage, August 2, 2011

2011-07-29T23:42:00.000-07:00

The Post Sustainability Institute of Alaska presents

LANGUAGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

An introduction to buzzwords and legal terminology used in community development planning. Explore pop culture, etymology, history, social science and economic implications of sustainable development worldwide.

Instructors: Niki Raapana & Nordica Friedrich

Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Time: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm

Location: A Street Event Hall Ballroom
637 A Street, Anchorage, AK 99501
Located at 7th and A street very near downtown.
Across from The Anchorage Museum of History and Art.

Fee: $40, includes class materials

Please rsvp with Nordica Friedrich
Phone: (907) 433-9381
Email: nfriedrich@gmail.com

What happened to the ACL website?

2011-07-05T11:50:00.000-07:00

This has turned into such a busy year for us and, as some of you have noticed, I haven't had much time to blog lately. Hopefully that caused a few readers to browse my archives. :)

The revision of 2020 is hanging heavily over me like a huge cloud, I had no idea how difficult the rewrite would become. It's also a challenge to write (and think) in a 12 foot Gertee with another adult and two children. We're building new Gertees later this summer but for now we're doing "real" camping, and I'm feeling the pains associated with sleeping on the ground for 2 weeks.

I wrote Etzioni, in case him or his staff have been able to form a rational rebuttal to our thesis.

Dear Dr. Etzioni,

We are about to republish "What is the Hegelian dialectic?" & "The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking," with "2020: Our Common Destiny" in one volume.

We sent our thesis to you and your network when they were originally published online in 2003. Ericn riska and others on your staff responded, but we've never receieved any kind of a legitimate rebuttal. More than 500,000 visitors have accessed our argument since then, and thousands of those visitors came from universities and government agencies around the world.

I don't know if you are aware that our work was introduced alongside your books in a Vassar College "Quality of Life Seminar" last spring. Maybe it has escaped your attention but the Anti Communitarian League has an entire section in the National Association of Scholars' Bibliography of the Communitarian Residence Life Movement.

As our work continues to gain favorable recognition in the international community, we would like to offer you and your staff one more opportunity to rebut our arguments against the validity of the Communitarian Network's Platform and mission. We will publish any response you have, regardless of its content.

Fire away!

Niki Raapana
co-founder, Anti Communitarian League

All the typos were in the original letter. I figured it didn't matter much since Etzioni's English is so bad other people have to write all his US books and articles for him. So far he hasn't responded. We're still soliciting rebuttals from any communitarian who wishes to prove our thesis and conclusion about communitarianism is unsound.

Here's where Nordica archived the old ACL website pages:
http://nord.twu.net/acl/research/

Here's a sample of the kinds of current things that we needed to add to 2020:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/time-ratify-law-sea

Communitarianism is a freedom-hating totalitarian philosophy like any other, by James Delingpole

2011-06-29T14:30:00.000-07:00

Here's a nice piece by another Englishman who "gets it."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/columnists/all/7045153/communitarianism-is-a-freedomhating-totalitarian-philosophy-like-any-other.thtml

UPDATE on 2020/TACM: We're finishing it up now.

Behind the Green Mask - August 6, 2011

2011-06-24T02:13:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, August 6, 2011, the Post Sustainability Institute in collaboration with the Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition and Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 dot com will be hosting the Behind the Green Mask Conference in Santa Rosa, CA
FEATURED SPEAKER: MICHAEL SHAW, Freedom Advocates
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: NIKI RAAPANA, author of The Anti-Communitarian Manifesto, and the world's foremost critic of Communitarianism.

With leaders and activists speaking on topics ranging from UN Agenda 21 to Redevelopment Reform, to Exposing New Urbanism, to SMART METERS, to Recognizing Communitarianism, the conference will be a forum for those in Northern California and beyond to share information and learn more. This is a non-partisan event.

http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org

EU wins new powers at UN, transforming global body

2011-05-03T17:20:00.000-07:00

EU wins new powers at UN, transforming global body
LEIGH PHILLIPS

03.05.2011 @ 22:03 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy will now be able to address the United Nations no differently from US President Barack Obama, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Russia's Dimitri Medvedev.

In order to win the vote, the EU had to agree to changes to the global organisation that transforms the UN from an assembly of nation states into a body that also offers representation rights to regional blocs as well, including potentially the African Union, the Arab League and the South American Union.

Print
Comment article

The EU on Tuesday was given almost all the rights in the global chamber that fully-fledged states enjoy after the General Assembly backed 180 to two a resolution giving the bloc, which until this week only maintained observer status at the UN, the union the right to speak, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right of reply, the right to raise points of order and the right to circulate documents.

There will also be additional seats put in the chamber for the EU's foreign policy chief, High Representative Catherine Ashton and her officials.

Ashton and her team have lobbied heavily over the last six months, according to her representatives, with a major offensive in the last 48 hours by the high representative herself in New York, to push through the changes after the EU was dealt a surprise defeat last September when other regional blocs voted against a similar resolution.

She declared herself "delighted" at the win, which, she said: "will in future enable EU representatives to present and promote the EU's positions in the UN."

Last year, two groups in the chamber resisted the move. The first, some of Brussels' closest allies in the world, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, consulted with each other and agreed to abstain on the original motion, according to one Commonwealth diplomat, as they were annoyed by the "presumption" of the EU, who had delivered the resolution for consideration the night before the vote.

After half a year of consultations, the Commonwealth allies appear to have had their procedural concerns dealt with.

But the second group, led by Caricom, the Carribean's regional integration bloc inspired by the EU, felt that it was unfair that Brussels should win additional rights but not themselves or other similar bodies, from the Gulf Co-operation Council to the Pacific Islands Forum.

In order to win over these refuseniks, the EU had to back an amendment to the resolution, put forward by Hungary - currently at the helm of the bloc's six-month rotating presidency - that gives these other blocs the same rights Brussels has won, should they ask for them.

"Following the request on behalf of a regional organisation which has observer status in the general assembly and whose member states have agreed arrangements that allow that organisation's representatives to speak on behalf of the organisation and its member states, then the general assembly may adopt modalities for the participation of that regional organisation's representatives," read the amendment.
http://euobserver.com/9/32262

COMMUNITARIZATION OF THE EU THIRD PILLAR TODAY AND ACCORDING TO THE LISBON TREATY MICHAEL ŠVARC

2011-05-03T16:38:00.000-07:00

COMMUNITARIZATION OF THE EU THIRD PILLAR TODAY
AND ACCORDING TO THE LISBON TREATY
http://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/cofola2008/files/pdf/evropa/svarc_michael.pdf
MICHAEL ŠVARC, Právnická fakulta, Masarykova univerzita, Brno

Abstrakt
Práce se pokusí popsat a analyzovat současné projevy tzv. komunitarizace třetího pilíře EU,
kterou autor chápe jako proces, kdy oblast policejní a justiční spolupráce v trestních věcech
začíná být ovlivňována či dokonce podřizována komunitárním principům a mechanizmům
(zásada loajality, nepřímého účinku, efektivity, role Komise a ESD), a to při začlenění do
režimu mezivládní spolupráce. Ta má být překonána Lisabonskou smlouvou, která danou
oblast podřizuje zásadně komunitárnímu režimu (hlasování kvalifikovanou většinou ve
spolurozhodovaní proceduře s EP, podrobení se jurisdikci ESD, přímý účinek). Práce se
pokusí srovnat a analyzovat výhody a nevýhody obou režimů v dané oblasti. Podtrhne přitom
i specifika komunitárních mechanizmů v této oblasti dle Lisabonské smlouvy. Ambicí práce
je rovněž upozornit na možnosti, ale i meze a rizika rozvoje komunitárního režimu v oblasti
trestní politiky podle Lisabonské smlouvy.
Klíčová slova třetí pilíř, první pilíř, mezivládní spolupráce, komunitární právní řád, policejní a justiční spolupráce v trestních věcech, obecné zásady, svěření pravomocí, sdílené pravomoci,
subsidiarita, proporcionalita, přednost, přímý účinek, nepřímý účinek, odpovědnost za škodu
(Francovich), hlasování kvalifikovanou většinou, záchranná brzda, posílená spolupráce,
přeshraniční dvojí trestání (ne bis in idem), princip legality, Evropská Rada, Komise,
Evropský parlament, Rada, Soudní dvůr (ESD), národní parlamenty, žlutá, oranžová, červená
karta.

Abstract
This paper attempts to describe and analyze the current instances of the so-called
communitarization of the third pillar of the EU, which the author considers to be a process,
when the police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters starts to be influenced or even
subjected to the Community principles and mechanisms (such as the principle of loyal
cooperation, indirect effect, effectiveness, the role of the Commission and ECJ), while falling
into the intergovernmental framework. However, this framework should be displaced by the
Lisbon Treaty, which in principle subjects this area to the communitarian regime (voting by
the qualified majority in co-decision procedure with EP, jurisdiction of the ECJ, direct effect).
The paper will try to compare and analyze both advantages and disadvantages of both
(intergovernmental and communitarian) frameworks in the field of criminal matters. Specific
characteristics of communitarian mechanisms under the Lisbon Treaty will be emphasized as
well. The aim of the paper will be to show the possibilities and opportunities, but also limits
and risks of further developments of communitarized criminal policy under the Lisbon Treaty.
Key word rd pillar, first pillar, intergovernmental cooperation, Community legal order, police and
judicial cooperation in criminal matters, general principles, conferral of powers, shared
competence, subsidiarity, proportionality, supremacy (primacy), direct effect, indirect effect,
liability for damages (Francovich), qualified majority voting, emergency break, enhanced
cooperation, cross-border double jeopardy principle (ne bis in idem), substantive legality
principle, European Council, Commission, European Parliament, Council, Court of Justice
(ECJ), national parliaments, yellow, orange, red card.

Introduction
This paper will focus on developments and possible future prospects within the third pillar of
the European Union (EU). First, I will briefly sum up the “constitutional” foundations of the
third pillar, as regards both the role of the Union institutions and legal effects of the measures
adopted under this framework as provided for in the Treaty on European Union (TEU),
especially its Title VI, which governs police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Then I will show, how this area of criminal matters has been communitarized, especially by
the case-law of the Court of Justice (ECJ). Turning to the new settlement of this area
according to the Lisbon Treaty, especially Title V, chapters 1, 4 a 5 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),1 I will try to describe and analyze the most
important novelties, which the new framework introduces. In principle all classical
Community rules and principles should apply within the specified field of criminal matters.
However, important specific characteristics applicable to this area (such as maintaining
1 TFEU will replace the current Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). The area of police and judicial cooperation will be transfered from TEU to the TFEU and included in Title V, with the heading “Area of freedom, security and justice,” which will contain also chapters on general provisions, policies on border checks, asylum, immigration and judicial cooperation in civil matters. unanimity in certain matters, emergency break and enhanced cooperation) will be emphasized as well. Finally the paper will on the basis of attained experience and concrete examples attempt to point to the possible advantages, respectively disadvantages and risks, which the new framework may bring in contrast to the current state of affairs in the explored area of criminal matters.

The “constitutional” foundations of the third pillar compared to the first pillar
The third pillar, established by the Maastricht Treaty and limited to police and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters by the Amsterdam Treaty, forms basically a distinct
framework of intergovernmental cooperation, which is to be differentiated from the
Community legal order, resting on the TEC and developed by the ECJ case-law2. First and
foremost, the nature of the third pillar as laid down especially in the Title VI of the TEU
resembles more the classical international regime (where, it seems, there is no room for a
simple hierarchy or subordination, but the consent of each and every state is predominant)
rather than the supranational one, which was developed under the first pillar, patterned by the
primacy and direct applicability (and effectiveness) of adopted rules towards individual
member states (even when outvoted) and their citizens. From the institutional point of view,
similarly, the institutions such as the European Commission (Commission), European
Parliament (EP) and the ECJ were not granted such broad powers, as is the case in the first
pillar. By contrast, the Council of Ministers (the Council), which represents the individual
member states, was given great external and legislative powers, including the veto right for
each and single minister thanks to the unanimity voting, introduced as a rule for decisionmaking
in this sensitive and with the sovereignty of the member states´ closely connected area
of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Moreover, the intergovernmental
character of the third pillar seems to be strengthened by the legislative initiative of each
member state (sharing this right with the Commission) and mainly by the weakening of both
2 See these crucial judgements of the ECJ: C- 26/62 Van Gend en Loos, 5.2.1963, (direct effect) a C- 6/64 Costa v. ENEL, 15.7.1964 (supremacy or primacy of EC law); and further elaboration on this as regards both direct and indirect effect: C-152/84 Marshall, 26.2.1986, C-14/83 Von Colson a Kamman, 10.4.1984, C-106/89 Marleasing, 13.11.1990, C-194/94CIA Security v. Securitel, 30.4.1996, and primacy of EC law, or even the emerging concept of pre-emption: C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesselschaft, 17.12.1970; C-35/76, resp. C-
106/77 Simmenthal I, II, 15.12.1976, resp. 9.3.1978; C-10-22/97 Ministero delle Finanze v. IN.CO.GE´90 Srl, 22.10.1998; C-148/78 Ratti, 5.4.1979; C- 31/78 Bussone, 30.11.1978; C-11/92 Gallaher, 22.6.1993; including liability for damages for infringement of Community law: C-6 & 9/90 Francovich, 19.11.1991; C-46/93 Brasserie/Factortame, 15.3.1996; C-178/94 and others point cases Dillenkofer, 8.10.1996; C-224/01 Köbler, 30.9.2003, which might be read also in conjunction with the judgement C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz, 13.1.2004; summarized In Craig, P., de Búrca, G. EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, s.178- 228; 257-315. the EP, limited only to consultation within the legislative process, and the Commission, which is not allowed to pursue infringement procedure as is the case under the first pillar Community legal order. Also the limited jurisdiction of the ECJ, as compared to its role under the first pillar, is of great significance, when assessing the specific nature of the third pillar
framework. Preliminary rulings, seemingly limited in its subject, are not obligatory at all at
any stage and annulment actions are limited only to privileged applicants. Infringement
procedure, as mentioned above, does not apply at all. As a result, the member states do not
run any risk of being financially penalized by the ECJ, when infringing third pillar union law.
As regards the legal effects of the measures adopted under the third pillar, the TEU explicitly
abolishes direct effect of the decision and framework decision. The latter resembles by
definition and aim in approximating national laws directive under the first pillar, however,
without possessing a feature of direct effect loses much of its strength, because the particular
provisions of the framework decision cannot be then directly invoked by individuals before
the national authorities, and the courts particularly, with a view setting aside, if necessary,
contrary national rule and applying directly effective one (in upwards vertical relations at
least).

Although it might seem from all above mentioned that the intergovernmental framework of
the third pillar absolutely prevails,3 the next chapter will show, how especially the ECJ is
ready to make use of some communitarian aspects involved in that framework and extend
them to the maximum, while borrowing the concepts from the first pillar as well, in order to
promote more uniform application of the union law in this field and guarantee at least some
kind of judicial protection. It will be, however, also pointed to the extension of the community
competence over criminal matters by the ECJ, revealing the potential of the first pillar for the
purposes of criminal regulation.

Third pillar under attack – creeping communitarization
In general
In spite of the fact of intergovernmental characteristics of the third pillar, as briefly sketched
above, I will try to illustrate, how this pillar has been communitarized, i.e. influenced by and
subjected to the Community principles, rules and mechanisms. 3 However, there is a regular „bridge,“ enabling to transfer the respective areas of criminal matters to the first pillar entailed in Article 42 TEU. The cumbersome procedure which subjects such a unanimous decision of the
Council to the constitutional procedures of member states makes this provision, however, practically ineffective.

Among the Union institutions it was mainly the ECJ which heavily supported this process by
taking full advantage of its jurisdiction and pointing to the broad tasks and objectives of the
Union and the necessity to ensure both the consistency within the Union framework as a
whole and the effectiveness of the measures adopted within the third pillar particularly (see
below, Pupino, Segi, EAW judgements of the ECJ). ECJ also promoted uniform application of
crucial third pillar rules and principles, such as the prohibition of cross-border double
jeopardy (see below, sketched case-law of the ECJ on ne bis in idem).

Furthermore, the potential of expansive growth of the communitarian control over criminal
matters was also supported by the ECJ case-law on the possibility of implicit competence
over criminal matters within the first pillar under certain conditions (see below,
Environmental crimes and Ship source pollution judgements of the ECJ).

Besides that, the process of communitarization was also boosted by the practice developed
within the Council, where special negotiation techniques, political pressure, package deals
seem to undermine de iure unanimity voting rule as well.4

Moreover, the active role of the Commission, coming up with legislative proposals, which
seem not always to observe both the union and Community fundamental principles such as
the subsidiarity principle5 or even fundamental rights6, contributed also a lot to the
communitarization of this area.

The role of the ECJ in communitarization of the third pillar

In my view Pupino represents a leading case in this area. The ECJ was asked by the Italian
court within the preliminary ruling procedure under article 35 TEU to give an interpretative
ruling on a specific provision of the framework decision on the protection of victims, which
related to the special criminal procedure in respect of vulnerable victims, respectively
application of the procedural benefits towards maltreated children. After declaring its
jurisdiction and its scope under the Article 46(b) TEU, in conj. with Article 35 TEU, the ECJ
stressed the binding nature of framework decisions, inspired largely by the Article 234 TEC.
Due to the fact that the TEU in this respect expressly excludes direct effect, the ECJ could
4 See, more elaborated on this matter: Čakrt, F.: Nástin komunitarizace v rámci III. pilíře. Trestněprávní revue, 2007, č. 1, s. 4 – 12.
5 See, ibid p. 7 as regards the critical reflection on this as exemplified by the Green book on the conflicts of
jurisdictions and the principle ne bis in idem in criminal proceedings, KOM(2005) 696
6 See, for instance the so-called data retention directive, where the protection of the fundamentals principle of protection of personal data might be interfered with disproportionately
only promote the effectiveness of the framework decisions by the so-called indirect effect,
elaborated within the first pillar. And indeed, it did so, stating that the binding character of the
framework decisions places on national authorities, and particularly national courts, an
obligation to interpret national law in conformity7.

