The "New American Soviet" the European Union is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. by Vilius Brazenas

Gertee Prototype gets a new look!

Haven't read this yet but it looks very interesting. From our friend Kathleen:

The "New European Soviet": the European Union is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. Under NAFTA and the proposed FTAA, U.S. policymakers have adopted the same socialist EU program by Vilius Brazenas | Sept 6, 2004

[1] "The "New European Soviet": the European Union is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. Under NAFTA and the proposed FTAA, U.S. policymakers have adopted the same socialist EU program" --

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_18_20/ai_n25095870/

[2] "The New American" version, republished last week on the occasion of the DEATH of the author at age 97, from the 2004 version:

http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117908a56565e200c

[3] This is about the author:

http://www.calameo.com/books/00011179087fa282aa6a1

saved from the original url:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/4823-vilius-brazenas-lithuanian-american-freedom-fighter-extraordinaire

There are videos out there of this man, but they're in his mother tongue, I haven't found any in English yete.

Kathleen Moore

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA

The Official Legal Challenge

To North American Union\

www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Human Rights Principles or Human Entitlement Principles?

The difference between Human Rights and Individual Rights is the key to understanding the NWO. Human Rights are entitlements to things we "need." Individual Rights are specific barriers to government intrusions. This is what confuses many Americans and people from nations whose governments are based in Individual Rights, and I was one of them.

To keep it difficult, the globalists use some terms the American founders used, as with "inalienable" ("Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated"). And, most importantly, like the US Bill of Rights, Human Rights carry the weight of law. http://www.unfpa.org/rights/principles.htm

Accountability and Rule of Law: States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights. In this regard, they have to comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in international human rights instruments. Where they fail to do so, aggrieved rights-holders are entitled to institute proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law. Individuals, the media, civil society and the international community play important roles in holding governments accountable for their obligation to uphold human rights.

The international jet set goes to great lengths to express their "concern" for poor women and they want us to believe their belief in Human Rights will "help" women like me. They call it:

Participation and Inclusion: All people have the right to participate in and access information relating to the decision-making processes that affect their lives and well-being. Rights-based approaches require a high degree of participation by communities, civil society, minorities, women, young people, indigenous peoples and other identified groups.

Notice there is no stated INDIVIDUAL participation or inclusion? The high degree of participation played by "communities" cannot be over-stressed. Only identified "groups" are allowed to participate in participatory democracy. Individuals play important roles in making sure governments uphold Human Rights, but they aren't allowed to assist in creating the policies the governments are required to pursue. In fact, when poor women like me make a great effort to participate and access nformation relating to decision-making processes that affect our lives and well-being, we are ignored, ridiculed, and insulted for being poor. What a great system!

So many Americans have told me they have "Human Rights" it makes me want to defect.

I'm writing another "real" article about why I won't support Palin for President. It's amazing how many people assume I like her because we're both Alaskans (or we're both women). So with my newfound irreverence for American culture I'm also inspired to remake my trailer house miniature into a "White House 2012 or Bust" scene. I have this Xena Warrior Princess doll who looks a lot like her and I have furs I could make into a cape. My guy doll will work as Todd, and in my original scene I had Xena holding a baby riding a nice Harley motorcycle in the kitchen. I need something to put up on ebay. :) My biggest challenge is always which project to work on and for some reason lately I keep wanting to work on the ACL website again. But I've finished a few minis I promised to our supporters, now all I need is the cash to mail them out. It's a tough winter so far and no worries here about getting fat! My Sacajawea's soup finally went into the dog's dish... it turned slimey overnight and I'm not that hungry.

Many thanks to the local guy who went over to the Merc and bought 2 books! That was awesome and now I have coffee again!!! yeah. (And he went back and bought 4 more as gifts! He told Nordica he blasted through 2020 but the ACM was a challenge. I'm happy to see he liked them both enough to buy them for the people in his life... it's huge compliment. )

U.S. Integration with the EU, Russia and China

Before there can be a New World Order (NWO) or a global government, all nations have to agree to abide by a global system of justice. The NWO is being introduced as Free Trade agreements between the nations. Regional governance and regulatory bodies like the WTO (World Trade Organization) has been slowly implemented in Fabian fashion throughout the Western world.