Moreover, the ECJ added, that while having the jurisdiction in preliminary ruling procedure,
this would be deprived of most of its useful effect, if individuals were not entitled to invoke
framework decisions in order to obtain a confirming interpretation of national law before the
courts of the member states8. Furthermore, the ECJ, without any reference in the text of the
TEU (unlike Article 10 TEC), went further to pronounce the applicability of the principle of
loyal cooperation9 in this field as well, pointing to the aim of the Union to create an ever
closer Union among the peoples of Europe and necessity to ensure that the Union may
effectively fulfil its tasks.10 The applicability of the principle of loyal cooperation within the
third pillar gave rise to the debate on possible far-reaching implications this might bring. As
we know, from the principle at stake important Community principles, rules, mechanisms
were inferred, such as the principle of supremacy (primacy, precedence), the Francovich
principle of liability for damages, the twin principles of effectiveness and equivalence, just to
name the most important ones. And some authors indeed suggest the possible application of at
least some of them, such as Francovich principle of liability for damages and principles of
effectiveness and equivalence.11 Finally, Pupino ruling itself, while setting limits to the
application of the so-called indirect effect (cannot be contra legem and conflict the principles
7 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, para 34.
8 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, para 38.
9 However, S. Peers notices that the ECJ makes, with exception of requirement to take measures to ensure fulfilment of obligations, no reference to other aspects of the principle of loyal cooperation, see Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the Pupino and Segi judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, p. 916, 917.
10 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, paras 41, 42: „… treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe and that the task of the Union, which is founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established by that treaty, shall be to organise, in a manner demonstrating consistency and solidarity, relations between the Member States and between their peoples…. It would be difficult for the Union to carry out its task effectively if the principle of loyal cooperation, requiring in particular that Member States take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations under European Union law, were not also binding in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which is moreover entirely based on cooperation between the Member States and the institutions…“
11 See, for instance Spaventa, E.: Opening Pandora´s Box: Some reflections on the Constitutional Effects of the Decision in Pupino. European Constitutional Law Review, 2007, č. 3, s. 18 – 22 or Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the Pupino and Segi judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, p. 921 – 924, where the author comes up with practical examples, for instance that the wrongful detention, prosecution and conviction connected to the double leopardy rules should be compensated in
accordance with the principles established as regards Community damages liability.
of legal certainty and non-retroactivity or establish and aggravate criminal liability)12, in my
view, implicitly suggests that general principles of Community law, or at least some of them,
may and should be applied within the third pillar, as well. I agree with S. Peers that the
general principles of Community law13 (such as protection of human rights, legal certainty
and of the protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactivity, principle of equality and
non-discrimination, principle of the right to defence and the rule against double jeopardy;
principles governing the exercise of community powers such as principle of conferred powers,
subsidiarity and proportionality) should apply in their entirety here as well.14 However, the
ECJ when ruling on the observance of these principles should, in my view, pay due respect to
the principles of subsidiarity and the primary (or largely exclusive) responsibility of member
states for maintaining public order and security on their territory and observing their human
rights obligations under the European Convention for the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms (ECHR), from which the ECJ itself should in no case depart as well15.
Similarly, the ECJ, while interpreting, should not encroach upon legislative domain of the
Council as well. The ECJ in my opinion should be very careful and restraint in using too
much extensive interpretation which might run counter words and intent of drafters and
legislators. I admit, there might be instances, where the court must decide on the merits and
deliver the justice to individuals, even (if necessary and well justified) by going beyond the
text and finding just solutions by systematic a teleological interpretation. However, in general
and as a rule, the ECJ should, in my view, especially in this sensitive field of criminal affairs,
be very cautious when trying to unify some of the controversial concepts, beyond the adopted
legislative consensus reached. In this regard, the unifying case-law of the ECJ on the
principle against double jeopardy (ne bis in idem)16 seem to me (at least as regards some
judgements) very ambitious and too extensive as well, and in some instances undermining
criminal justice systems of individual member states.17 I am hinting here at some kind of
12 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, paras 44, 45.
13 For a systematic categorization of Community general principles see, Týč, V.: Působení práva Evropské unie ve sféře českého právního řádu In: Evropský kontext vývoje českého práva po roce 2004: sborník z workshopu konaného na Právnické fakultě MU v Brně dne 26.9.2006. 1. vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2006, s. 22-27.
14 See, Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the Pupino and Segi
judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, p. 926 – 928.
15 Compare, Article 52(3) of the Charter of fundamentals rights of the Union, which shall be legally binding
according to the Article 6(1) of the TEU, introduced by the Lisabon Treaty.
16 See judgements: ; C-187/01, C-385/01, Gozütok & Brügge, 11.2.2003, C-288/05, Kretzinger, 18.7.2007,; C-
367/05, Kraajjenbrink, 18.7. 2007; C-150/05, Van Straaten, 28.9.2006; C-467/04, Gasparini, 28.9.2006; C-
436/04, Van Esbroeck, 9.3. 2006; C-469/03, Miraglia, 10.3.2006.
17 For a brilliant reflection see, Komárek, J.: „Tentýž čin“ v prostoru svobody, bezpečnosti a práva.
Jurisprudence, 2006, č. 3, s. 51 – 57.
hidden communitarian mechanism, which might be activated through preliminary rulings, and
which attributes the ECJ the role of de facto legislator, when interpreting the very broad and
vague terms, adopted within the Council.

Finally, the ECJ affected heavily the criminal field, which was generally perceived to be the
domain of member states or their cooperation within the third pillar,18 by two its famous
rulings on Environmental crimes19 and Ship source pollution20. The ECJ delivered its
judgement on Environmental crimes upon the respective action brought by the Commission,
which asserted that the Council had encroached upon its competences under the TEC by
adopting framework decision on the protection of environment through criminal law under the
third pillar. The ECJ took the same view and annulled the challenged framework decision on
grounds that it indeed encroached on the powers which Article 175 of the TEC in the area of
environment confers on the Community21. As a starting point the ECJ stressed that Article 47
of the TEU provides that nothing in the TEU is to affect TEC.22 Then the ECJ examined both
the aim and content of the challenged framework decision and realized that indeed the main
purpose of the adopted measure was the protection of the environment. As regards implied
competence to criminal regulation within this field, the ECJ firstly stated that as a general
rule, neither criminal law nor the rules of criminal procedure fall within the Community’s
competence.23 However, the ECJ did not stop here, but went further on to hold that the
Community legislature is not prevented to adopt measures which relate to the criminal law of
the member states 1) which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it
lays down (on environmental protection) are fully effective and 2) where the application of
effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national
authorities is an essential measure (for combating serious offences).24
This controversial judgement gave of course a strong weapon in the hands of Commission,
which interpreted its implications very extensively both as regards the fields of Community
18 However, also the previous case-law of the ECJ show form the 1980s, that even at that times the field of
criminal policy was not completely immune from the operation of Community law, especially when the principle
of effectiveness and equivalence or non-discrimination were at stake (see, judgement 68/88, „Greek Maize,“ 21.
9. 1989 or judgement 186/87, „Cowan,“ 2. 2. 1989) or when disproportionate (criminal) restrictions on freedom
of movement arose (see, judgement C-118/75, “Watson and Belmann,” 14. 7. 1976 or judgement C-265/88,
“Messner,” 12. 12. 1989), See very brilliant summary in: Kmec, J.: Evropské trestní právo. Mechanismy
europeizace trestního práva a vytváření skutečného evropského trestního práva, Praha: C.H.Beck, 2006, s. 230.
19 C-176/03, „Environmental crimes,“ 13. 9. 2005
20 C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007
21 C-176/03, „Environmental crimes,“ 13. 9. 2005, para 53.
22 Ibid. at para 38.
23 Ibid. at para 47.
24 Ibid. at para 48.
policies to which it may be applied and the intensity of the criminal regulation itself25 and as
A. Dawes and O. Lynskey in their brilliant reflection of this case put it – some of its
conclusions drawn (such as the power to decide under the first pillar policies on the choice of
the criminal penalties to be applied) were even contradictory to the judgement itself26.
The second judgement of the ECJ on Ship source pollution27 was expected with hope that it
will bring answers to the open questions which the ruling on Environmental crimes remained
unresolved. However, the ECJ judgement seems to be rather disappointing in this respect. The
answer to the question, whether the criminal competence under the first pillar should be
derived from the necessity to ensure the effectiveness of the (crucial) Community policies, as
the Advocate General Mazák suggested in his opinion28, or is limited solely to the
environmental policy, is somehow ambiguous. The ECJ confirmed that the challenged
measure could have been validly adopted under the first pillar within the specific competence
under the transport policy, however the ECJ emphasized the link with environmental
protection in this case as well.29 Fortunately, at least another issue on the intensity of criminal
legislation within the first pillar was clearly resolved, by stating that under the first pillar the
Community does not possess the power to impose the type and level of criminal penalties.30 It
should therefore limit itself to imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal
penalties and leave it up to the member states to specify them in their respective criminal
systems.31
To sum up the case-law of the ECJ in the third pillar it may be concluded that many
Community principles, rules, mechanisms and concepts (such as indirect effect, principle of
loyal cooperation, principle of liability for damages, right to defence, principle against double
jeopardy and general principles including human rights and legal certainty) developed under
the first pillar were (some of them possibly) transposed within the third pillar by the creative
case-law of the ECJ. The magic word of effectiveness played the most important role in its
case-law as introduced in Pupino and confirmed in later ECJ judgements (besides those
25 See doc. COM 2005 (583), dated 23.11.2005, Brussels, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council, particularly para 10, where it states that the member states freedom to choose the
penalties they apply may be limited by the Community legislature, if the effectiveness of community law so
requires.
26 See, Dawes, A., Lynskey, O.: The ever-longer arm of EC law: The extension of Community comeptence into
the field of criminal law. Common Market Law Review, 2008, č. 45, s. 138, 139.
27 C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007
28 Opinion of the Advocate General Mazák C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007, paras 88 – 102,
especially 99.
29 C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007, paras 66, 67, 69.
30 Ibid. para 70
31 See, brilliant reasoning in this respect in the Opinion of the Advocate General Mazák C-440/05, „Ship source
pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007, paras 106, 107, 108 and further.
mentioned above Segi32 and European arrest warrant33 judgement of the ECJ may be added).
Third pillar of the Union temple started to be progressively rebuilt by the ECJ. And the
Lisbon Treaty accomplished this work in high style.
Third pillar “lisbonised” – communitarization with some specific characteristics
accomplished
If the Lisbon Treaty is to be ratified by all of the member states and enters into force, then the
third pillar will diminish and the institutional balance and functioning of the area of police and
judicial cooperation in criminal matters will be largely transformed. This area will be
“lisbonized,” i.e. will be governed mostly and largely by supranational principles, rules and
mechanisms, which are today called the Community ones.
The role of the institutional actors will change significantly. The Commission, the EP, the
ECJ as well as national parliaments (NPs) will gain a lot of new power in this domain. By
contrast, individual member states will lose their right to legislative initiative (only ¼ of them
together will retain this right – see Article 76 TFEU) and more importantly, in principle, also
the veto power in the decision making process, which will be newly subject to co-decision
with the EP. Furthermore, member states will be subject to infringement procedure, where
both the Commission and the ECJ will exercise their prerogatives (including supervising and
penalizing ones) in order to ensure that the union law is observed.34 The ECJ will be attributed
by the full jurisdiction over this field at the same time (only with one exception: the ECJ will
have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the
police or other law-enforcement services with regard to the maintenance of law and order and
the safeguarding of internal security35). Moreover, the ECJ may develop its human rights
case-law, thanks to the binding force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union (see,
Article 6 (1) TEU in conj. with the Charter itself). Especially in the field of criminal matters
such a case-law may play a very important role. It will be seen how the relationship with
ECHR Strasbourg Court but also national constitutional courts will develop in this respect.
With the new Lisbon Treaty the Commission may turn to the real “engine” of the
development of “European criminal area”. Its strength and influence derives not only from its
32 C-355/04 P, „Segi,“ 27. 2. 2007
33 C-303/05, „European arrest warrant,“ (Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW), 3. 5. 2007
34 However, according to the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions the infringement procedures and the
new ECJ jurisdiction will apply (at the latest) after 5 years from the entry into force of the Lisabon Treaty, if the
relevant measures will not be amended before.
35 Article 276 of the TFEU
legislative monopoly (however, as mentioned above it will be shared with ¼ of members
states), but mainly, in my view, from a firm and very broad legal bases for its activities in this
field, as regards legislation in the field of substantive and procedural criminal law and
cooperation and assistance in criminal matters (but also as regards operational and nonoperational
police cooperation). The concrete competences within these fields are defined
with a certain precision. Compared to the current regulation in articles 29, 31, 34 of the TEU,
they are more elaborated but much more extensive as well. They fall within the area of the
so-called shared competence (see, Article 4(2)(j) TFEU), however, the modified version of
pre-emption should apply in my view in this area (see, Article 2(2), read in conj. with Article
2(6) TFEU), because only minimum rules on certain aspects of procedural and substantive
criminal law are allowed to be adopted (see, Article 82 (2) and 83 (1) TFEU), other aspects
may be added upon the unanimous decision of the Council and consent of the EP. It should
be, however, kept in mind that the substantive criminal competence is supposed to be
potentially expanded also within the harmonized fields, where even the cross-border element
is missing (see, Article 83 (2) TFEU). This competence reflects and develops the potential of
the ECJ judgements on Environmental crimes and Ship source pollution, while making clear
that this competence may go beyond the environmental policy and may extend to virtually all
harmonized policies and contrary to the Ship source pollution may even impose specified
criminal penalties, all this upon the condition if this proves to be essential to ensure the
effective implementation of the particular Union policy.
It is supposed that the measures adopted under all above mentioned competences will be the
directives.36 Unlike the former TEU no exclusion of direct effect is provided for. As a result,
direct effect will be applied in respective relations if classical conditions will be fulfilled
(measure is clear, precise, unconditional). Of course, it must be assumed, in my view, that
also other current Community (and future Union) principles (anyway largely transposed to the
third pillar through the Pupino ruling and its implications) must apply, if no separate
framework is provided for this area.
Finally, the crucial element of the new framework for police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters will be the introduction of co-decision procedure (EP and Council sharing
legislative competence) and qualified majority voting within the Council in this field.
36 Only the measures under the article 82(1) TFEU within the field of criminal cooperation and assistance
(recognition, conflict of jurisdiction, facilitation of criminal cooperation as regards proceedings in criminal
matters and the enforcement of decisions) could be adopted even by regulations under the qualified majority
voting.
However, some specific characteristics will apply as well. The so-called mechanism of
emergency brake and enhanced cooperation shall apply in this context.37
As regards the emergency brake, each member of the Council will be entitled to suspend the
ordinary legislative procedure and refer the draft directive to the European Council, when it
considers that fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system would be affected. Within
the time limit of four months the European Council may find the consensus. If this procedure
fails, nine member states will be able to establish enhanced cooperation among themselves on
the basis of draft directive concerned (see Article, 82 (3) and 83 (3) TFEU), while no further
approval is required.
A kind of modified mechanism shall apply in the context of the possible establishment of the
European Public Prosecutor´s Office as well as in the sphere of operational police cooperation
where unanimity is required. In these cases, a group of at least nine member states may refer
the matter to the European Council. Again, if the consensus is not reached within four months
in the European Council, at least nine member states, if they wish so, may establish enhanced
cooperation among themselves in the particular matter, while no further approval is required
(see Article 86(1) (2, 3), 87 (3) (2, 3) TFEU, enhanced cooperation, however, shall not apply
to the development of schengen acquis).
As regards the strengthening of the role of the EP, it has already been mentioned that the EP
will win much of the power in this field. First and foremost, when the ordinary legislative
procedure shall be applied the EP should be treated on equal footing with the Council. It will
be a striking change from the current state of affairs where its role is in principle limited only
to consultation and giving non-binding opinions or issuing declarations. In cases where
unanimity decisions will be taken its consent will be required. However, as some authors
regret,38 there will be still blind areas, where the EP shall not exercise its capacity, such as the
area of defining the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the
area of freedom, security and justice (Article 68 TFEU)39.
Finally, the new role and powers of the national parliaments (NPs) should not be
forgotten. The main new competence, they are granted, is that of the control of the principle
of subsidiarity (and possibly proportionality as well).40 In this area if ¼ of the NPs (each
parliament holding two votes, in bicameral systems one for each chamber) claim breach of the
37 This will, however, not be the case of the competence under article 82(1) TFEU, see the previous note.
38 Weyembergh, A.: Approximation of criminal laws, the constitutional treaty and the Hague programme.
Common Market Law Review, 2005, č. 42, p. 1595, 1596.
39 See the Tampere programme, Hague programme and its Action Plan, accessible at: http://europa.eu/
40 See Article 5 TEU, Article 69 TFEU, Articles, 6 a 7 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality (2007) attached to the Lisbon Treaty.
subsidiarity principle within the 8 weeks from the submission of particular proposal, the
challenged measure must be reviewed by the Commission and decision on maintaining,
withdrawing or amending the measure must be explained. This procedure is called “yellow
card” and as shown cannot block the legislation. Only if ½ of the votes of NPs claim the
same, then first the proposal might be blocked by the majority of the EP or 55% of the
Council. This so-called “orange card” seems to me, however, nearly useless because such a
majority would anyway block the proposal. The “red card” is then used within the context of
general passarelle, or deepening clause, which enables each and every NP to veto the decision
of the European Council to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (or ordinary
procedure) (see, Article 48(7) TEU)41.
Pros and cons, opportunities and risks of the new framework
The most interesting and challenging issue, I will try to deal with now, is to point (on the
basis of attained experience and concrete examples) to the possible advantages and
disadvantages, as well as opportunities and risks, which the new framework may bring in
contrast to the current state of affairs in the explored area of criminal matters.
In my opinion, the new legal framework may cut off some of the shortfalls inherent in the
current system. The qualified majority voting within the Council may indeed contribute to
attaining better and faster compromises (at least when the emergency breaks are not
activated42) and replace the current prolonged negotiations which more importantly often lead
to the vague and broad compromises, sometimes entailing special exemptions etc.. This “bad
habit” has problematic repercussions both as substantive and procedural aspects are
concerned. First, from a substantive point of view, vague and broad provisions within the
criminal measures may run counter the substantive legality principle,43 the fundamental
principle of a particular importance especially within the criminal field (nullum crimen sine
lege, nulla poena sine lege). Furthermore, the relevant provisions of adopted measures are
often constructed in order to ensure that member states will not be forced to change their laws,
however, then any regulation might become useless and practical added value might be
41 For me it is regretable that at least within the competences under Article 82(2(d) and 83 third par. This
procedure is not envesiged. Such a regulation would support in my view the constitional conformity of these
provisions.
Critically to this mechanism see Monar, J.: Justice and Home Affairs in the EU Constitutional Treaty. What
Added Value for the ‚Area of Freedom, Security and Justice‘ ? European Constitutional Law Review, 2005, č. 1,
p. 241..
43 See, Weyembergh, A.: Approximation of criminal laws, the constitutional treaty and the Hague programme.
Common Market Law Review, 2005, č. 42, p. 1588 – 1590.
missed. On the other hand, these vague and broad definitions may be “sent” to the ECJ, which
then may give a more specific and controversial meaning to their words, also contrary to the
intent of its drafters and legislators (see some judgements on ne bis in idem). Thus
paradoxically the meant advantage may turn to be a great disadvantage for its creators as well.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the introduction of qualified majority voting to a
large area of substantive and procedural criminal law and certain aspects of both police and
criminal cooperation might give rise to undue over-regulation, centralization and unification,
which will not take into account legitimate national specifics arising from different
environments and legal traditions. To find the blocking minority in the qualified majority
environment will be much harder than it is in the current unanimity environment (indeed,
practitioners argue that even in the environment of unanimity it is practically necessary to find
at least some other “co-fighters”). In this environment the Commission will be able to push
ahead much more comfortably its proposals, even problematic ones. Let´ s mention two
examples from the procedural and substantive criminal field – one abandoned, one still
negotiated. The first was a draft framework decision on certain procedural rights within the
criminal proceedings44. This draft was put to the ice, when one “big” (UK) and about four
“small” states (including the Czech republic) effectively rejected it. There were good reasons
for such a stance, in my view. Besides the unclear legal basis (which under the Lisbon Treaty
will no longer be the case) there were among others reasonable objections as to the added
value of this measure, in this field, which has already been well occupied by the ECHR rules
and the Strasbourg case-law, which could be threatened or weakened through the possible
divergent case-law of the ECJ. Another example of the problematic criminal law proposal of
the Commission, in this case from the substantive criminal law field, both as regards legal
basis (again with the Lisbon Treaty the competence will be also clearly established in this
field and it will not be necessary to found it on extensive reading of the expansive ECJ caselaw
as introduced in Environmental crimes and Ship source pollution) but mainly as regards
the lack of necessity of such a regulation, is the Commission proposal for a directive on
sanctioning of employers of illegally staying third country nationals45, which includes also the
proposals for criminalizing the employers of third country nationals. This directive (among
44 See, document 10287/07, Brussels, 5 June 2007, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union.
45 See, document COM(2007) 249 final Brussels, 16.5.2007, Proposal for a directive of the EP and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, especially Art. 3, 10 – 13. other objections) seems me to be both contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, especially for the lack of a clear justification. It was not explained, if the member states are really not able to tackle the illegal immigration on their own. It was not shown that this proposal might serve its aim (really effective fight against illegal
immigration). No statistics were delivered as regards the so-called secondary flows of illegal
immigrants and so-called “nasty” employers, who are able to “count well” and “run their
business with illegal migrant workers” if not harshly criminalized by the Community.
Proportionality was not considered properly as well (should not it be left up to the member
states to decide on criminal or administrative sanctioning). Also some of the concepts
involved (e.g. exploiting working conditions) could be objected from the point they contradict
the substantive legality principle and other elements for other reasons (proportionality of
criminalizing 4 illegal migrants or repeated employment of illegal migrant workers). Last but
not least the criminal law imperative of ultima ratio was not in my view well observed as
well.46

I will stop here. I just wanted to illustrate, the problems, which occur in the criminal field
nowadays and which may effectively be aggravated if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.
However, to be fair, it must be remembered that with the Lisbon framework not only qualified
majority comes, but also emergency brakes and enhanced cooperation, as well as somehow
strengthened subsidiarity control exercised by the NPs may be applied. If these brakes were
not inserted in the Lisbon Treaty framework, I would probably argue without any hesitance,
that the new framework creates a dangerous engine, which will produce possibly harmless
(procedural rights) and unnecessary (criminalizing employers of illegal migrants) Union
criminal legislation. Because, the brakes are there, I am cautious to absolutely reject the new
framework. However, I admit, that it is the question, whether these brakes are sufficient,
especially when considered in the whole context, where the ECJ gained the full jurisdiction
over Union criminal matters, The Commission its infringement powers and the
integrationistic-oriented EP gained in principle the equal legislative powers as the Council.
To sum up, the Lisbon treaty does form a kind of risk and a great deal of adventure at the
same time. But maybe the actors will surprise, manage and pass the test somehow. Maybe,
they will not.
46 I had an opportunity to take part in a partly negotiating of this instrument and preparing positions of the Czech republic as well. However, these are my personal remarks and reflections only. See also brilliant critical reflection on the same matter in: Dawes, A., Lynskey, O.: The ever-longer arm of EC law: The extension of Community competence into the field of criminal law. Common Market Law Review, 2008, č. 45, p. 147 – 151 and as regards the possible IP criminal area and competition area, 145 – 147, respectively 151 – 155.

Will the advantages or disadvantages prevail? The result of the play or the whole game will
depend upon many variables. Will the ministers invoke fundamentals of their respective
criminal systems? Will the European Council be able to come to consensus or will it start in
fact enhanced cooperation? Will the enhanced cooperation be exercised? Will those states,
which will abstain resist or be integrated? Will not be then the mutual trust (which seem to be
a fiction in fact nowadays) even more undermined in the multi-speed criminal arena of
enhanced cooperation and more confusing for the law enforcement authorities on the one side
and more attractive for forum-shopping and safe havens-loving criminals on the other side?
Will the NPs boldly take up their roles? Will they raise yellow and orange cards? How will
the Commission and the respective ministers react? And what about the ECJ?
These are the open questions and challenges the Lisbon Treaty brings.

Lets´ come and see. No boring films, no soap operas, are expected. Drama, thriller will come.
Welcome in new “lisbonized” criminal area!

Conclusion
In this paper I focused on describing and analyzing the main developments within the third
pillar of the EU and beyond. I showed, how this intergovernmental pillar and criminal matters
as such have been influenced and subjected to the Community principles, rules and
mechanisms, especially by the expansive ECJ case-law, represented by the judgements such
as Pupino, Environmental Crimes or Ship source pollution. Then I turned my attention to the
novelties introduced by the Lisbon framework in the explored area, both as regards
institutional and functional aspects of the new order, while emphasizing some unique
characteristics newly introduced (emergency brake, enhance cooperation). Finally I tried to
sketch the future advantages, respectively disadvantages and risks of the new order in this
field. I concluded my paper by raising questions as to the future prospects of this area under
the Lisbon Treaty, which represents a true leap into the unknown in this respect.

Literature:
[1] Craig, P., de Búrca, G.: EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003, s.178- 228; 257-315.
[2] Čakrt, F.: Nástin komunitarizace v rámci III. pilíře. Trestněprávní revue, 2007, č. 1, s.
4 – 12.
[3] Dawes, A., Lynskey, O.: The ever-longer arm of EC law: The extension of
Community comeptence into the field of criminal law. Common Market Law Review,
2008, č. 45, s. 131 – 158.
[4] Kmec, J.: Evropské trestní právo. Mechanismy europeizace trestního práva a vytváření
skutečného evropského trestního práva, Praha: C.H.Beck, 2006, s. 230.
[5] Komárek, J.: „Tentýž čin“ v prostoru svobody, bezpečnosti a práva. Jurisprudence,
2006, č. 3, s. 51 – 57.
[6] Monar, J.: Justice and Home Affairs in the EU Constitutional Treaty. What Added
Value for the ‚Area of Freedom, Security and Justice‘ ? European Constitutional Law
Review, 2005, č. 1, s. 226 – 246.
[7] Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the
Pupino and Segi judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, s. 883 – 929.
[8] Spaventa, E.: Opening Pandora´s Box: Some reflections on the Constitutional Effects
of the Decision in Pupino. European Constitutional Law Review, 2007, č. 3, s. 5 – 24.
[9] Týč, V.: Působení práva Evropské unie ve sféře českého právního řádu In: Evropský
kontext vývoje českého práva po roce 2004: sborník z workshopu konaného na
Právnické fakultě MU v Brně dne 26.9.2006. 1. vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzita,
2006, s. 10-28.
[10] Weyembergh, A.: Approximation of criminal laws, the constitutional treaty and
the Hague programme. Common Market Law Review, 2005, č. 42, s. 1567 – 1597.
Case-law of the Court of Justice:
[1] C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005
[2] C-176/03, „Environmental crimes,“ 13. 9. 2005
[3] C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007
[4] C-355/04 P, „Segi,“ 27. 2. 2007
[5] C-303/05, „European arrest warrant,“ (Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW), 3. 5. 2007
Kontaktní údaje na autora – email:
michael.svarc@volny.cz

Post Sustainabilty Institute Conference - Behind the Green Mask

2011-04-30T14:15:00.000-07:00

The Post Sustainability Institute is hosting the FIRST LA21 sustainable development conference that includes communitarianism in their agenda. I've been thinking about how important this is to the ACL, how it ups the value of what we've presented to the world. I think I need to be there.

So, I'm starting a fund raiser to get me and a case of 2020/TACM to this conference. To sponsor the ACL at the conference please send your donation to me at the addresses on the right. If you have a business and would like to be listed as a sponsor in the ACL brochure, please email me with "ACL ad sponsor" in the subject box.

It's finally open for public debate. Maybe somebody should invite Etzioni.

"Our group, The Post Sustainability Institute, is sponsoring a conference called Behind The Green Mask this coming September in Northern California. Topics will range from the basics of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development to Communitarianism to implementation programs. We would like to invite you to participate in the conference as a presenter. The conference is tentatively scheduled for Saturday September 3, 2011 in Santa Rosa, Ca.

For more information about us please see our websites:
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com"

Stuck in my own dialectic

2011-04-27T14:56:00.000-07:00

1:12 scale 20' gets first spring visitors

20' front entryway

deck garden with real plants (until voles ate them all!)

1:12 scale Gertees, 5', 8', 10', 12', 14'

1:12 scale 14' Gertee cook shack, under construction

using cutouts now mixed with 3D pieces

the 14' fits a big woodstove, fridge, counter, shelves & sink

Woke up this morning feeling very strange after dreaming I was writing a new article about the impossibility of ever finding a way to live outside the dialectic. I went back to facebook a few months ago to keep in touch with my family, but seeing how deep people are inside the dialectic is almost more than I can bear.

Spring is always an anxious time for many Alaskans, especially those of us that survive in the winter by working summer jobs. Last year was such a bad one for me, except for my grandsons, so I have to focus on making money now, no matter how many ACL related articles or books I need to be writing. I'm sorry I haven't responded to the wonderful comments I've been getting. Gertee simply has more potential to feed and clothe me, so that's what I have to work on now.

It may be that my life took such a dive when I began "debating" Amitai Etzioni that I am doomed to fail no matter what path I choose. In that case I should probably keep researching and writing for the ACL until I starve or freeze to death. I'm known all over the world now, and a lot of people do respect my work, but many, many more think I'm crazy. In any case, like Connie said, all you have to do is type my last name into a google search and you find me. This limits my regular job options as any potential employer can easily find out a lot about me online.

I've been invited to speak about communitarianism at the Santa Rosa Democrats Post Sustainability Conference in September 2011. It's my first official invitation to speak since the Libertarian Convention in 2000. At this point, I have to decline. I can't afford the ticket down and I really can't go speak in front of anyone without getting false teeth first! It's not a paying engagement but I can certainly bring a bunch of 2020/TACMS along to sell. Maybe I 'm just a dreamer, but I'm hoping Gertee will fund my ACL work, since nothing else does anymore.

Miniature Yurt Greenhouse 1:12 scale builder's model

2011-04-25T16:46:00.000-07:00

Decided to see if there's a market for a mini Gertee Greenhouse.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110679488972&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT

The higher purpose of mankind - the world federation of the future

2011-04-17T04:48:00.000-07:00

Is the future World Federation a Communitarian federation? It's the only political, social, economic, legal and religious theory that fills the entire bill.

It's the only fully integrated political bureaucracy that is replacing internal legal systems in nations around the world, right now. It's the only all encompassing economic system that claims power over every inch of resources on the planet. It's the only social theory taught at the university level, and the academic curriculum rarely includes criticisms. There is no public debate or voting on community development programs that promote sustainable changes in the U.S. It just is.

Nobody's asking the public whether their government has the power to sign treaties that eliminate individual rights and liberties protected under local, state, and national laws. There is no ongoing public debate over subjecting nations to communitarian supremacy of law. This is astonishing when considering the fact that the Supremacy Clause in the European Union contract is a stated, published Communitarian obligation. It's not astonishing when you consider who controls what the general "masses" see and hear.

Regional governance is built on the Community model. Community, when used by the govt or an NGO, is a codeword for communitarian agencies designed specifically to bypass outdated forms of local governance. Community Development is a program for introducing global communitarian standards, norms and laws. It's called Harmonization of Norms.

So here's the second biggest Q we're not supposed to ask: Does mankind have a higher purpose? Many people hold that it does. Even Friedrich List, who we obviously misunderstood when we wrote the Anti Communitarian Manifesto, included the idea in his 1841 book on national political economy. In the opening chapter, List recommended we not militate against the goal of a future world federation. And, he called it our Common Purpose.

"But this endeavor is legitimate and rational insofar as it furthers the economic development of the nation in question and does not militate against the higher purpose of mankind, -- the world federation of the future." Friedrich List 1841, Selected readings in international trade and tariff problems, edited by Frank William Taussig

As the real and verifiable world trade federation forms, I wonder how much of the emerging "rights" agenda was part of what our economic fathers understood to be part of that glorious world federation they dreamed for us. Our founders are often accused of establishing the U.S. as just another instrument for achieving global domination. There is merit to those accusations.

I don't know if this is the right question to ask, but was it also our founders dream for the Big Idea of an Environmental Ten Commandments? Did the Americans, along with the empires who colonized South America and the ME and Asia and the post Vatican II Catholic Priests all promote the same ultimate future for mankind? Do they now?

It was a sad time for me when I realized how many of the Community Development programs were pouring grant money into tribal coffers across the U.S. Already trained in a life of subsistence living (meaning HUD housing and food stamps), Natives were perfectly prepared tunnels for introducing the idea of Rebuilding Community as a legitimate mission. First the U.S. government reduced the tribes to complete dependents, took away their villages, forbade their religions and languages, and today, because the U.S. "evolved," we are making up for all that.

'Mother Earth' to be given same rights as humans under UN plan,
By Catherine Eade 12th April 2011
Niki's comments in brackets, in red
Bolivia is drawing up a draft UN treaty which would give Mother Earth the same rights as humans, including the right to life, to pure water and clean air.
{UN human rights include safe and affordable housing and social equity. Would this concept give Big Mother the right to sue the sun, the moon, rouge planets and falling meteorites in the future Universal Court?}
The South American country wants the UN to recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to 'dominate and exploit'.
{Again, with communitarian "rights" come communitarian responsibilities, so does this mean humans can sue Big Mother for unleashing hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, droughts and other violent acts against humans?}
It aims to establish 11 new rights for nature which include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.
{Communitarian "logic" knows no bounds.}
Bolivia's large indigenous population is ruled by Latin America's first indigenous president Evo Morales, who was elected in 2006.
{Bolivia is an openly Communitarian State: http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/06/for-united-plurinational-communitarian.html}
Morales is an outspoken critic in the UN of countries which are not prepared to limit climate change by holding temperatures to a 1C rise.
{Chastisement is called "soft communitarianism", it seeks to shame the accused to comply. The next natural and globally harmonious step is hard communitarianism.}
Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, Pablo Salon, says his country seeks to achieve harmony with nature, and hinted that mining and other companies would come under greater scrutiny.

{Big Mother is watching you.}

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376244/South-American-countrys-treaty-giving-Mother-Earth-rights-citizens.html

This proposed treaty ties in very nicely with the objectives of the communitarian organizations active in my neck of the world. School of the Earth, WISE, the Copper River Watershed Org, the Wellwood Center, the studies of our watersheds and creeks, all adhere to the ideology of the "Salmon Nation" and eliminating all borders between people who live on salmon rivers! And their parent UN Biosphere regional expert NGO, Eco Trust, has it's hand in every pie out here.

What environmental standards are taught to youth trained to become young stewards of the earth? What perfect harmony is prayed for in public schools on Earth Day? What "god" does your child worship in school? Only the "enlightened" ones among us can comprehend it.

I like the wikipedia page called "World Government". It clarifies between the real information as opposed to the wiki page entitled "The New World Order," which is relegated to conspiracy theory. World Government is real, the New World Order is conspiracy theory. haha

Global map showing some supranational unions

"The only union generally recognized as having achieved the
status of a supranational union is the European Union.^[11]"The most relevant model for the incremental establishment
of a global federation may be the European Union, "

"Ulysses S. Grant commented, "I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us."^{[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government}U.S. President Harry Truman commented: "We must make the United Nations continue to work, and to be a going concern, to see that difficulties between nations may be settled just as we settle difficulties between States here in the United States. When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it, they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way. There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court." -- President Truman's remarks in Omaha, Nebraska on June 5, 1948, at the dedication of the War Memorial ^{[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government}

A quick google search for the keywords World Federation of the Future shows many interesting results. There are think tanks:

The World Futures Studies Federation emerged from the ideas and pioneering work of such persons as Igor Bestuzhev-Lada (Russia), Bertrand de Jouvenel (France, 1903-1987), Johan Galtung (Norway), Robert Jungk (Austria 1913-1994), John McHale (UK/USA, 1922-1978) and others who in the 1960s conceived of the concept of futures studies at the global level. This resulted in the organization of the first International Futures Research Conference in Oslo, Norway, in September 1967, for which Mankind 2000 was responsible in cooperation with the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, and the Institut für Zukunftsfragen. A Continuing Committee was created, with headquarters in Paris.http://www.wfsf.org/

There are regular conferences:

WELCOME TO TAMPERE IN JUNE 2011!

The 13th International Conference organized by Finland Futures Research Centre and Finland Futures Academy at University of Turku will deal with the different dimensions of a sustainable future.

Sustainable development is an important theme in local, regional and global scales and requires multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral cooperation. Environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development can only be achieved by encouraging knowledge sharing and cooperation between various sectors and decision makers. The decision made today shapes our future.

The methods of futures studies include tools for describing possible, probable and desirable variations of the present and drafting possible images of the future. By looking at the variety of different possibilities, we can come closer to shaping the future – rather than predicting it. Future studies offer valuable tools to understand and shape the development of our societies. This conference aims to bring together the best experts from the fields of Futures Studies and Sustainable Development and let the scientific community to interact with policymakers and representatives of companies. By developing images of alternative futures, the goal of the conference is to give new viewpoints and novel ideas to decision-makers to assist them towards more feasible decisions and a sustainable development. http://conference2011.wordpress.com/

And there's more than one religious angle:

‘Work for your life as though you will live forever, and work for the Hereafter as though you will die tomorrow.’ The Holy Prophet (S)

"On the blessed occasion of the Wiladat of Sayyida Fatima (SA), The World Federation of KSIMC is pleased to announce the re-launch of the MULLA ASGHAR FOUNDATION FUND. This gift programme has been named after Marhum Mulla Asgharali M.M. Jaffer as a tribute to his dream which was to see the success of this fund benefitting the vision and mission of The World Federation of KSIMC." http://www.world-federation.org/Secretariat/Articles/Mulla_Asghar_Foundation_Fund_planning_our_future_as_community.htm

It is our non credentialed ACL thesis that communitarianism is the ultimate, final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Another perfectly valid theory has arisen that communitarianism is just another phase, and that Transcendence, as taught by the Master Illuminated ones, is the final objective. (See Bobby Garner's treatment of this subject).

Whatever it ends up being, the final synthesis is supposed to be so "perfect" it will give rise to no opposition. The ACL was used by us to prove communitarianism is not perfect, and the fact that we even objected to it meant their whole dialectically based "conclusion" was flawed. It also, by default, made our work another side in a dialectical argument. Has humanity advanced to the next stage of forced evolution? If we are indeed moving into the next dialectical stage of human social evolution, then it's time to reassess the ACL "mission.' One thing is certain. The Communitarian stage of evolution is here, now. So if there is a next stage, Transcendence is next.

Over a decade has passed since I began attempting to think outside the dialectic. I know there are still parts of me that cling to dialectical tricks, and it's hard to feel very smart when some of them have been right in front of your "critical gaze" for a long time. I've learned so much more about the plan for global governance over the years. I really should do a complete revision and update of the Manifesto, maybe even add a political or social agenda of our own to the mix!

ACL - Communitarian Law Research

2011-04-14T09:17:00.012-07:00

Here's the old ACL topic page I'm revising and updating first. Obviously, I've got my work cut out for me. Good thing I don't have anything else more pressing or more important to do in my life, since this page was the only free communitarian law research available online. We were the only place in the world that was following and listing references to the communitarian legal system, including the schools, training, case law, legislation, regulations, treaties and "solutions" implemented across the globe, and one that did not focus only on how it affects the USA.

As an American, I warned the American people in my CAFTA EU Communitarian Law article that many countries, including our own, were training lawyers to implement communitarian changes to internal legal structures. I listed law schools and gave the names of people involved in the training programs. It made the rounds and died out, just as anything that explains communitarianism does. It's crazy that I'm still having to defend my work from accusations that I made it all up or it's my "personal pet peeve." Regardless of how easily and deftly leading right American "patriots" and their brothers and sisters on the "left" sweep it under the rug, it remains the most important topic the world has ever faced. Oh right, I'm sorry, I do understand what's important... so what kind of shoes does Scarlett Johansen wear when she goes jogging?

Bolivia has one of the first openly revised communitarian constitution that was adopted by popular vote. Today their communitarian president is the leading advocate for regional government protections of the Earth, which, under communitarian "victim rights" ideology has advanced into "victim" status. This gives the NH State motto "Don't Tread On Me" a whole new meaning! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376244/South-American-countrys-treaty-giving-Mother-Earth-rights-citizens.html

Your suggestions on how I might revise this page are welcomed and will help a lot. And yes, I already see how many misspelled words are in this!

Communitarian Law and European Community Law : Individual & National Sovereignty versus the Collective Good

by Niki Raapana, April 2003. Revised March 21, 2006.

Updated January 6, 2008

There is an emerging social justice system based in communitarian philosophy, called communitarian law. Communitarian law is enforced at the local, regional, and international levels. Recorded case law for communitarian jurisprudence rests with the European Communitarian Court of Justice. The substitution of communitarian law in the U.S. rests with national and locally elected lawmakers.

Every new law in the U.S. that balances individual rights against "Community" rights is a communitarian law. This definition includes environmental laws that infringe on property rights and the creation of victimless "crimes" (like DUIs and mandatory safety laws, helmets, seat belts, etc).

A field of study mostly ignored by Americans and their attorneys, it is however well-covered within the global academic community and elite groups. Chances are good you're not a part of them.

Our evidence suggests most average Americans in this new society of equals have never heard the term communitarian law. Our lawmakers count on the way many people discount it as a "conspiracy theory." The purpose of this page is to bring communitarian law under American public scrutiny.

Our standards for citations and links are mainly to primary sources including peer-reviewed scholars and law journals, law school coursework, universities, dissertations, government and NGO plans, etc. On other pages we occassionally link to personal opposition views even more radical than our own, but almost everything published about communitarian law exists at the highest levels of academic and elite discourse. So, very few links on this page are to familiar U.S. news sources; they are almost all to foreign plans and government and law school documents.