In the U.S. we adhere to the emerging integration requirements via trade agreements like CAFTA and NAFTA and the WTO. Regional contracts may in fact negate our status (and I am studying this concept right now, thanks to Todd from WA). At the bottom community level (with the global community existing at the very top) regional communitarian integration is accomplished via subserviant local community and economic development regulations.

The "former" Communist Russia must also adapt to international communitarian law before they can be fully admitted into the global free trade community, while openly communist China already participates (very successfully) in the global free trade community. Apparently the very concept of putting one's nation and home businesses first, or protecting local markets from cheap imports, died with the end of the U.S. Republic. (Shhh... Friedrich List never existed.)

As the following report explains, the transition is painful for local manufacturers and agriculture, even in the Re-Sovietized Union, but it's the "long-term" socio-economic gains that justify the complete and utter destruction of local economies. (And lest we forget, Amitai Etzioni and Mikhail Gorbachev coined the term "socio-economics," together.) Across America small and locally owned businesses and industries have been closed because they cannot "compete" on the emerging "free" global to local market. Overwhelming American support for Wal Mart's Chinese goods have been a big boost to global free trade. While many Americans do seem to notice how quickly locally owned businesses close their doors forever after the "new" corporate stores open, that deosn't stop them from shopping at the new corporate/government stores.

We're paying for the total destruction of our national standard of law. Our taxes already paid for a good portion of the integration, and now we're trading the last of our liberty for cheap toasters.

This just came in from Pete. I haven't read through it all (it's a 26 page pdf file). Notice how important the year 2020 is to the entire "concept." "Russia's 2020 Strategic Goals and the Role of International Integration" http://etresoi.ch/Denis/russia2020strat.pdf

Our little biographical textbook, "2020: Our Common Destiny," explains our biased American view (and Paul Barnes' Canadian Perspective) of the outcome of Free Trade International Integration. We include a brief introduction to the EU and the applicable standards for adapting national systems. To be in full compliance with international communitarian law (supreme) requires a complete "overhaul" of national and state legal standards. http://nord.twu.net/acl/2020.html

Bobby Garner recently joined a law forum and tried to start a discussion on Communitarian Law. Here's what happened:

My first post on the Team Law forum (posted here on congregator.net) which I posted on September 3rd was immediately quarantined by the forum administration. On Thursday September 4th, 2008, in a private message they wrote:

Though we appreciate your participation in our Open Forum, we temporarily moved your recent post to the Secured Admin access only forum. This action was taken due to the length of the post and the fact that Admin will not have a chance to review the document until next week. It also took place because the content might not comply with our Forum Rules or the purpose of our Open Forum, which is: to eliminate e-mail to and from Team Law.

That "next week" and following weeks, nothing happened, but then on the 18th I received the following:

Though we appreciate your participation in our Open Forum, we deleted content form one of your posts. The deletion occurred because the post did not comply with the purpose of our Open Forum,...
Regarding the subject matter of your post:
We addressed it accordingly on our Open Forum system in the post where the content was removed.

The post was moved to the 'Elections' forum. You will notice that the first paragraph and a portion of the first sentence of the second paragraph survived, as did some of the last paragraph. Everything between was deleted, and replaced with their own connective wording. As they explain in the reply:

Your original post was significantly longer and it delved into an interesting point of view regarding Freemasonry, its intentions and the outcomes proposed from their continuing efforts along with those that have molded that path for our country from the beginning.

This reads like an acknowledgment to the truth of my argument, but to steer me away from that conclusion, they continue:

Regardless of our opinion regarding such matters, they remain hypothetical offerings we have heard before that have nothing to do with our work.

My comments about the reality of Communitarian Law are nothing more than a "hypothetical offering" which they have already heard before. If in fact they ever did actually hear of it, the audience was carefully protected from the actual word, since it never before existed on the whole website. I checked. They wrote:

The reason such ideologies exist is people are ignorant of the law... If we had not edited a single word of your post, this would not change. We can do absolutely nothing about such conspiracy theories; even if they were true.