Introductory Quotes

1. What is Communitarian Law?

2. International Communitarian Juridcial Systems

3. What is "Divided Sovereignty"?

4. Who is Pierre Pescatore?

5. What are "Competences"?

6. Definition of "Community Aquis"

7. Why Study Communitarian Law?

8. Who's Teaching It?

9. Who Supports It?

10. Communitarian Chinese Case Law

Appendix

Introductory Quotes

"In emphasizing the effect a broad per se rule could have on governmental efforts to implement comprehensive planning goals through diverse land use regulations, Justice Stevens endorsed the communitarian principles that land is a natural resource to be used and enjoyed by present and future generations, and that individual property rights are naturally limited by the fact that human beings are social persons who belong to communities. Decisions regarding the use of privately owned land are subject to reasonable regulations imposed by the government on behalf of the community." The Supreme Court Upholds Moratoria Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, No. 00-1167, 535 U. S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002), by Peter W. Salsich, Jr., Saint Louis University School of Law, Co-author, Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and Materials.

"There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes," he said, notably "an extension of communitarian law by the European court." From Austria, 'new thoughts' for EU By James Kanter International Herald Tribune January 1, 2006.

"The court's decision is a benign communitarian decision. It's endorsing people acting through their representative government. So people should fight like hell in that political arena for one's individual values ... In this case, there's genuine people involved. But in many cases, these are opportunists waiting to hold out. The court said we aren't going to be the engine for that anti-communitarian process." Steven Sloan, in the Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2005, quoting Berkeley land-law professor Antonio Rossmann speaking about the landmark U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Eminent-Domain-Supreme24jun05.htm

"En instituant les Communaut?s, les ?tats membres ont limit? leurs pouvoirs l?gislatifs souverains et ont cr?? un ensemble juridique autonome qui les lie, tout comme leurs ressortissants, et qui doit ?tre appliqu? par leurs tribunaux."

Roughly translates to: "By establishing the Communities, the Member States limited their sovereign legislative powers and created an autonomous legal unit which binds them, just like their nationals, and who must be applied by their courts." Eur-Lex-L?Autonomie de l'Ordre Juridique Communautaire (The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order)

"The contractarianism versus communitarianism debate has been going on within the governance literature for nearly 100 years -- even longer in its philosophical manifestations. It is unlikely to be settled any time soon." The Purposes and Accountability of the Corporation in Contemporary Society: Corporate Governance at a Crossroads by Michael Bradley, Cindy A. Schipani, Anant K. Sundaram, and James P. Walsh. Posted by Duke Law.

"In 2001, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. It is based on Articles 174 and 175,ECt , under which a high level of protection of the environment must be guaranteed. The European Commission points out that there is a considerable body of communitarian environmental law, and that Member States are obliged to provide for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions." Harmonization and harmonizing measures in criminal law, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

"Acknowledgement of basic principles, such as the direct applicability of Community law (judgment of 5 February 1963 in the Van Gend en Loos case, 26/62) and the primacy of Community law over national law (judgment of 15 July 1964 in the Costa/ENEL case, 6/64), has constituted its most significant contribution to European integration. On the basis of these principles, individuals may invoke Community law before national courts and seek the non-application of any national law which is contrary to Community law." La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice comme instrument de l'int?gration communautaire bt Josse Mertens de Wilmars.

"Nowadays, a great number of norms exist, equally at an international (Number 108 1981 Council of Europe personal data Convention) and communitarian level (1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; 2000 European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights; European Union Directives (Personal Data Protection Directive Telecommunications Sector Directive and Electronic communications Sector Directive), in order to assure data protection." Data protection and communitarian law by Maria Angeles Chacon Sanchez Abogado in Sevilla.

NOTE: The following article, written by Dave Hodges of the Arizona Constitution Party, includes plagiarized ACL research and writing. Author Dennis Cuddy, PhD, also freely lifted ACL legal research in an article he wrote for newswithviews.com in April 2006. Why would these men of considerable resources need to steal my work and claim it as their own?

"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." Preserving Constitutional Liberties Part II - The Loss of the American Constitution: Constitutional Law vs. Communitarian Law (Part Two) by Dave Hodges, November 12, 2006.

"For communitarians, concerned with the nature of our public discourse, the importance of a reasoned conversation about this issue is paramount." from Section Law and Communitarian Studies, a section of The Association for American Law Schools: Chair: Catherine J. Ross, The George Washington University Law School, Ph: (202) 994-9456, Email: cross@law.gwu.edu; Chair-Elect: Robert M. Ackerman, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law, Ph: (717) 241-3535, Email: bxa9@psu.edu; Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Pepperdine University School of Law, Ph: (310) 506-4684, Email: robert.cochran@pepperdine.edu; Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School, Ph: (617) 495-4769, Thomas D. Morgan, The George Washington University Law School, Ph: (202) 994-9020, Email: tmorgan@law.gwu.edu; Milton C. Regan, Jr., Georgetown University Law Center, Ph: (202) 662-9414. Email: regan@law.georgetown.edu -- "A Conversation About Abortion" -- [ click to download mp3 ]

What is Communitarian Law?

Communitarian Law is the new legal system used by regional and local governments affiliated with the emerging global government. This new law circumvents national law via a program of "balancing," often implemented by a small group of self-appointed elites who achieve consensus (not voting). For Americans, the adoption of these evolving principles transports us from a constitutional system where we expect clearly defined basic rights (like due process and legal searches) to a more moral way of enforcing "social justice" that only a few upper level academics can define.

Communitarian law is the precedent that requires the courts to rule in favor of the self-defined "community" against individuals protected by constitutional law. It limits the property rights of individuals in all member nations. The most obvious current communitarian decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court is Kelo v. The City of New London, a land rights case that balanced property rights against comunitarian development goals. The least obvious communitarian decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court is Hiibel v. The State of Nevada, a privacy rights case that balanced private individual's right to anonymity. In all U.S. communitarian legislation and criminal code, the stated purpose is to balance individual rights against community responsibilities. It's called Reinventing Government. Based on the consensus reached by globalist do-gooders, all nations are now required to adjust their national systems. The world is in an ongoing process of internal re-inventions of national political and legal infrastructures.

Iraq is the "model" for rebuilding the Middle East into a communitarian trade region and plans are underway to establish a communitarian code of law and court of justice for that emerging region. Iraqi resistance or any other national resistance to communitarian law is illegal under communitarian law. All current trade agreements between the U.S. and Mexico, Canada, and Central and South America are modeled after established European communitarian law.

The North American Free Trade Agreement balances the rights of the individual citizens in each nation against the rights of developers rebuilding sustainable communities, protected areas and trade corridors. Communitarian law always rules in favor of private corporations and NGO's who partner with local Community and Regional Councils (not to be confused with municipal, county or state governments). Communitarian law requires new courts of justice and legislative bodies, as is evident with the proposed Andean Parliment intended to replace the WTO as the regulatory governing body. The unelected (and for the most part unknown) Andean Parliment will have the granted authority to write legislation for all member nations involved in NAFTA and CAFTA. There are no plans for an appellate court.

Communitarian law is more often called Community Law. There are also several other terms for the communitarian code of legal principles, including: Community Aquis, Code de redaction interinstitutionnel, and Le Systeme Judiciaire Communautaire.

Under Aquis Communitaire is where you'll find the most accessible defintion for communitarian law. A long and inclusive list of all the different areas communitarian law encompasses is provided at Wikipedia, the free online encylopedia. The new law is based in the lofty Fabian principles of Human Rights and social equity, which both place the needs of the community over the individuals who make up the community.

The most high-profile cases are against brutal dictators who turned against their former U.S. "handlers." Strong proponents around the world suggest bringing the Bush administration before the International Court and charging them with "crimes against humanity." The goal is global "peace and justice." Eradicating mass murder and genocide was the first global justification for an international court suggested by the London Fabians in the late 19th century, but the actual laws just as easily justify "sacrificing" individuals for the "common good."

Communitarian law is taught and studied at universities in the States. It's a master's program at many law schools internationally, and there exist many professors of communitarian law around the world. Yet online law dictionaries do not include a definition for communitarian law. (See: Law.com, Duhaime.org, Nolo.com, Findlaw.com, LectricLaw.com, thefreedictionary.com) This makes no sense unless it's understood that communitarian economics dissolves all nation states in favor of regional and international legal authority over individuals, their property, and their nations.

The Creation of a Communitarian System of International Law from cyber.law.harvard.edu.

The European Union and the General International Law. Case law compiled by the University of Bucharest, last updated February 2004. Includes Communitarian law and National law.

legaltheory.net in French, translated into English, posts 2002-03 Syllabus of Seminars in Communitarian Law.

The European Court of Justice and Communitarian Court of Justice Case Law since 1955.

The United States is being integrated into an international community that adheres to Community Law. Students and lawyers across Europe and Latin America are studying Community Law and revising their national law to submit to the supremacy of Community Law. Two important questions for Americans who choose to retain their individual, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness might be: 1. When are our people going to be informed of the new system? and 2. Do we have educated attorneys who understand the difference between international community based "human rights" and U.S. constitutional "individual rights?"

Communitarian Law is the international system of Hegelian legal theories used throughout the world to eliminate individual and national sovereignty. In the E.U., Africa, South America, Asia and across the globe, many international documents and resolutions and organizations (U.N., E.U., WTO, NAFTA, etc.) use the actual term "communitarian law" to define the legal precedent for the new global order. All nations entering into trade agreement must agree to modify their national constitutions and integrate their politicial system under supreme communitarian laws. Every individual in every member nation must bow before their new "supra-national" authority (which is often part of a Royal court system, as at the Peace Palace at the Hauge, Netherlands, with the presiding monarch being HRH Queen Beatrix.

Many constitutional scholars now claim the U.S. Bill of Rights was written as a communitarian, collective document. Etzioni insists the 2nd Amendment was written with a "communitarian clause." They're very good at confusing the issue. For example:

"Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law and author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, explains that the word people is used in a collective sense in the US Constitution. "But the libertarian reading must contend with textual embarrassments of its own. The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'....The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'--in essence, voters--to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically. The Fourth Amendment is trickier: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Here, the collective 'people' wording is paired with more individualistic language of 'persons.'"guninformation.org

This Hegelian legal philosophy-theory has been handed down from the globalists at the United Nations to all its member countries inside sustainable re-development plans. It is also the basis for revised crime acts, community policing, Growth Management Acts, domestic violence acts, enviromental laws (the body of environmental case law in the EU is called communitarian environmental law), faith-based initiatives, and all pre and post 9/11 crime and terror prevention programs. Community law is cited in all United States (and worldwide) Local Agenda 21 Plans. New local communitarian laws include: Revised Noise Ordinances, Weed & Seed, landlord training acts, transit related development takings (eminent domain for public-private partnerships), mandatory private home health and saftey inspections, hoarding syndrome interventions, and other efforts to "create safe and livable communities."

We at the ACL also think that mandatory volunteer service law is entirely based in communitarianism. The recently exposed Pentagon database of high school students is a communitarian program, as are the numerous domestic spy progams used at every level of government. The way to recognise a communitarian program is one that eliminates individual property, privacy or independence because these outdated guarantees against government intrusions have become identified barriers to public health, safety, or livability.

In the United States, communitarian law is illegal and treasonous under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Criminal Code.

Every Congressman who voted to approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in July of 2005 approved the integration of our national political system under a supreme code of communitarian law.

This topic is rarely covered by the American press (or included in law dictionaries) for obvious reasons. Eric Jacobstein, manager for Legislative Affirs at the Inter-American Dialogue published a paper for the V. International Symposium on Comparative Regionalism and the EU in November 2005 describing Trends in the CAFTA Process. He suggested the Andean trade agreement "is unlikely to face a vote in the U.S. Congress anytime soon" because of the elections in 2006. We think this could be because the Andean trade agreement is not a topic the globalists want to see included in U.S. congressional publically televised election debates. The agreement will return as a topic after the 2006 elections are over.

Aimee Kanner, with her B.A. in International Relations from GWU (home to the Communitarian Law Network) prepared a paper for the above Conference on the elitist foundation for communitarian law, "Although most regional integration processes were started as elite projects, their development and increased involvement in policy-making and decision-making processes has raised concerns regarding public representation and accountability." The conference addresses the solution, which appears to be the creation of an actual court where lawsuits can be tried. The way it works now is all cases are tried at the WTO. This NAFTA-EU Conference in Miami last fall was a high ranking event, as evidenced when Emil Kirchner, who received the Cross of the Order of Merit from the German Government in 2002, showed up to discuss "integration efforts of Muslim countries."

Understanding communitarian legal principles is the key to full comprehension of the emerging global communitarian synthesis.

The Jewish Encylopedia explains the areas of Talmudic Law that influenced the development of communitarian behavior controls (of every day life), and evolving regulatory practices that use dialectical conflicts to achieve synthesis. The process is often called a new paradigm. Communitarian law and Talmudic law are constantly changed and modified on a whim. The U.S. Constitution has been balanced by the Talmud and communitarian ideology.

International Communitarian Juridical Systems

Google translation of Institutions of the Union and the European Communities by Professor Francis Snyder.

Communitarian law is supreme. National law is subservient to Communitarian law. It is the international justice system which enforces peace, equality, social equity, human rights, sustainable development, open borders and free trade. It is neither too far right or too far left. It is neither too far Christian or too far Muslim. Communitarian law "balances" conflicting laws in favor of the greatest common good. It is the radical middle ground between all conflicting ideas. It integrates extreme communism with extreme capitalism. It defends the rights of the global "collective" against the rights of the greedy, selfish individuals clinging to their "outdated notion" of independent nations.

Throughout the last century there was a great "debate" in upper academia between individual rights and community rights. The individual was not represented, and community rights won. The definition of "community" includes everything from a small villiage to the entire world.

The Top-Down Communitarian System:

1. International Communitarian Law, enforced by international courts of justice.

2. Regional Communitarian Law, enforced by regional parliaments?

3. Local Communitarian Law, Community Development, Public-Private Partnerships, and Local Agenda 21 Plans.

The communitarian philosophy-ideology is what supports the emerging supranational government body. The system integrates all nations of the world into sub-regions. Each region has it's own code of communitarian law in addition to mandatory inclusion of higher, global laws. Each nation has their own proposed process for national subordination to the regional and international supreme authoritative bodies. In Europe and Latin America the national modification and subordination process is published in all documents relating to communiitarian integration. In Europe they have a collection of communitarian environmental case law (with European Law being one of the first global scale tests of the new law). In the United States it can never be disclosed to the average voter; for officials to speak openly of treason is a criminal offense.

"The correct application of the Communitarian Law produced by an International Integration Organization
implies that States Members have to make political and legal internal reforms." pdf-NAFTA and the EU

I've been studying the above quoted document. I'd like to write an article about it. To anyone who has access to the propsed Andean Parliment papers, models for integration, copies of the complaints of elitist origins, a list of all the U.S. Congressmen who voted for CAFTA up for re-election in Nov 2006, anti-communitarian papers or poltical parties that convinced a majority of Dutch and French voters to reject the European Constition in 2005, or any other relevant study materials: please help further our education in this topic. Click the contact link above and email me for where to snail mail hard copies.

"Finding the Law: the Micro-States and Small Jurisdictions of Europe: Andorra, Cyprus, Northern Cyprus, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, Vatican State; UK European dependencies: Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Isle of Man; Faroe Islands and Greenland" by Andrew Grossman, Hauser Global Law School Program, Published February 2005. This paper includes "General Sources, Common to More than One of the Jurisdictions under Study."

The European Union and other supranational authorities require national constitutions to be restructured so that they conform to communitarian rule of law. Integration to the EU and Economic Transformation: State and Its Role on the Example of the Export-Promoting Policy by Marek Csabay

Presentation by Dr Jan Mazak, President of the Slovak Constitutional Court 21.10.2004. Professor J?n Maz?k, PhD. President, Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic general remarks on "National judiciary after the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union" as follows:

On the immediate applicability of the communitarian law

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

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

Under the immediate negative application of the communitarian rule is to be understood the application in order to achieve the state in which the incompatible national regulation will not be used. This usually leads to quashing decisions issued on the basis of this national regulation without need of positive application of the communitarian rule. It follows from above also that it concerns the application of the communitarian rule for the purpose of reviewing the legality or lawfulness of a national regulation or act (decision) issued on its basis.

The national courts of the member state are obliged, ex offo, to use immediately applicable communitarian rules. It always applies, if the national procedural norms stipulate, ex offo, to apply the national law. Furthermore, the national courts have to apply, ex offo, the communitarian rules also in that case if this application is necessary for guaranteeing the protection of rights resulting for a person from the specific communitarian rules.

On the preferential application of the communitarian law

The preferential application of the communitarian law is solved in the above-mentioned Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

The duty of the national courts (and also of 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.

It is necessary to emphasize that the national courts have to proceed in such way and to solve this conflict through the preference and application of the communitarian rule in the scope of their own power, ex offo, developing their own initiative.

Under ? 109 sect. 1 (c) of the Rule of Civil Procedure the proceedings shall be suspended if the court has arrived to a conclusion that there is a question on preliminary reference which must be decided by the European Court of Justice. After suspension of the case, the court sends a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice and awaits its decision.

On the proceedings on the preliminary question

The law of the European Communities is superior to the law of the member states (lets leave aside the delicate issue of the superiority of the communitarian law to national constitutional law). The priority of the communitarian law requires unified application of this law in all member states. The application process of the communitarian law consists of two fundamental issues:

1. Unified interpretation of the communitarian law, while the unified interpretation must precede the unified application of this law in member states

2. The communitarian legal acts are considered valid in national environment and for that reason the national courts cannot reject the application of the communitarian legal acts only on the basis that they have arrived to the conclusion on invalidity or ineffectivity of the said communitarian legal acts.

These problems are solved in proceedings on preliminary question under Article 234 of the EC Treaty the purpose of which lies especially in the interpretation of the primary and secondary law and the review of the validity of the secondary legal acts. For that reason the proceedings on preliminary question are procedural enforcement of the priority of the communitarian law on the national level.

The obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question relates only to the national court which proceeds in the case in the last instance in accordance with the judicial organisation and powers and competences under the Constitution and laws regulating these issues. In Slovakia there are two such courts. Both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court sometimes could also be a competent regional court.

The question is whether the Constitutional Court belongs to courts which should make a preliminary reference. It depends, but most of the opinions on this issue have agreed to involve Constitutional Courts to the scope of Art. 234 of the Treaty on European Communities.

The possible effects of the violation of the national court?s obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice under Art. 234 of the Treaty

Relaying on the obligation and possibility of a national court to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question, it is necessary to underline that if a national court was a last instance court and in spite of this fact it did not submit the case to the Court of Justice, the communitarian law would be violated. Such a qualification of a national court negligence follows from the fact that the national court has to respect the Art. 234 of the Treaty if it is a last instance court. The violation of this obligation may result in commencement of proceedings before the Court of Justice in special type of proceedings on violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty. The member state whose court has not fulfilled its obligation under the quoted Art. 234 of the Treaty will be charged. The charge against the member state is justified for a simple reason. In spite of the independence being a functional principle of a national judicial system, a member-state court remains a public power authority of the concerned state, and the violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty de jure is assigned to the member state.

On application of the domestic procedural code

In proceedings on communitarian claims and rights the national courts hear and decide these cases usually under the domestic procedural rules.

The work of the national courts on application of the domestic procedural regulations in proceedings in which cases following from communitarian standards are heard and decided, abide by the requirements of equivalence and efficiency.

The issue of competency of the national courts in relation to cases following from the communitarian law

Under fixed case-law of the Court of Justice it is a matter of each member state to define which court shall be competent locally and concerning the subject matter of the lawsuit when the subject of the proceedings is an individual right based on the communitarian law. The member states shall be liable for the effective protection of this right in every single case and it is not the task of the Court of Justice to solve whose jurisdiction shall the individual case fall under.

Concluding remarks

The Slovak judiciary is expecting its transformation into an effective part of the European judicial system. The right attitude might be a cautious optimism in spite of some expected difficulties. We are entering into a stabilised system and it has acted relatively long time in the fixed legal environment. We have at our disposal some experiences, case-law, developed doctrine and the willingness of the colleagues from the member states to share their experiences gained on their way from national judge to the European one. The rest, I think, will be our task. The first step is to get general knowledge then to learn special know-how and finally the improvement of skills in the application of the communitarian law.

NAFTA and the EU's paper tells us Tremolada, Eric (Universidad Externado de Colombia) is the principle lecturer of the Jean Monnet Class on European Communitarian Law (designated by the European Commission of the European Union in 2005).

Universidad Rey Juan Carlos Law Program includes in year 3 "Institutions of Communitarian Law (C)".

University of Oradea
Faculty of Law and Jurisprudence offers a post-graduate degree in Communitarian Law.

Simona Zah, 21, a former law student at the University of Bucharest was the best graduate student in a special course on "International, comparative and communitarian law" at the University of Strasbourg, in 2001.

From Aquamont to Berlaymont: On the Integration-Friendly Features of the Slovak Constitution by RADOSLAV PROCH?ZKA.

Sari Kouvo, born 1971, is a researcher and lecturer in international law with a focus on human rights and in gender and law at the Department of Law. She attended "What are They Doing? Gender Mainstreaming in International Human Rights?, Gender and Communitarian Law Workshop, Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law, Spain (2000).

"For the aim of European law study on Master level, the curriculum and share of lessons has been added and made deeper - it is not only specialization for the area of justice and internal affairs but also the basis of wider general theory mainly of the European communitarian law, history questions and EU genesis, new EU legal institutes as joint investigation teams, Eurojust, or European warrant of arrest, etc." EDUCATION IN EUROPEAN LAW AT THE POLICE ACADEMY OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC.

Regionalism and Constitutionalism in an Enlarged EU, A pan-European project by WiRE in collaboration with academic partners throughout Europe to investigate the situation of the regions in the context of the emerging EU constitution list of participants includes Prof. Daria de Pretis. "Daria de Pretis is a Professor of Administrative Law at the Universit? di Trento in Italy. Her main areas of interest include communitarian law; administrative action; the legal principle of discretionary powers and administrative justice in Italy and Europe. In 2004 she published La Tutela Giurisdizionale Amministrativa in Europa fra Integrazione e Diversit? on the subject of advimistrative law in a Europe of integration and diversity."

Michael Coester
(Professor, Munich University):
"The Law on Terms of Contract in Conflicting Relationship between German and European Communitarian Law"
("Das Recht der Allgemeinen Geschaftsbedingungen im Spannungsfeld zwischen deutschem Recht und europaischem Gemeinschaftsrecht")
Discussant: Hiroshi Kochi (Professor, Kyushu University) Kyushu University Faculty of Law and Ludwig-Maximilian
University (Munich) Law Faculty's Joint Research Program s

MO??O AO PJ -ENGLISH VERSION, a Portugese blogger explains the need for European integration and
The European Youth Parliament, which "Emphasizes the network cooperation agreements, the policy of aid to the development and the pratice of strong positions in the various international organizations (UN, NATO, WTO). 2. Reaffirms the EU personality through the supremacy of the communitarian law above the national law. 3. Endows the EU of the means to proceed, through evolution and commitment towards an improved economic and social cohesion. 4. Requests the reinforcement of the communitarian budget as to allow the sustainable development of the weaker economies."

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Achievements in the field of human rights ten years after Dayton, Sarajevo, 10 and 11 May 2005. "By implementing the Agreement, BiH {Bosnia and Herzegovina} will be able to apply for full membership of the EU. The negotiations for membership will be the most complex task and the greatest challenge, which will lead to the most profound reforms. Institutional capacities, which are necessary for successful negotiations on full membership, adoption and application of the whole European legislation, will finally result in the number of around 15 state ministries and around a hundred agencies, offices with the purpose of strengthening democracy, strengthening of export capacities, oversight of the market, environment protection, etc. The number of entity or cantonal competences will be reduced significantly. All these formal steps will be followed by considerable reforms in the judiciary, internal affairs, defence, economy, etc. Finally, BiH will transfer a share of its sovereignty to the European Community for supremacy of communitarian law and its application in all EU member states. ESI analysts think that it is impossible for BiH to start negotiations for full membership before 2007.

Inicio UCH-CEU Fundaci?n USP-CEU Univerisidad Cardenal Herrera-English version. Seminars include a course on "The General Principles of the Law in the European Communitarian Law."

Italian s-tiles explains: "The Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control was implemented in Italy under Government Bill D.Lgs n. 372 of 4 August 1999. Currently, it is applied specifically to existing plants, as defined under Annex I, Article 41 of Communitarian Law* 2001 (1 March 2002, No. 39), but with the provision for the Government to extend the IPPC to new and modified plants, as well, within a period of 1 year. *A law ratified by the Government yearly on 31 January, which includes the norms for adopting EU law within the Italian legal system."

Aquamedia's International Relations in Water Management claims, "By adopting the WFD, the communitarian law in the European Union reached its top in the area of waters, the former solution of individual problems regulated by the relevant directives has changed into to complex approach in protection and exploitation of waters."

International Conferences and Seminars tells us Marco Balboni is a Prof. of Communitarian Law at the University of Bologna. Here's one of his courses in Italian.

Araceli Mangas Mart?n Professor of International Public Law and International Relations, Universidad de Salamanca since 1986 was also Professor ?Jean Monnet? of Communitarian Law by the European Communities Commission in 1991. She wrote - ?European Communitarian Law and Spanish Law?, Madrid, Ed. Tecnos, 2nd ed, 1987

Why is there nothing online about the Jean Monnet Class on European Communitarian Law except for one reference to it in NAFTA and the E.U. -- Institucional Contrast at http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:r5s0jdmFPPYJ:www.miami.edu/eucenter/Conference_Nov4.pdf+Communitarian+Law&hl=en?

The Jean Monnet Program at the New York University School of Law has nothing describing what a Professor 'Jean Monnet' of Communitarian Law teaches. Wikpedia-Jean Monnet explains Monnet is credited as the "architect of European Unity." (This is very interesting since so little information is circulated about communitarian law and the primary source for communitarian law is the EU.)

Jose Antonio Sanchez Quintanilla is the Secretary General of the IDAE. He is Bachelor in Law (specialty in Public Law) by the University of Seville having a diploma in European Communitarian Law by the same University. He is civil employee of the Upper Corporation of Civilian Administrations of the State, from 1989. Among other functions, he has been Adviser and later on Director of the Secretary of State of Scientific and Technological Policy Office in the Ministry of Science and Technology, being this its last position carried out until its incorporation to the IDAE. Jose Antonio Sanchez Quintanilla has wide experience within the Public Administration in Organization and administrative procedures, Administrative hiring, Management of human resources and elaboration of dispositions of legal and obligatory rank.

Manuel Estella Hoyos - President the Courts of Castila and Leon Born : in 1939, in Salamanca. Education / Profession : BL (Law) from the University of Salamanca in 1962. Majored in matters related to European Communitarian Law in 1985, 86 and 87.

"Marco Polo System geie is a structure of Communitarian law instituted by the Municipality of Venice together with the Union of the Municipalities and the Communities of Greece (K.E.D.K.E.)." MARCO POLO SYSTEM GEIE

AALS: 2005 Annual Meeting
Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 2:00 - 3:45 p.m. Hilton San Francisco, Yosemite B, Ballroom Level.
Section on Law and Communitarian Studies Moderator(s): Thomas D. Morgan, The George Washington University
Law School. Speaker(s): Amitai Etzioni, The George Washington University Inst. for Communitarian Policy Studies; Karen Musalo, University of California, Hastings, College of the Law.

A contemporary way of understanding the meaning of the Constitution by Raul Narits, at Juridica International, pp. 466-472 Summary:

"Legal theory is directed at the correct understanding of law. The aim is to understand law in its integrity for which legal theory has developed a set of broad-based means. Understanding of the national legal system should rely on the uniformity of the legal system and the Constitution.
The author introduces the reader to the main principles of communitarianism as one of the possible means allowing to understand the Constitution. The author outlines the characteristic features of conservative, liberal and egalitarian theories of communitarianism, and provides an in-depth analysis of the communitarianist constitutional theory based on the principles of liberal communitarianism."

Plan to study communitarian law? Join 1,965 subscribers on the list for communitarian law : commlaw@hermes.gwu.edu:

"As a scholar who dedicated the last 15 years to communitarian public philosophy, I have frequently argued that individual rights have been unduly expanded, often at the cost of the common good. I joined Harvard law professor Mary Glendon to point critically at the explosive growth of entitlements and the trivialization of rights. For example, some feminists claimed that they had a right to use the men's room even if there was no line at the women's room. And an employee of Macy's claimed that he has a right to play Santa Claus. I could not find such rights in the Constitution, or for that matter, any other place. In addition, I devoted a whole book to the limits of privacy, and I am among those who hold that Sept. 11, 2001, changed what constitutes a "reasonable" search.

However, when we move to reset the balance between individual rights and the common good, we inevitably step on the slippery slope that we face whenever we reset legal doctrines, religious Do's and Don'ts and moral taboos. We hence need to be careful that we not open the floodgates to gross violations of individual rights-that we not end up on our backside on the lowest end of the slope. Some civil libertarians are so concerned about this danger that they would rather not set foot on the slope at all, and prefer to remain frozen in whatever position they find themselves. However, adjustments are often needed. The secret is to set clear markers for the new place on the slope beyond which we will not slide, a new definition of what is reasonable, a specific new point of balance between rights and the common good." [emphasis added] Amitai Etzioni, Communitarian Newsletter #4, received on the COMMLAW@hermes.gwu.edu elist, October 17, 2005. (also in The National Law Journal Online on September 19, 2005.)

20 April 2001, Copenhagen - From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuana. Statement by Dr. Dalia Grybauskaite, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Candidate Countries Opinion Concerning the Future of the EU :

It is difficult for a country that has always looked at the European Union from outside to judge whether and which particular deficiencies warrant a change. For historical reasons, Lithuanians have always fought for and cherished sovereignty. Consistent application of the principle of subsidiarity is, therefore, a natural interest of Lithuania who, as any other nation, has a strong feeling of responsibility for its own faith.

On the other hand, for geopolitical reasons and, more specifically, because of our size, we realise that, in many instances, we can further our interests through common actions together with other nations better than alone. In such cases we are learning to entrust our interest to international and supranational establishments composed of members who are likeminded and whom we can trust. European Union is about trust. We have bred an understanding that European Union cannot be interested in undermining our interests. I think we are learning this "win-win" game.

From a different angle, a delimitation of powers also calls for a determination on which European institutions do what. In fact, it is this aspect that gives the strongest political taste to the future debate. In the most simplified version, the discussion has shifted forth and back along a line between two extremes or options - inter-governmental and communitarian.

Lithuanian thinking rests on simple but tested experiences. It is first of all the communitarian method that has made the EU what it is today: a Union that accommodates the big and protects the small. Arguing for strengthening of the inter-governmentalism at the expense of communitarianism is, to a large extent, an attempt in a way to turn the integration clock backwards. Thus the community method must be preserved, strengthened and extended as the EU enlarges.

20 October, 2003 - The significance of the transatlantic bonds in the time of the entry of the Czech Republic into EU Print Mail by Mirek Topolanek. Quote: "Recently, the Intergovernmental Conference has started with a summit in Rome, with the number one task: adopting of a European Union Constitution ? a document that can significantly influence the nature of the ?old continent? and consequently also its relations with the US. It can result in a huge European ?super-state?, where most of the power is given to the bureaucrats in Brussels, or we will manage to keep the EU as a partnership of independent states that cooperate in areas where it?s advantageous. Unfortunately the submitted draft of the constitution was not created by any ?Founding Fathers? but by the European Convent with a majority vote of socialist and euro-federalist parties. It moves us towards the European ?super-state? founded on quite doubtful basis./ As a result of post-war development, expensive redistribution and bureaucratic processes became typical for European countries, along with the burden of the so-called social state and collective demands for what were called group rights. All of these are taken as specific European values. But in present global economic competition these phenomena decrease the competitiveness and restrain the economic growth. The common market is bound with thousands of pages of regulations of rapidly growing communitarian law, which are for the most part products of various lobby and corporate bodies. They are not so much about the reaching declared high standards, but more as a protectionist weapon against the foreign competition of European market. By doing so, Europe is really closing itself from global market than the opposite." From the American Enterprise Institute.

The International Legal Regime

Hauser Global Law Program at NYU teaches the "Code de r?daction interinstitutionnel" (communitarian law)

The Training Strategy for Civil Servants on EU Affaires from the Serbia and Montengro European Integration Office trains: " ?Harmonizators?- law experts that will have to be well acquainted with the structure of communitarian law, type and nature of the EU decisions and models of their implementation into the national legislature." (The page with this original text disappeared, now it doesn't say the term communitarian law it says: "The lecturer was a Slovenian expert in the harmonisation of national legislation with the acquis communautaire.")

www.arena.uio.no

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Achievements in the field of human rights ten years after Dayton Sarajevo, 10 and 11 May 2005: "Finally, BiH will transfer a share of its sovereignty to the European Community for supremacy of communitarian law and its application in all EU member states. ESI analysts think that it is impossible for BiH to start negotiations for full membership before 2007."

www.worldvideobusiness.com. In this area I.M.P.R.E.S.A. S.p.A. intends to offer on line consulting services in the field of Labour Communitarian Law.

Fellowship Training Programme in International Law for French-Speaking African Countries (in French) Institut des Relations Internationales du Cameroun (IRIC) Yaound?, Cameroon, 7 ? 18 January 2002: "In cooperation with the camerooninan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Centre of Studies and Research of International and Communitarian Law (CEDIC), Yaound?, and the University of Yaound? II, the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs and UNITAR jointly organized a two-week training for 22 participants from different French-Speaking African countries (16 fellowship recipients and 6 trainees from the host country), including junior and mid-level government officials as well as representatives from law faculties of universities."

College of Europe, Professor Sylvie GOULARD: Sylvie Goulard is at the moment launching a new think tank "Europhilia" based in Sciences Po (Paris) where she will be active as a codirector with Olivier Duhamel (former French MEP). From 2001 to the summer 2004, she was a member of the group of political counsellors at the Commission where she integrated the team responsible for the follow-up of the Convention. She started her career as Foreign Affairs counsellor first at the legal department of the "Quai d'Orsay" (communitarian law and negotiations concerning the unification of Germany) and was then detached to the "Conseil d'Etat" in Paris. Furthermore, she has been in charge of the multilateral questions and the French-German projects in the "centre de prospective" of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sylvie Goulard remains an associated researcher at the CERI of Sciences Po. She has also taught European integration at Sciences Po (Paris). She is part of the national board of the French Mouvement Europ?en, member of the scientific directory of the Institut f?r Europ?ische Politik (Berlin), of the conseil d'administration d'Europartenaires (Paris) and of the Beirat of the BBI in Genshagen (Germany).

Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) issued a final report on UN control over the internet. American Senators object, SENATOR DENOUNCES REPORT CALLING FOR UN GLOBAL INTERNET CONTROL

Mon Aug 01 2005. The Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers was one of the WGIG funders.

V. The Politics of International Law. The European Journal Of International Law explains the Hegelian dilemma between Sovereign Law and communitarian law.

The European Union and the General International Law explains how the Communitarian Juridical Order "divides" sovereignity. It uses Hegel as an example of the abstract, traditional, almost metaphyiscal concept of national sovereignity, and it gives us an example of communitarian case law precedents:

The communitarian juridical system has the quality of representing a juridical order, that is an organized and structured set of juridical norms with its own sources, organs and procedures capable of elaborating and interpreting them, but also of ascertaining and punishing the transgression of these norms, when necessary[9].

The priority of the communitarian juridical order is strictly related to the direct effect, because when the principle according to which the dispositions of the communitarian law can directly create rights and obligations comes into force, there can be, inevitably, certain conflicts between the two systems. The principle of the communitarian law's priority doesn't appear in the concluded treaties, but it was recognized by the European Court of Justice in two famous cases. The first one is the Van Gend en Loos decision from February 5th 1963 and the Costa vs. Enel one form July 15th 1964[10]. This decision stipulates that "an internal law disposition cannot oppose to the law created through communitarian agreements, by its very autonomous nature"[11] because, unlike the regular international treaties, the founding treaty of the European Community has given birth to its own juridical order, integrated in the member states juridical systems. The same decision stipulates that, by creating a Community for an unlimited period of time, with its own institutions, juridical personality and capacity, international representation right and especially with authentic powers as a result of the limitation of the states' competences or of their transfer towards the Community, the states have limited their sovereign rights in some specific fields and thus have created a law corpus applying to their followers and to themselves[12].

This approach on sovereignty is no longer the traditional abstract one, conceived almost as a metaphysical, indivisible and inalienable quality like in the classic doctrine elaborated by Bodin and Hegel and developed by many others, which seemed to be an inherent element of the state[13]. This is a new conception of sovereignty which corresponds to the idea of the sovereignty's division, which doesn't mean its binding to a certain area of the state's territory, but to some of its competences[14]. Pierre Pescatore[15] was the first one to develop the idea of the division of sovereignty, surpassing the concept of sovereignty expressed by the International Court of Justice in the famous Wimbledon Case, when the Court decided that the conclusion of any treaty didn't mean the abandon of sovereignty, because the very right to conclude treaties was an attribute of sovereignty.

This new approach regarding sovereignty allows us to speak about the "divided" sovereignty or the one "exercised together" by states and organizations such as the European Community, because the state doesn't have the exclusive competence to exercise the attributes of sovereignty on its territory. Such an approach can lead directly to an analogy with the model represented by the federal states. This analogy would be forced and exaggerated, given the fact that in the federal system the states give up certain fields of actions in favour of the federation (defense, foreign affairs etc.) and, on the other hand, the relationship with the European Communities doesn't mean the delegation of competences, but of the exercise of certain competences that doesn't allow the states to intervene by actions which are incompatible with the communitarian rules[16]. Such an example is the common commercial policy regulated by the 113 article of the EEC Treaty and which is of the unique competence of the Community, including when it comes to concluding commercial agreements with third states[17]. [emphasis added]

What is divided sovereignty?

Divided sovereignty at Britannica:"

"The concept of absolute, unlimited sovereignty did not last long after its adoption, either domestically or internationally. The growth of the democratic form of government imposed important limitations upon the power of the sovereign and of the ruling classes. The increase in the interdependence of states restricted the principle that might is right in international?"

Conservatism, centralization, and constitutional federalism in Modern Age, Wntr-Spring, 2004 by George W. Carey traces the roots of the divided sovereignty concept back to Madison and Hamilton.

Why Joseph Sobran Is Wrong About The Civil War is a very nice historical lesson on the importance of discussing the sovereignty issue.

Give Democracy a Chance
The Iraqis' choice. By Andrew Peyton Thomas May 20, 2004, National Review. Thomas calls divided sovereignty the " imprecise term of the moment."

Russia, Government, Putin Power Grab emails archived by Johnson's Russia List.

The Failure of Dual Sovereignty: The British Empire and the United States by Kevin A. Carson.

The "Unsettled Paradox": The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed Indiana J. Global Legal Studies 521 (1998) by David G. Post
Temple University School of Law and Cyberspace Law Institute(1)

Who is Pierre Pescatore?

The following papers all relate to Pierre Pescatore (the first one to develop the idea of the division of sovereignty, surpassing the concept of sovereignty expressed by the International Court of Justice in the famous Wimbledon Case):

pdf-The Other Side of the Story: An Unpopular Essay on the Making of the European Community Legal Order.

The European Court of Justice Is an International Court by J. Allain1(1)Department of Political Science, The American University in Cairo, Egypt.

In re REZNIKOV, Judgment 1249, THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL at the International Labor Organization 1993.

A Research Guide to International Investment Law Prepared by Wei Luo, Director of Technical Services and Lecturer in Law,
Washington University School of Law Library, e-mail: luo@law.wustl.edu,; office phone: 935-8045.(For Professor Mutharika's International Investment Law Seminar)Last Updated in April 2005.

Support for Improvement in Government and Management in Central and Eastern European Countries.

What are COMPETENCES?

From Merriam Webster online:

Main Entry: com?pe?tence

Pronunciation: 'k?m-p&-t&n(t)s

Function: noun

1 : a sufficiency of means for the necessities and conveniences of life

2 : the quality or state of being competent : as a : the properties of an embryonic field that enable it to respond in a characteristic manner to an organizer b : readiness of bacteria to undergo genetic transformation

3 : the knowledge that enables a person to speak and understand a language -- compare PERFORMANCE
The following papers all use the term "competences."

Does it mean something else in Europe?

Draft Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe: Article 9: Fundamental principles

1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States.

3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

Competences defined at the DSM Sustainablity glossary:

"Behavioral Competences are intended as a worldwide common language to sharpen the discussion about performance and development. Competences are a way to talk about how one gets results, the behavior and qualities one employs. Competences are the capabilities and behavioral skills you use to interact with the work-environment and within one's business function or personal tasks."

4. The European Union as an Emerging Federal System Jean Monet Center, NYU School of Law.

What is community aquis?

In April 2003 the European Union was working on its draft constitution. Their site has a glossary that defines ALL the modern terminology that has "evolved" over the past 30 years. This is the first dictionary of the legal meanings of the new terms we've seen.

Here is the global definition of "community law:" Community Acquis.

For those who don't take the link, Community acquis is:

"The Community acquis or Community patrimony is the body of common rights and obligations which bind all the Member States together within the European Union. It is constantly evolving and comprises:
? the content, principles and political objectives of the treaties;
? Community legislation and the case law of the Court of Justice;
? the declarations and resolutions adopted by the Union;
? measures relating to the common foreign and security policy;
? measures relating to justice and home affairs;
? international agreements concluded by the Community and those concluded by the Member States between themselves in the field of the Union's activities.When further countries join the European Union, full compliance with the Community acquis is one of the requisites for accession.

Community legal instruments are defined as:
"The term "Community legal instruments" refers to the instruments available to the Community institutions to carry out their tasks. The principal instruments are:
? regulations: these are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States;
? directives: these bind the Member States as to the results to be achieved; they have to be transposed into the national legal framework and thus leave a margin for manoeuvre as to the form and means of implementation;
? decisions: these are fully binding on those to whom they are addressed;
? recommendations and opinions: these are non-binding.

Why Study Communitarian Law?

Comparative Avenues in Constitutional Law June 2004 University of Texas Law Journal

Viven A. Schmidt, "The New World Order, Incorporated: The Rise of Business and the Decline of the Nation State," Daedalus, Vol. 124, no. 2 (Spring 1995) academic paper posted at Mt Holyoke.edu.

New Arrivals in the Law Library...
June 2004 at Indiana University School of Law. The founder of American communitarianism, Amitai Etzioni's, recently published From Empire to Community is on this list.

BANDED CONTRACTS, MEDIATING INSTITUTIONS, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A NATURALIST ANALYSIS OF CONTRACTUAL THEORIES OF THE FIRM by TIMOTHY L. FORT* AND JAMES J. NOONE, Cited: 62 Law & Contemp. Probs. 163 (Summer 1999)
[*pg 163] Duke Law Journal. "Part IV addresses the social contractarian approach. Combined with Part II's understanding of evolution and nature, a constructive model emerges that takes the best features of social contracting and agency contracting and blends them with a naturalist-based communitarianism."

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 16-18 November, 2005 "In the second phase of WSIS efforts are being made to put the Plan of Action into motion and working groups have been set up to find solutions and reach agreements in the fields of Internet governance and financing mechanisms."

The Politics of International Law by the Academy of European Law online."The law aims to fulfil its double task by becoming formal: by endorsing neither particular communitarian ideals nor particular sovereign policies."

Deborah Charles Publications Abstracts' Library
Authors K is a nice introduction to Hegelian thinking about the law.

Communitarian Corporate Law, "Globalisation of Corporate Regulation and Corporate Citizenship."

Many people who teach, preach, and enforce communitarian law in the United States have never heard of communitarian law. (How's that for deliberately dumbed down Americans?) The world desperately needs lawyers and laymen who comprehend all facets of the new communitarian legislation and law. The European Union recognises, teaches, practices and endorses Community Law. U.N. Declarations like the Earth Charter are all communitarian documents.

Accredited American law schools that teach communitarian law in their classes, publish Communitarian Legal Readers, or host communitarian law seminars at their colleges refuse to respond or discuss communitarian law with peons like us. We've tried for years to find one American lawyer to admit communitarian law exists. We found one that ceased operations, The Wallace Institute. I worked with attorneys Margaret Boyle and Jose Vera for two years on the Dawson case and we never once discussed it, even though the Dawson lawsuit was a 4th Amendment complaint against a DOJ pilot test of communitarian law enforcement proceedures. The Dawson clients were also a human subjects research project in 1999, for the 2002 Homeland Security Agency and for the National ID database, all highly recommended in the 2004 9-11 Commission Report. Understanding communitarian law is obviously confined to elite groups who work to "Rebuild the World" under communitarian values. The people most affected by it, the ones who suffer under it, are never taught what it is. American lawyers just plain ignore it.

There is not one single American alternative "law teacher" who will discuss communitarian law. We don't appear to have anyone besides Dr. Kelly Ross, Ph.d., Jeri Lynn Ball, Joan Veon, Devvy Kidd, Charlotte Iserbyt, Chris Gerner, Detective Philip Worts, Berit Kjos and the occasional unknown writers like us who are willing to mention it. American law schools ignore ACL requests for a rebuttal to our manifesto against communitarian law (although some do offer us "good luck" with our "project.") No one will dispute our philosopical or historical objections either, and political sites refuse to add the Third Way communitarian agenda to their news topic lists. It's the most important and least discussed topic in the entire world. Far too many Americans think it's a conspiracy theory.

Liudvikas Bukys
Weblog regarding topics of interest to me: system architecture, high performance computing, policy and law, security, software development, web applications. Bukys' weblog is like a historical overview of cybercrime developments.

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

The reason so many more Americans lose and go to jail now is because they are defending themselves against communitarian law with U.S. Constitutional law. Powerful communitarian laws over-rule (balance) constitutional law in every nation. The Sovereignty movement (which studies ways to return American liberty principles via offshore and foreign banking protections) faces the same predicament. No property in the world is protected from communitarian equitable distribution programs. Communitarian law is global law. Community law enforces equitable distribution of wealth (property). It will be fully implemented by 2020, and it's also called Region 2020. HUD's mapping database was called Community 2020.

Free Legal-dictionary-definition of "community"

University of South Dakota definition of "community."

A Definition of Community Service by the University of Missouri.

The ABC of Community Law by Dr Klaus-Dieter Borchardt at EUR-Lex.

The Communitarian Network Bibliography of Law and Communitarian Thinking.

A Communitarian Republic's Communitarian Code of Ordinances and Regulations.

So called communitarian law is openly taught and passed in the European Union. In the U.S. it is quietly taught in elite seminars, and widely adopted inside land management plans. The ACL library would really appreciate hardcopy donations of communitarian law books, and we have given up seeking a constitutional law firm with attorneys who have courtroom experience in defending individuals against communitarian law. Not even the so-called American Freedom Movement has a clue what it is. In fact, much of the American "alternative" research is totally duped by communitarian policies and rhetoric. Even more sad, many American "patriots" actually support communitarian programs that undermine the constitutional laws they claim to defend.

Communitarian law is the most succesful con job in the history of the modern world. The ACL may have "won" the debate against the bogus communitarian ideology, but the American people have definately lost their constitution anyway, because they missed the most important debate in the history of the United States. That's mainly because it was held quietly, in small gatherings of like-minded individuals. The citizens never write these news laws by themselves. Community police and sustainable developers teach the new law. Community change agents gather the data necessary to enforce the new law. COMPASS and Community Policing assist communitarian visionaries to implement the Community Imperial Laws.

Who's teaching communitarian law?

THE PURPOSES AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CORPORATION IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT A CROSSROADS by MICHAEL BRADLEY,* CINDY A. SCHIPANI,** ANANT K. SUNDARAM,*** AND JAMES P. WALSH**** posted by Duke Law:

2. Communitarianism.

a. Communitarianism Defined. The contractarian ideology has clearly dominated the discourse in the worlds of law, economics, and management during the past fifteen or twenty years. Indeed, after observing this phenomenon, Chancellor Allen of the Delaware Chancery Court observed that "[o]ne of the marks of a truly dominant intellectual paradigm is the difficulty people have in even imagining any alternative view."181 That said, an alternative view does exist. Recognized by the press,182 often associated with the work of Amitai Etzioni,183 and increasingly represented in both the law and economics literature184 and the management literature,185 the communitarian paradigm has emerged as the alternative to contractarian thinking. Its origins lie in the worlds of both theory and practice.

Communitarianism finds its origins in a long-standing controversy about human nature. For centuries, sociologists and philosophers have debated the primacy of individuals or collectivities in the understanding of social life.186 Some believe that self-interested individual decisionmaking lies at the center of social, political, and economic life.187 Others believe that personal preferences and decisions are shaped by, and largely explained by, the social structure and context within which people live.188 Contractarianism is rooted in assumptions [*pg 42] of utilitarian and methodological individualism, while communitarianism finds its roots in humanism and methodological holism.189 The current primacy of contractarian thinking should not be misread as evidence that no other theoretical world view exists.

Turning to business practice, those who view the firm not as an economic aggregation of individuals but rather as an entity, connected in some organic fashion with our social, historical, and political world, ask how economic activity serves society. Indeed, by providing limited liability and various constitutional protections to the corporation, society accords the corporation entity status in the eyes of the law. In this light, Thomas Lee Hazen raises a key question: "What is the quid pro quo that society exacts for granting this special privilege to corporations?"190 In a famous paper, E. Merrick Dodd answered this question years ago: "[A] sense of social responsibility toward employees, consumers, and the general public may thus come to be regarded as the appropriate attitude to be adopted by those who are engaged in business."191 However, communitarians look for evidence in support of Dodd's assertion and come away disappointed. Discussions of externalities and contract failure may explain -- but not explain away -- the fact that corporations often harm or exploit many in society who have a stake in their activities.192 A point of departure for communitarian thinking then is a desire to redress and prevent the harms that firms may inflict upon society.193

The conceptual battle lines are stark. Where contractarianism finds its legitimacy in the values of liberty and competition, communitarians emphasize justice and cooperation. Where contractarians look to Adam Smith's invisible hand for a social welfare logic to justify the distribution of gains from corporate activity, communitarians yearn for an authentic community where the fulfillment of the true needs of society's members justifies corporate activity.194 Focusing on the managerial means to achieve corporate ends, contractarians invoke norms of freedom, while communitarians emphasize responsibility.[*pg 43]

Finally, both camps conjure up an image of a sinister world if their paradigm is not embraced. The contractarians warn of slavery and oppression if communitarians have their way, while communitarians fear exploitation and alienation if contractarianism is unchecked. Table 3 captures the fundamental distinctions between these two corporate worldviews. [*pg 44]

The Univeristy of Virginia hosts a Universitas 21 Global Graduate Programs for Global Leaders.

Judge Calabresi Awarded Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Medal in Law, University of Virginia Law School. "In addition to addressing first year students of property and engaging in numerous informal encounters with faculty and students, Judge Calabresi delivered a public lecture on "Liberte, egalite, fraternite." Calabresi's lecture explored a fundamental problem of constitutional law, how to prevent majoritarian legislatures from interfering with individual liberties in the name of communitarian values ("fraternite")."

Phil 101: Social and Political Philosophy at University of Viginia at Wise.

Kluwer Academic Publishers-Law and Philosophy, An International Journal for Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy. I found this under "conflict theory."

Georgetown University Law Center-Law Library-Foreign Law (Intl.)

Law and Community: the Case of Torts. "Cochran (Pepperdine University School of Law) and Ackerman (Pennsylvania State University's Dickinson School of Law) consider the possibilities of a communitarian tort system. In so doing they discuss communitarian principles, offer an intermediate communitarian perspective of tort law, and discuss the roles of families, religious communities, and the larger community. Annotation ?2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)."

Social Justice (Ethics) Community. Law-books.org features communitarian books by Amitai Etzioni.

National Constitutions, Foreign Trade Policy and European Community Law posted by The European Journal of International Law, this is a wonderful explanation of the difference between the original U.S. system and Englands'.

II. Constitutional Law and Transnational Exercise of Individual Rights: Freedom of Transnational Trade as an Individual Right?

A. Constitutional Recognition of Supremacy of Individual Rights?

The concept of a limiting constitution grew up in England in response to the abuses of monarchical absolutism, and English constitutional traditions continue to have a bearing on constitutional laws in many countries (in particular those of the Commonwealth). But it is the US Constitution of 1789 which seems to have had the strongest influence on many liberal constitutions adopted by European, Latin American and Asian countries during the 19th century (e.g. the Swiss Constitution of 1874) and the 20th century (e.g. the German Basic Law of 1949). Unlike the English concept of `parliamentary sovereignty', the US Constitution aimed at `a government of laws, not of men' (as described in the Bill of Rights preceding the Constitution of Massachusetts of 1780) by subjecting all government powers to permanent constitutional rules with a higher legal ranking than ordinary legislation and government regulation. The chief constitutional principles - such as limited government under the rule of law, separation and only limited delegation of powers, due process and judicial protection of individual rights - were meant to limit also the powers of Congress, and many framers of the US Constitution viewed the legislature as the potentially most dangerous branch of government. Long-term constitutional limitations were designed to protect the general interests of the citizens against the short term interests of organized groups, which have a strong influence on the daily policy process. Such limitations were expected to protect the equal rights of the citizens more effectively and to give the people more control (`sovereignty') over the political order than if decisions were taken successively by constitutionally unconstrained parliaments or by governments dependent upon majority support.

Perhaps the most distinctive contribution of American constitutional law was the emphasis on the supremacy of individual rights over government powers. The fundamental rights of the people were recognized as existing prior to government, whose main task - as emphasized already in the Declaration of Independence - was to promote individual rights and provide those `public goods' that people cannot or do not provide privately. In accordance with the constitutional principles of limited government, enumerated powers, and protection of individual freedoms against government interferences, the US Bill of Rights explicitly reserves certain powers to the states and to the people.6
[emphasis added]

A rights-based approach is also characteristic of European Community law and is one of the main reasons for the success of European integration. As the European Court of Justice recognized early in its history, `Community law ... not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage',7 and thus the EEC Treaty's prohibitions on national tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers can be judicially enforced by the Community citizens themselves, often against resistance by their own governments. In addition to the individual rights derived from primary and secondary Community law, more basic human rights are also recognized as part of the Community legal order and act as legal limitations on the powers of the Community. Individual Community rights, by limiting abuses of regulatory powers through decentralized (`democratic') control and enforcement of Community law, could operate as powerful tools of integration also in the field of the foreign trade law of the EEC. But they are confronted with particular `constitutional problems'. These are, in part, due to the fact that the EEC Treaty - in view of the EC Member States' GATT membership and the comprehensive and detailed obligations which this imposes on them - regulated the foreign trade law of the EEC in only a very scanty manner (e.g. in Articles 110-116, 40, 43). Even the more precise customs union rules of the EEC Treaty (Articles 9-37) are often construed without regard to the underlying GATT obligations of the EEC.8

Indiana University School of Law has Law, Morality and Community Seminar;

Harvard's Center for Public Leadership offers Communitarian Themes in Social Policy and Institutional Leadership;

European Journal of International Law published The Politics of International Law;

The International Institute for the Sociology of Law has a workshop called The Role in Communitarian Law in Implementing Equal Rights ;

The Inter-American Conference of Trabajo published Report About Communitarian Social Policy and Social Law in the European Union;

Univeristy of Kansas posts essays relating to international communitarian law online.

Mexico's Instituto de la Judicatura Federal published an essay called LA UNI?N EUROPEA. PROBLEMAS CONSTITUCIONALES DERIVADOS DE SU ESTRUCTURA Y FUNCIONAMIENTO INSTITUCIONAL which discusses and

"analyzes the way in which the Court of Justice has controlled the principle of the supremacy of communitarian law over domestic laws, as well as over the principle of uniformity in its application, on the basis of international intruments, common constitutional traditions and general principles of communitarian law. In addition, the author explains the role of national courts in the determination of constitutional limits to the process of integration, mainly in what concerns issues such as fundamental rights and the power to determine the jurisdiction limits of communitarian institutions. Lastly, the author stresses the need to establish a structure of the constitutional kind as a useful tool for the efficacy of the process of integration."

Order and Justice in the International Trade System by John Toye.

"Presentations on Community Associations and Related Topics," by Jimmy Winokur, includes "Servitude Regimes in Communitarian Perspective: Community Associations as Settings for Postmodern Community," to Washington State Community Associations Institute, Seattle, WA, June 9, 1992, and "Communities of Interest: Private Land Use Controls & Private Communities -- A Communitarian Perspective," to Association of American Law Schools, Property Section Teaching Conference, Spokane WA, June 6, 1992.

University of Arizona:

LAW 697O. NEW COURSE: The Corporation in Thought and Practice CORP IN THOUGHT+PRACTICE (2-3) II The seminar will place the development of corporate law and theory during the 20th century in a broad intellectual milieu. Particularly, we will attempt to discern the relationship between the development of different visions of the corporation and a variety of economic, social and political concerns. After a brief review of corporate law in the 19th century, the first part of the term will be devoted to the rise of modern corporation and the transformation of democratic theory during the turn of the 20th century (1880s-1930s). During the later part of the course, focus will be made on developments in corporate law since the 1960s. Exploring the ways in which contemporary approaches to corporate law (law and economics, critical legal studies or communitarian visions) draw on earlier paradigms. Workshop - 3. 001 (CB 19:06)

Here's a portion of the legal status under the Cartegena Agreement between Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Per? y Venezuela:

Andean Court of Justice, process 10-IP-94: "How that interrelation or complementarity between national and communitarian law must be given, is an issue that this Court wishes to deal as follows. The provision on article 144 of Decision 344, establishes what some legal writers denominate "rule of closing" (Mat?as Alem?n), according to which, it is left to the legislation of the member countries, the legislative solution to situations not contemplated by the communitarian law, due to the fact that, it is possible that all the cases susceptible of juridical regulation have not been foreseen by it. It is necessary to point out that, in the application of this figure, the intern legislations of each country may not establish requirements, additional requisites or dictate regulations that might, in one way or another, conflict with the communitarian law or restrict essential aspects regulated by it in such a way that represent, for example, a lesser protection for the rights contemplated by the communitarian ruling. (...)"

Harvard Law School Forum - 1950's

INTRODUCTION TO
LAW, CITIZENSHIP, AND JUSTICE Skidmore.edu. Fall 2002 course syllabus. Their intro explains:

In this course, we will ask what makes a "just society"? Central to this question is the problem of freedom and order-how do we reconcile our twin desires to promote both individual freedom and common good. Does too much freedom lead to social chaos? Does too much order lead to repression and conformity? What is the right balance? In this course, we will examine the role of law in balancing freedom and order. We will explore the intersection of law, justice, and good citizenship.

By the end of the course, we hope you can provide informed answers to these questions: Should individuals sacrifice their own interest in service of the collective good? Should they be required by law to do so? To what extent does our contemporary liberal democracy depend on the socially responsible action of its members? What does it mean to do community service and to engage in service-learning? What does citizenship mean? Is it a right-wing term referring to the sacrifice of the self to God and Country? Or is it a left-wing term reflecting a call for citizens to pay attention to the needs of the poor and disadvantaged? Neither? Both?

Some of the course readings articulate relevant social theories drawn from sociology, psychology, political science, and legal theory, while others provide direct accounts of those engaged in community service. The hidden agenda, of course, in the grand tradition of liberal studies, is to challenge you to develop your own philosophy of law, citizenship, and justice. To make the readings and class discussions concrete, students will participate in one of two service-learning projects and use these opportunities to reflect on their role in the larger society. In one project, you will assist a defense attorney and Skidmore alumnus in a death penalty appeal. In a second project, you will participate in Skidmore's Integrity Board and evaluates its effectiveness as a campus judicial system.[emphasis added]

Forging Federal Systems Within a Matrix of Contained Conflict, New York University School Of Law, Jeanne Monnet Center.

TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE: A COMMUNITARIAN LEGAL READER by David E. Carney (Editor). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1999. 324 pp. Cloth $65.00. ISBN: 0-7391-0032-7

Towards A World Domestic Policy by Erik Oddvar Eriksen ; To be published in E.O. Eriksen and J. Weig?rd: A Critical Introdution to J?rgen Habermas. Continuum Press (London, New York).

Policy on Social Equity in conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, Adopted by IUCN Council Meeting, February 2000.

Religion and Law; Legal Approaches to Religion, by Andrew Huxley, for a Post graduate seminar, March 2001.

West Virginia University's "Constitutional Law and Constitutional Development Syllabus, Part A: Constitutional Theory and Government Powers."

Communitarian Data Privacy.

THE PROSECUTORIAL STATE, by Charles J. Fox, Department of Political Science, Texas Tech University.

The U.S. courts used the term "anti-communitarian" in this brief written in 1984. TONY AND SUSAN ALAMO FOUNDATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. RAYMOND J.
DONOVAN, SECRETARY OF LABOR No. 83-1935, In the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1984, On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit:

Brief For The Respondent

Petitioners rather vaguely assert (Br. 30) that forcing "the
volunteer worker" to accept "wages in prescribed amounts" is "contrary
to his religious convictions." Without explaining the significance of
the comments, petitioners quote (Br. 31) two representative
associates, Ann Elmore and Bill Levy, to the effect that the thought
of compensation is "vexing to my soul" (J.A. 79) and that to be forced
to take a wage "offends my right to worship God as I choose" (J.A.
63). /17/ Neither of these statements, however, is especially
illuminating. There is nothing peculiarly religious about Elmore's
sentiment. Persons may be vexed for entirely non-religious reasons by
what they feel to be the anti-communitarian quality of making explicit
the nexus between what they do and what they get. And Levy's
statement, while making clear that the source of his objection is
religious, leaves the courts entirely in the dark regarding what it is
about the minimum wage laws that he finds objectionable. For
amplification, it is necessary to examine these associates' other
comments and actual behavior.

Who supports communitarian law?

TERRORISM, LIBERTY, AND COMMUNITY: Why We Need a Stronger Focus On the Common Good By SCOTT IDLEMAN, Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2001 at findlaw.com. "Americans are fond of liberty, particularly the liberty of the individual. We have numerous words to describe it: liberty, freedom, autonomy, privacy, and rights, among others. Until very recently, however, we have not placed as much emphasis on the common good or the public welfare. If the horrific events of September 11 are any indication, this may ? and arguably must ? change.Community and the Constitution: Our relative lack of focus on the common good is actually quite surprising, given that the preamble to our national Constitution is mostly communitarian, rather than individualistic, in orientation."

(How is it possible that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 as a communitarian document when the communitarian philosophy evolved in the 1990s? ~ed.)

Accounting and Administration degree requirements include Communitarian Law in the 4th year. The INTERNATIONAL OFFICE stimulates and supports the development of internationalisation in all aspects of ISCAPs activities, namely concerning ERASMUS programme, together with the International Programmes Office (GPI) of Polytechnical Institute of Porto.

The following quote comes from LD Debate.org and shows how far the term can be stretched by American students (and I have no idea where this student found his information: "My first contention is that the United States is morally obligated to promote democratic ideals in other nations because of communitarian law. Communitarian law states that if you have the power to do something for the better, you are morally obligated to. Promoting inalienable rights, freedoms, equality (democratic ideals) would be aimed towards the betterment of the world. The United States clearly has the power to promote ideals of democracy in other nations, due to their becoming the world?s super-power after the fall of the Soviet Union. Therefore since the United States can promote these ideals, it is morally obligated to. The United States under President Clinton in the 1990?s accepted this and promoted democratic ideals abroad, and gained great fame for it. Many people would line up for hours just to see the president, because they honestly felt they were being helped by the most powerful nation. In other words, it relates to the idea of watching a man drown right next to the dock, with another man standing on the dock. The person can easily help them, but decides to walk away. This is exactly what occurs when the United States chooses not to promote democratic ideals in other nations. This ties in with my value of protecting natural rights because by expressing its obligation to promote democratic ideals through communitarian law, it is achieving guaranteeing natural rights."

Communitarian law has been successfully taught in law schools across the U.S., and the new communitarian morality has the support of everyone from Harvard to the European Union. Starting out attacking relatively unsupportable behaviors like child pornography, Harvard Law hosts hot events like Harvard's symposium on communitarian law where they invited Zionist communitarian Professor Amitai Etzioni to initiate attacks on the inherent legal flaws in the outdated nationalist U.S. Constitution.

For 200 years the U.S. Constitution was considered to be the most powerful people's contract with their government in the history of the modern world, and many nations copied from it when designing their own constitutional governments. Today, even as new republics (like the anti-communitarian Czech Republic) continue to emulate the American nationalist quest for freedom, the American internationalist communitarians look to the United Nations as the more moral bastion of individual freedoms.

Here are but a few of the many places to go for more information about communitarian law, to see for yourself the hope it's already brought to an unstable world:

DISORDER LAWS AND THE COURTS: REVIEW OF RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS by Roger L. Conner, J.D.

US Dept of Justice's website has a
Keynote Address: A Retrospective on the Thirty-Year War Against Crime by

The Honorable Patricia Wald, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals,

District of Columbia Circuit, which in 1998 was a most thorough examination of 30 years of advancing communitarian goals.

Criminal Justice Today:Title XXVI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 mandated establishment of a 28-member National Commission on Crime Control and Prevention. The commission, which is bipartisan and includes congressional as well as presidential appointees, is composed of law enforcement professionals, judges, mayors, prosecutors, professors, and former state attorneys general. Selected to chair the commission is Lee Fisher, a former Ohio state legislator and state Attorney General with a long anti-gun track record. Fisher is a member of the Board of Directors of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The Commission is expected to release its final report in late 1999. Like the findings of its predecessors, the 1967 President?s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, and the 1973 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, the report of the National Commission is expected to substantially impact criminal justice activities and crime control initiatives during the first few decades of the twenty-first century. Among the Commission?s mandates are:

(1) To develop a comprehensive proposal for preventing and controlling crime and violence in the United States.

Institute for Law and Justice

POLICE POWER AND THE PUBLIC TRUST: PRESCRIPTIVE ZONING THROUGH THE CONFLATION OF TWO ANCIENT DOCTRINES, by Donna Jalbert Patalans details the legal basis for community policing strategies. Her abstract explains: "The close historical affinity between the Public Trust doctrine and police power supports a more expansive view of zoning. The doctrines? kindred public interest spirit can empower localities to adopt dynamic, proactive, prescriptive zoning ordinances that promote community character. To do so, municipalities must self-define their unique community assets and ambiance through an openly developed comprehensive plan that honestly memorializes development patterns and sets forth community goals."

Law Research: Law Enforcement

Chinese communitarian law

Chinese communitarian case law published in Law & Society
Volume 37 Issue 3 Page 549 - September 2003
doi:10.1111/1540-5893.3703003, can be accessed from Blackwell Synergy. This "Confessions and Criminal Case Disposition in China"
Hong Lu, Terance D. Miethe. "... examines confessions and criminal case disposition in China. It describes how wider economic reforms in China and subsequent changes in its legal system may have affected the nature and consequence of criminal confessions. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of a sample of 1,009 criminal court cases reveal that the majority of offenders confessed to their crime and that confession is associated with less severe punishments (e.g., lower risks for imprisonment, shorter sentences). Changes in the nature of confession and its impact on criminal court practices are also examined before and after legal reforms in the mid-1990s. These context-specific findings are then discussed in terms of their implications for understanding the interrelationships between legal structure, legal culture, and case disposition in communitarian-based societies."

Sino Laws, Chinese Legal Consultation Network. Includes full text of Chinese Socialist Constitution/

Chinese Citizens Economic, Cultural and Social Rights

From talk: communitarianism at wikipedia:

"I have many good reasons to associate the international usage of communitarian law to Etzioni and his George Washington University's Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies. I've read much of what Etzioni has "written," even though his assistant Erin Riska admitted he wrote hardly any of it (and she later retracted that to mean it only had to be heavily edited). The good doctor has been writing about the "need" for a new communitarian legal order since 1957. His brand is the entire basis for legal programs tested by Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS http://nord.twu.net/acl/commpolicing.html) established by Clinton in 1994. Communitarian laws were inserted inside Seattle's 38 Local Agenda 21 Plans in 1999. Balancing community rights is based in communitarian legal principles. In the EU the new system IS the "community" and the national laws of every member country are subserviant to the "Code de r?daction interinstitutionnel." Etzioni advises both US state and federal government agencies to make legal changes to constitutional systems and procedures. He is a strong advocate for limiting U.S. privacy rights and he is a primary player in the unfolding unauthorized national ID database system. (COPS tested the data-gathering operations in Seattle in 2000, it's called COMPASS, Community Mapping, Planning and Analysis for Safety Strategies http://nord.twu.net/compass.html). Here's another one of my reasons: the Communitarian Law newsletter/subscriber list at GWU: http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=COMMLAW&H=HERMES.GWU.EDU (it has 1,965 members).[[Niki Raapana ~~~~]]"

ACL correspondence with Antonio Rossman regarding his above cited quote

First reponse from Tony Rossman on August 11, 2005:

Just got your email , having been away and out of email for a while. Let
me look your material over as I catch up after few weeks away. In a
nutshell I was equating communitarianism with representative democracy
(which may now seem a faux pas in this age of terminology) and meaning to
say the Court would not allow a single spoiler to thwart community will to
redevelop what the community as a whole considers blight. That does not
mean that democracies cannot prove oppressive or unenlightened; as I
indicated in my remarks, the Court would not categorically rule out the use
of eminent domain, but left it to the States to fix the abuses. The
subsequent reaction to Kelo seems to bear out that the Court's intent is
being carried out; the proposals to reign in unfortunate uses of eminent
domain appears even to have reached the Governor of Connecticut, source of
the problem in the first instance.

So let me check out your site and understand your views and see what
dialogue may be profitable.

Thanks for writing, and again regrets at my delay.

Tony Rossmann

On 7/27/05 1:21 PM, "Niki Raapana" wrote:

> Dear Professor Antonio Rossmann,

>
> In a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal you explained that the Kelo
> decision was a "benign communitarian decision." You also claimed that "The
> court said we aren't going to be the engine for that anti-communitarian
> process."

>
> A Closer Look at Eminent Domain- What the High Court's Decision May Mean for
> Homeowners by STEVEN SLOAN / href=http://www.realestatejournal.com/search/index.asp>Wall Street
> Journal 24jun2005 href=http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Eminent-Domain-Supreme24jun05.htm>ht
> tp://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Eminent-Domain-Supreme24jun05.htm

>
> We are very interested in what you meant by identifying communitarianism as
> "benign," and how you interpreted the high court's decision to say they
> "weren't going to be the engine for that anti-communitrian process."

>
> Communitarians create self-appointed, unelected councils that are mostly
> unknown to the local voting populace (which are quite often unknown to local
> elected representatives). How does a benign communitarian decision endorse
> people acting through their representative government?

>
> It appears you and I have both publically identified the communitarian
> purpose for Kelo. Our website is devoted to exposing communitarianism as a
> fraud. Are you interested in an online debate against us, at our website,
> over the constitutionality of communitarian decisions in the United States?

>
> Sincerely,

> Niki Raapana, Anti-Communitarian League

> http://nord.twu.net/acl

Federal Courts Flowcharts by Karl Manheim.

Will every former nation need to establish a Justice Communitarian Administration to hear the cases? What administration level will direct the Communitarian Police regarding whom to investigate, for what "crime," and when to make the arrests? Will requirements for warrants disappear?
Romania's National Anti-Drug Agency posts a list of Bogdan Iasnic,
Head of the Evaluation Coordination Directorate's published articles and works, which includes:
Communitarian Police - NATIONAL Publishing House, 2002, Bucharest. Mr. Iasnic was also a consultant for: Justice Communitarian Administration - 2nd Edition - EXPERT Publishing House, 2001, Bucharest.

Section on National Security Law

Outsourcing the War on Terrorism: Extraordinary Rendition, Shadow Warriors, Dirty Assets, and Battlefield Contractors
(Program to be published in the Journal of National Security Law & Policy)

Moderator: Peter Raven-Hansen, The George Washington University Law School

Speakers: Jeffrey F. Addicott, St. Mary?s University of San Antonio School of Law

Joseph Margulies, The University of Chicago, The Law School

Steven L. Schooner, The George Washington University Law School

A perpetual war on terror on a global battlefield stretches our military, intelligence and law enforcement resources to the breaking point. ?Outsourcing? missions to third parties, foreign police and intelligence officers, mercenaries and other ?shadow warriors,? and private contractors can extend our resources. We outsource interrogation and detention by extraordinary rendition to cooperative foreign states. We outsource covert operations by employing ?privatized? special operations forces, mercenaries, or local ?dirty assets? who violate their own states? laws. We outsource interrogation, personal security, or other battlefield missions by contracting with private corporations.

Each of these methods of outsourcing lets us, in effect, wage the war ?off the books.? But does it also take the outsourced missions off the law books? Whatever the method, outsourcing poses some or all of these questions: What is the legal authority for it? Do the laws that control the ?principal? in an outsourcing relationship apply to the ?agent?? If not, what laws apply instead? How are they enforced? Who oversees the relationship? To what extent, if any, is the principal accountable for the acts of the agent?

The panel will address such questions by examining a range of methods by which missions in the war on terrorism have been outsourced. Lecturer Margulies, counsel in Rasul v. Bush and for Mamdouh Habib (who was rendered to Egypt where he was allegedly tortured), will discuss extraordinary rendition. Professor Bradford, author of The Laws of Armed Conflict and Transnational Security in the Age of Terror (2005), will discuss outsourcing covert operations to private ?shadow warriors.? Professor Addicott, author of Winning the War on Terrorism (2003), will discuss contractors on the battlefield.

Professor Raven-Hansen, co-author of the casebook National Security Law (4th ed. forthcom 2006) will moderate.

Section on International Human Rights Law

Out of Bounds? Considering the Reach of International Human Rights Law

Moderator: Deena R. Hurwitz, University of Virginia School of Law

Topics and Speakers:

The Approach of the Inter-American System:

Christina Cerna, Senior Human Rights Specialist, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington, District of Columbia

Comparative Models:

John Peter Cerone, New England School of Law

U.S. Exceptionalism:

Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, New York

Scope of Application of the ICCPR and other Human Rights Treaties:

Andre M. Surena, Office of the Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of State (ret.), Washington, DC

The Approach of the European System

Nina Vajic, Judge, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France

In the decades following the adoption and entry into force of the major human rights treaties, the capacity of states to project their power beyond their borders has dramatically increased. A crucial consequence of the projection of this power is the increasing breadth of the state?s impact on the enjoyment of human rights in territories far beyond its physical frontiers.

In addition to traditional situations of armed conflict and cross-border law enforcement operations, individuals today may find themselves in the power of states in fairly complex configurations. States are increasingly operating through multilateral frameworks, e.g. through the United Nations or regional peacekeeping operations with increasingly expansive mandates. In addition, states are now purporting to create zones beyond the reach of their human rights obligations. The United States detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, on U.S. ships, and in secret locations, as well as Australia?s use of Pacific island territories for asylum seekers raise controversial questions as to the nature and purpose of human rights norms.

Whether such extraterritorial conduct is beyond the reach of the relevant states? obligations under international human rights law is a question very much alive before international courts and human rights mechanisms. Increasing numbers of cases involving alleged human rights violations committed outside the physical territory of the state are being adjudicated in various international fora. These institutions have already developed a varied jurisprudence, accepting extraterritorial application of norms to the different scenarios to differing degrees. While there has recently been some normative convergence, the enthusiastic approach of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights remains in sharp contrast to the cautious methodology of the European Court of Human Rights. And while the International Court of Justice in its recent Advisory Opinion on the Israeli wall found both International Covenants to apply extraterritorially, the brevity of its analysis leaves many unanswered questions.

The broad range of cases encompasses a similarly broad range of issues. Should states be bound by human rights treaties with respect to their extraterritorial conduct? If so, in what circumstances and under what theory? Will different standards be required for acts or omissions? for failing to respect or failing to ensure? for civil and political rights or economic and social rights? for the acts of officials and the acts of private agents? What weight should be given to the intent of the drafters in such cases? And how do the standards differ between treaty and customary law? What about treaties developed within and for a particular geographic region? Do such treaties apply only within the legal space of those regions? Should they?

This panel will bring together scholars, practitioners, and international judges in an attempt to answer these questions. The panel will have five speakers and a moderator.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

Section on Law and Communitarian Studies

A Conversation About Abortion

Moderator: Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Pepperdine University School of Law

Speakers: Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School

Teresa S. Collett, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Elizabeth B. Mensch, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law

Given the lack of thoughtful public debate about abortion in recent decades, it would appear that the answer to the question raised by Professor Mensch and Alan Freeman in the title of their thoughtful book, The Politics of Virtue: Is Abortion Debatable? (Duke, 1993) is ?no.? But it may be that the time is right to re-open discussion on this difficult issue. It may be that pro-life losses at the courthouse and recent pro-choice losses at the ballot box may have opened up the opportunity for discourse. Some of the ?judicial opinions? in Professor Balkin?s newly published What Roe Should Have Said (Yale, 2005) suggest the possibility of a conversation (the opinions of others suggest not). For communitarians, concerned with the nature of our public discourse, the importance of a reasoned conversation about this issue is paramount. One wonders whether any Supreme Court nominee of any position or non-position on this issue will be able to get a vote from any foreseeable United States Senate. The abortion issue brings to mind several communitarian themes. Should the unborn child be a part of the community? No other issue is so dominated by (in Mary Ann Glendon?s phrase) ?rights talk.? Is this an area where ?rights talk? of unborn children, of pregnant women is appropriate? Or has ?rights talk? made thoughtful discussion of this issue impossible? Communitarians prefer to resolve issues through intermediate communities and persuasion, rather than law. Is this issue appropriately left to persuasion, rather than law? The abortion debate has been framed in Enlightenment liberal terms rights, privacy, due process. Is there communitarian language with which we might better address this issue? Hear contributors to the above-mentioned books address this important issue.

Appendix

ACL correspondence with Professor Antonio Rossman regarding his above cited quote.

Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, NYU holds a Seminar on "Community Development Law," including "Property Theory: This seminar, taught by Professor Wyman, examines contemporary debates about property using a range of legal, historical, and philosophical materials. The seminar begins by considering four theoretical approaches to property law: the classic utilitarian justification for private property; the Lockean case for property; contemporary rights-based theories of property; and communitarian perspectives. The seminar applies these approaches to live controversies in areas such as environmental and intellectual property law. Drawing on the four theoretical perspectives, the seminar then addresses a range of topics, including property and economic development, the tragedy of the commons, the limits of property rights and markets, social norms, takings, and reparations." [emphasis added]

ContractsProf Blog A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network is advertising: "Samuel Johnson once wrote that no one but a fool writes for any reason except money. The Communitarian Network-a group of academics and others dedicated to pursuing communitarian ideas in law-is taking that lesson to heart with a very market-oriented approach for stimulating thinking on the subject: cash prizes.// The group is offering three prizes of $10,000, $5,000, and $2,500 on "philosophical, sociological, or other elements of communitarian thinking. Deadline is December 31, 2005; selections will be made by a Daniel Bell, Hans Joas, and Amitai Etzioni." [emphasis added] (We've received email confirmation, our December 31, 2005 before the last hour email submission was accepted. We're very excited to have our essay included in a contest for cash!)

Talk:Communitarianism at Wikipedia.org. ACL founder tries to get Wiki to include a section on communitarian law. Update December 8, 2005: Wikipedia editors agree communitarian law exists. Update: January 12, 2005: Communitarian Law is added as one of the now 3 main topic areas. We won another debate on the talk communitarian page. (The first was to include a link to opposition websites. I should add a link under ours to American Freedom Press. They call our wins "reaching consensus," but ACL studies have been a long upward climb with very little feedback, so we prefer the term "winner!" I could probably win a debate on Wiki about consensus too.)

Related ACL Articles

United Nations' Local Agenda 21- The quiet law

Community Government 101

Balancing U.S. Law against Talmudic Law

The Roosevelt Neighborhood Plan

Community Policing

U.S. States's COMPASS-GIS Database

Dawson et. al. v. The City of Seattle et. al., currently in Ninth District Court of Appeals

ACL's Whole System's Management Charts:

U.S. Constitutional Law versus Communitarian Law: Chain of Command and Rule of Law

Who's on first? Big Mother's Game Plan: Checkmate

Federal Flow Charts by Karl Manheim

Mini Gertee featured in my new youtube video

2011-04-11T23:19:00.000-07:00

Gearing up for another summer of promoting Gertee. It's a challenge getting myself re inspired to work on projects I've put away, especially after a losing endeavor. I am getting used to it now though, must be because almost everything I've done could be filed under losses. heh. But some projects have a way of jumping back up to the top of my list, namely the ACL and Gertee.

What's okay is each time I return to writing for the ACL, my style improves. During the rewrite for 2020 I found so much good new source material it was almost as exciting writing as it was when I first found the theory in 2000. But the legal research is a brain drain, and I decided to take an extended break from the ACL. Now, I am suddenly engaged in a discussion about Communitarian Law with Peter Myers. Regular readers are familiar with my reposts of his elists. Myers is a highly educated national socialist from Australia (as opposed to the international socialists) whose research website called Neither Aryan nor Jew was tremendously helpful to my early and continued ACL education. I've been reposting his research for eight years now, and he's never shown much interest in discussing globalized communitarianism, let alone global communitarian law. This means I will, by default, be working on the ACL again! I will be revising the ACL Communitarian Law pages, using my back and forth with Peter to form my presentation. It's perfect that the first page back up at the ACL will be the law.

Last fall Nordica and Fred helped me finish the 20" interior. My 3 yr old grandson sat and looked into it for several minutes before he stated simply, "Gramma, I want to live in there."

My Gertees and I were featured in an article by Lori Leahy in the April 7, 2011 edition of the Copper River Record, under a story line called "True Alaskans."

Eight year old ACL blog posts recovered by Nordica

2011-04-10T23:34:00.000-07:00

It's springtime in Alaska and it's been a busy month for this crazy winter camper. I've finally decided that as long as there are still utilities available to our civilization, then I want them all! Of course I still choose to live in a Gertee. I am going to start designing and building them with plumbed floors for drains and hose attachments for clean water. I found a spot in Wasilla right on the Parks, and once again I will be tearing the 20' down and moving it to a new home/retail location. But unlike the Chitina fiasco last summer, this spot has VISITOR TRAFFIC, electric, water, sewer, laundry, playgrounds and wireless! Over the summer I'm going to make a documentary of how I locate and get donations for all the materials to build new Gertees.

I'm grateful to have tried living a most primitive lifestyle while still being provided for within the infrastructure around me. After all these years of this trial, I'm fairly certain that 80% of the Americans I hear talking about how they plan to survive "off grid" or in the "wilderness" are in for a very rude awakening.

Nordica is finishing up a lot of the things that went on hold because of our new baby Tomas, and most importantly she's almost finished with the revision of 2020/TACM! She recently sent me a few of my old blog posts from the very first ACL website. They're filled with all kinds of interesting bits of information that are still relevant to current events. Like this one:

posted by Niki on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 [ 0 comments ]

Peter Myers forwarded author Bruce Murphy's April 5, 2003 "Kristol's Weekly Standard leads the way."

Murphy's article focuses on the men, the money, and the newspapers behind the influence over the U.S.- Iraq war. He tells us DC is buzzing in reaction to less than favorable worldwide reports regarding the New American Century group's neoconservative influence over Bush Jr. Murphy's article (a version was published in the Millwaukee Journal Sentinal) led me down an interesting path.

Murphy tells us,

[begin quote] "Under Joyce, the Bradley Foundation made 15 grants totaling nearly $1.9 million to the New Citizenship Project Inc., a group Kristol led and which also created the Project for a New American Century, a key proponent of a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy. The foundation also is a significant funding source for the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank with many neoconservative scholars." [endquote]

Sources at Media Transparency provide us with the grant data matrix for the New Citizenship Project, which was also called "The Bradley Project on Citizenship and the New Century." Back in the mid 1990's, at the same time "liberals" like Clinton and Gore were creating the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, the New Citizenship Project funded research for the hazily defined "Projects to restore self-government and civil society."

The New Citizenship Project funded important research into the causes and prevention of crime, and they funded start-up for the Council on Crime. All of these projects fit nicely into United Nations' Local Agenda 21, the 1992 Rio blueprint for nationwide efforts to rebuild the world into communitarian civil societies.

The John M. Olin Foundation, listed by Media Transparency as a heavy contributor to The Project for A New American Century, was also the primary funder ($227,500.00) of Ronald Radosh's fellowship grant while he was at The Institute for Communitarian Studies, at George Washington University, DC. Radosh is the former communist turned conservative who needed a total of $277, 500 in grants to write the book, "Commies; A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left."

Just a quick perusal of his articles posted at FrontPage Magazine.com is enough to show an observant student of the dialectic how creative (and well funded) the communitarians are.

Libya: Soros behind "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) as a form of Global Governance, from Peter Myers

2011-04-03T04:53:00.000-07:00

Interesting to see that Peter Myers includes articles from World Net Daily in his latest forward. This is the first I've heard of the R2P. Haven't been keeping up and things change so quickly, new terms are introduced almost every day now.

From Peter Myers' elist:

Libya: Soros behind "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) as a form of Global Governance
http://mailstar.net/Soros-Chomsky-R2P.html (full updated post here)

(1) Petras vs Chomsky on "Oil" motive in the Libya war; neither notices Soros' role
(2) Libya: Soros behind "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) as a form of Global Governance
(3) Obama says R2P (Responsibility to Protect) is basis of Libya intervention
(4) Hillary says she'll institutionalize R2P (Responsibility to Protect) in the State Dep't
(5) Soros: Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept. It stands in the way of outside intervention
(6) The Responsibility to Protect, by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun - Foreign Affairs
(7) Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty - Evans & Sahnoun
(8) CIGI (Centre for International Governance Innovation) welcomes Ramesh Thakur
(9) Ramesh Thakur: UN was urged to allow "R2P war" on Burma to force the delivery of aid
(10) CIGI and Soros' Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) form a Partnership
(11) Soros' Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) "to Remake Entire Global Economy"
(12) Chomsky: Libya is about Oil. True, Western companies already had the Oil, but Gaddafi was unreliable
(13) Petras: Intervention not about Oil; multinationals already had Libyan oil. Goal is military, not economic
(14) Juan Cole defends bombing
(15) German Greens agitate for war
(16) Spain's "reformed Leninist" Government joins war on Rebel side
(17) Saudi King detests Gaddafi; Gaddafi tried to assassinate him
(18) Arab leaders long hated Gaddafi. Bernard-Henri Lévy met rebels & persuaded Sarkozy
(19) Western intervention into Libya not sanctioned by UN: Russian Foreign Minister
(20) Nobel Committee asked to Strip Obama of Peace Prize
(21) Libya rebels make oil deal with Qatar (home of Al Jazeera)
(22) Gaddafi says Ben-Gurion ordered the killing of Kennedy, because he insisted on monitoring Dimona
(23) Vanunu: Peres ordered my kidnapping; AND was the father of the Israeli nuke
(24) Divided Libya (oil-rich East / poor West) as the new Vietnam - Pepe Escobar

(1) Petras vs Chomsky on "Oil" motive in the Libya war; neither notices Soros' role

- Peter Myers, April 3, 2011

"Whereas the Iraq and Afghan wars were brought about through agitation by Israel and the Zionist lobby in the US, this is not the case with the Libya war. It's more similar to the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, with the US siding with Islamists (Kosovo, the Saudi monarchy, and a would-be Emirate in Benghazi) against Socialists of the neo-Stalinist camp (ie critics of Stalin who nevertheless somewhat followed his path).

"Chomsky, in his analysis of world events, emphasises the role of Empire but ridicules claims of a significant role for the Zionist lobby. Petras depicts the Empire often tweaked by the Zionist lobby, like a henpecked spouse. But on occasions like this, the spouse is quiet and the Emperor acts of his own accord. Whereas in his writings over the last decade, Petras portrayed a major role played by the Zionist lobby, this is not so in his analysis of the Libya war.

"During the Iraq and Afghan wars, Chomsky's reputation declined. The ongoing agitation of the Zionist lobby, culminating in intervention, was plain for all to see, yet Chomsky "wrote it out" of his account.

"The Left's leading expert on the US media had not noticed its Jewish ownership and management. Nor commented on Mordecai Vanunu's capture by Mossad (with the complicity of Western agencies) and incarceration for revealing Israel's nuclear program, despite its relevance for the Iran nuclear debate. Nor made any mention of Norman Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry, despite praising Finkelstein's earlier anti-Imperial writings.

"But now that we see the Empire acting without Zionist prompting, Chomsky's writings have regained some of their cogency (item 6 below).

"But lest a Jewish role be written out prematurely, it shoud be noted that George Soros is a major backer of "Democracy" movements, and he does this in the name of "the Open Society", recalling H. G. Wells' book The Open Conspiracy (for World Government). Karl Popper was Soros' mentor, and the Russian Jewish refusniks were aligned with Sakharov, who espoused Convergence to World Government: http://mailstar.net/convergence.html.

"This was also Gorbachev's policy; it was who who let the refusniks leave Russia. He pardoned Sakharov, yet he never pardoned Solzhenitsyn. David ben-Gurion also advocated Convergence to World Government: http://mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg

"At Gorbachev's 80th birthday party in London, he was shown posing with Simon Peres and Sharon Stone. Peres' face was beaming; he certainly was not thinking of Mordecai Vanunu. Yet Vanunu accused him or ordering his capture: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/vanunu-if-peres-got-a-nobel-i-don-t-want-one-1.266270

'The Soviet Union was created by communist Jews, but Stalin overthrew them. In response most moved, over time, to the Trotskyist camp and, via the Frankfurt School, anti-Authoritarian forms of Marxism bordering on Anarchism. Despite Trotsky's book justifying the Red Terror (when he was in power), the Trotskyist movement today has ties with the Anarchists who organize Black Blocs. Both groups oppose Stalin, but the Anarchists also blame the earlier (Jewish) phase of Communism for paving the way to his regime.

"Soros represents not Zionism but Libertarian Socialism - the same cause as Chomsky. But Soros backs intervention in Libya, whereas Chomsky opposes it. On closer inspection, however, Chomsky endorses R2P (Responsibility to Protect) IN PRINCIPLE. His objection is that it being used for ulterior motives.

"In item 12 (below), he writes, "There are two cases to consider: (1) UN intervention and (2) intervention without UN authorization. Unless we believe that states are sacrosanct in the form that has been established in the modern world (typically by extreme violence), with rights that override all other imaginable considerations, then the answer is the same in both cases: Yes, in principle at least."

'As for Soros' proclasimed loyalty to the Empire, he has in the past called for Regime Change in the United States, and item 11 (below) is about INET, his initiative for a new world economic system, forcing rich countries (and classes) to consume less so that poor ones can consume more (and to save the planet).

'Not so different from Chomsky, after all. Almost the same, in fact.

'Even where there are differences between them, both Soros and Chomsky can be seen as part of a single (but fractured) movement.

"The anti-Stalinist Left falls onto both sides of the Intervention debate.

"AGAINST Intervention are the WSWS Trots as well as the "Trotskyoid" Green Left Weekly; but FOR intervention are their Green comrades, Juan Cole, and the PSOE (Socialist Workers Party) Government of Spain."

(2) Libya: Soros behind "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) as a form of Global Governance

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=278685

Soros fingerprints on Libya bombing

Leftist mastermind puts up big bucks to erase borders

Posted: March 23, 2011

By Aaron Klein © 2011 WorldNetDaily

Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.

The activist who founded and coined the name of the doctrine, "Responsibility to Protect," sits on several key organizations alongside Soros.

Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.

According to reports, Power, who is married to Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.

Libya regarded as test of global doctrine

The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – which is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.

According to the principle, any state's sovereignty can be overrun, including with the use of military force, if the international community decides it must act to halt what it determines to be genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

An organization calling itself the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the doctrine.

Activist Gareth Evans, who sits on the global group's advisory board, is widely regarded as the founder of the Responsibility to Protect principle.

Soros' Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."

During his tenure as Australia's foreign minister, Evans served as co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "responsibility to protect."

In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."

Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

Power pushes doctrine

Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the U.S. president's decision to bomb Libya.

Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the Responsibility to Protect principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.

In November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of Responsibility to Protect alongside Evans.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

(3) Obama says R2P (Responsibility to Protect) is basis of Libya intervention

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=281345

White House fellow founded Soros-funded military scheme

Doctrine cited by Obama as justification for bombing Libya

Posted: March 31, 2011

By Aaron Klein © 2011 WorldNetDaily

TEL AVIV – A White House fellow served on the advisory board to the commission that founded the military doctrine "Responsibility to Protect," used by President Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

As WND was first to report, billionaire philanthropist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world's leading organization pushing the military doctrine.

Also, several of the doctrine's main founders sit on boards with Soros. ...

Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."

Obama cited doctrine multiple times

In his speech Monday, aside from his direct citation of the "responsibility" doctrine, Obama alluded to the doctrine four more times.

The following are relevant excerpts from his address:

• In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

• Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians.

• To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.

• The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. ...

(4) Hillary says she'll institutionalize R2P (Responsibility to Protect) in the State Dep't

http://globalsolutions.org/08orbust/pcq/clinton

2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire

Response From: HILARY CLINTON

Our 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire, or PCQ as we call it in-house, is part education material and part questionnaire for the candidates. ...

16. Will you work to operationalize the "Responsibility to Protect," an emerging international norm, in response to humanitarian crises around the world? How?:

ANSWER

Yes. In adopting the principle of the responsibility to protect, the United Nations accepted the principle that mass atrocities that take place in one state are the concern of all states. It is essential that the new Secretary General of the United Nations begin to bridge the gap between these words and the institution's deeds through a series of reforms intended to operationalize this concept. I am also committed to seeing that the United States and other economic and militarily capable states and organization take steps to bolster UN action.

As President I will adopt a policy that recognizes the prevention of mass atrocities as an important national security interest of the United States, not just a humanitarian goal. I will develop a government-wide strategy to support this policy, including a strategy for working with other leading democracies, the United Nations, and regional organizations. I will authorize my Secretary of State to institutionalize atrocity prevention into the work of the State Department, and I will direct my Secretary of State to strongly support the mission and activities of the office of reconstruction and stabilization, which plays an increasingly critical role.

NAS Encyclopedia of Sustainability, 5th Edition

2011-03-24T18:15:00.000-07:00

"The National Association of Scholars presents our fifth edition of the encyclopedia of sustainability (updated quarterly). Our periodically updated “sustainapedia” contains key names, terms, books, colleges and organizations that NAS has observed through our research of the sustainability movement in higher education. "

What if they had a war and nobody knew?

2011-03-14T19:23:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers and ACL supporters,

My apologies for not responding to all your very thoughtful comments to my last couple posts. I have no excuse other than I came down with a case of Iditamania and have been completely absorbed in the race! Until now, I never understood the passion people have for the Iditarod. I studied it, because of the auctions we held, but I wasn't ever what you could call a fan.

So, it's not over yet and the end is very exciting right now. John Baker, the first Coast Native who may ever win the Iditarod Trail Race is in the lead, so I'm still not going to respond to all of you, yet. But I do feel I need to address the comments coming in regarding what I said about my dad beating me up, and my brother's assurance to me that it was the right thing for Fred to do.

First of all, I said it somewhat figuratively. "Beat me up" was just a basic concept of how he reacted. I feel terrible that I mentioned it at all now, because it had a different meaning for me and my brother than it did for some readers.

There was a method to my dad's training and by the time I was a woman I understood and appreciated it. He was preparing me to do battle with some powerful enemies.

Explain to me why I'm the ONLY one who stood fast for the people in my neighborhood when the communitarians invaded in 1999. It took every ounce of courage and training Fred drilled into me to stand up to the police and the parade of lawyers and experts who attacked without warning. It was my dad telling me to get all the facts before I made a decision. It was Fred's daughter interrupting the meetings of the land use planners who were operating under the premise that our 4th and 5th Amendment Rights had been balanced. More often than not, I was completely alone at these crucial meetings, where communitarian liars like Jody Kretzman were plying their wares to an unaware and unsuspecting citizenry.

I didn't stop fighting for our rights just because the planners had more power and I could get "hurt." I didn't run and cower in a corner whining about what was happening to us, like many in my neighborhood did. The fact is most of my neighbors thought I was a fool for believing in American justice at all! Besides my daughter and siblings, nobody has ever completely understood why I was so willing to throw down 100% of my weight and hold the line.

My dad was a devoted American patriot of the old school. I was raised by a man who lived by his principles, right or wrong. So hell no, I didn't flinch when the Community cops got in my face and sneered and threatened me. The more the Seattle government tried to intimidate me, the braver and more determined I became. As the years passed and more insults and threats became the norm in my life, I didn't slink off and start writing romance novels. I got to work and built the biggest website about communitarian plans, programs, laws, theories, and players in the entire world. Then, because it took every waking moment to do this unfathomable lone feat, I went camping, made a camp that would have made my fastidious dad proud, just so that my overhead was low enough to keep me writing for the ACL.

You think people like me are born with the desire to help protect what's right and ours, for everyone and not just ourselves? No. My dad taught me to fight for all our freedom, because there's always someone who wants to steal it away. He taught me that strong people like us have to defend the weaker members of society because they cannot defend themselves.

Was he a tough son of a bitch? Oh yes he was. Did he treat us in ways that would cause his arrest today? Most certainly. But will you ever see the likes of me in the future generations you protect with your peaceful and loving child rearing laws? No, you won't.

My dad was a realist. He "proceeded by way of observation, not by way of illusion."

There were many, many honorable lessons too, for example, I wasn't allowed to hit women nor throw the first punch. Maybe it's not spiritual to say this, but life is brutal and not everyone wants to "get along." I have had more than one occasion to use my fighting skills in my own self defense, and unlike many women who come from poor working class NCO Army wages backgrounds, I can say I've never been raped. "No brag, just fact."

We can hope and pray all we want for a peaceful coexistence with everyone on the planet, but that's not going to stop LA21 and may actually be part of the way we've been duped into crying in our beer and wine while we watch our freedom get flushed down the toilet. This is WAR. It's very real. I think it's funny as hell that I am one of the few trained soldiers America has in the field, and some people think I should change my tactics and start preaching peace. Sorry, but I'd rather win (as in: not give in) this war against communitarian terrorism. What kind of peace agreement do you think we can get with murderers, liars and thieves who hide behind a veil of charity? What concept of peace would you have me expound on? Yours? or mine?

I can probably never explain our dad in a way gentle souls who are horrified by violence can understand. My brother knows that my father called me Tiger all my life, because we had a very special relationship based on shared core values. He helped me become the kind of person who is nice to everybody but will fight back and defend themselves or others in an unjustified attack, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, even if it means certain death.

Plus, my basic training under Fred ended when I was 19. I'm 54. Lot's happened since then. :)

Know this: U.S. Army Retired Sgt Major Fred Friedrich is the only reason my research exists for you to use. We wrote Part One of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto, "What is the Hegelian Dialectic?" specifically for him in 2002. Part Two was written in 2003, specifically for the cowardly and seditious foreign military agent who founded the Communitarian Network, Dr. Amitai Etzioni.

A special hello to my brother and his co-workers down in Boise! Hold fast!

Tiger

Communitarian Court proclaims blogging is child abuse

2011-03-11T19:35:00.000-08:00

Here's a good sampling of what it's like to lose your Rights in a Communitarian Court.
http://truthbrigadelovesronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/03/blogging-is-child-abuse.html