While it may be true that we can do nothing about it, and that is an argument I myself have made, the implication clearly is that this is only a conspiracy theory, which is probably not true. The difference is that I recognize that Communitarianism is already the reality, and not a theory at all. Nevertheless, they "addressed it [the issue] accordingly on our Open Forum system".

Here some more of my "hypothetical offering" posted today:

The Governor's Corner page lists 12 original jurisdiction states which are electing governors. All of these governors are members of the National Governors Association. As such they are part of a network of organizations known as the National Associations of Development Organizations. All 12 original jurisdiction state governors actively participate in the National Governors Association programs.

Other NADO member organizations include:
National Conference of State Legislatures
National League of Cities
U.S. Conference of Mayors
National Association of Local Government
National Association of Counties
National Association of Towns and Townships
National Association of State Budget Officers
National Association of Regional Councils

Who coordinates and directs the activities of the National Association of Development Organizations?

What kinds of development? sustainable, regional, economic,community, urban..., "National Association of Development Organizations provides training, information and representation for regional development organizations in small metropolitan and rural America"

Each of these areas of development comes under the purview of Sustainable Development, which is the UN Agenda 21 program. The various associations of local, regional and national government, write, adopt, promote and enforce the body of Communitarian Law.

How can the mayor of my town make decisions in the interest of my town when he is building consensus with neighboring towns throughout a region, which by design promote the greater good of the region regardless of its effect on my town.

Seeing that the Original Jurisdiction state governors are complicit in this unconstitutional regional governance, how do they distinguish themselves from the corporate governors?

You can read it on the forum if you get there before they delete it, or the can read the entire thread HERE...

Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
Free to forward or post.

In America, Communitarian Legal Integration is still a conspiracy theory. How is that possible? Oh that's right, it's illegal here. It can never be openly discussed in front of a nation of individuals whose national and state law forbids globalists plotting to destroy the constitutional basis for ALL American law on U.S. soil.

Thanks to Bobby, Pete and Brian and Trudy for keeping me informed. For all the new people writing me lately asking what they should do now that they know, we just made another new friend who may have some ideas we can ponder. Lainie is a staunch McCain/Palin Republican who can recognise the communitarian vision in Obama. It's a start in the right direction. Welcome to the ACL quest Rev. Lainie!

Rev. L. Dowell, Five-Fold Minister
revldowell-clergywomen@erols.com
http://www.voiceink.blogspot.com

And now for economic and Wall Street news from Peter Myer's elist:

From: IHR News Date: 20.09.2008 04:01 AM

Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight
by Jon Hilsenrath, Serena Ng and Damian Paletta
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Wall Street Journal

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105785/Worst-Crisis-Since-1930s-With-No-End-Yet-in-Sight

And in keeping with the topic of this post:

From: Sino Economics Date: 18.09.2008 07:48 AM

China paper urges new currency order after "financial tsunami"
Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:45am EDT http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSPEK4365020080917?sp=true

BEIJING (Reuters) - Threatened by a "financial tsunami," the world must consider building a financial order no longer dependent on the United States, a leading Chinese state newspaper said on Wednesday.

The commentary in the overseas edition of the People's Daily said the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEH.P: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) "may augur an even larger impending global 'financial tsunami'."

The People's Daily is the official newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party, and the overseas edition is a smaller circulation offshoot of the main paper.

Its pronouncements do not necessarily directly reflect leadership views, but this commentary by a professor at Shanghai's Tongji University suggested considerable official alarm at the strains buckling world financial markets.

China's central bank earlier this week cut its lending rate for the first time in six years, a move analysts said was aimed at bolstering the economy and the battered stock market.

"The eruption of the U.S. sub-prime crisis has exposed massive loopholes in the United States' financial oversight and supervision," writes the commentator, Shi Jianxun.

"The world urgently needs to create a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States."

But Vice Premier Wang Qishan, on a visit to the United States, told U.S. trade officials in a meeting on Tuesday that China and the United States needed to maintain close economic ties with global markets going through such turbulence.

"The Chinese government is well aware of the fact that the United States, which is the world's largest developed country, and China, which is the world's largest developing country, should have constructive and cooperative economic and trade relations," he said.

China is a major buyer of U.S. Treasury bonds, and through its sovereign wealth fund it has taken stakes in two large U.S. financial institutions.

In July 2005, China revalued the yuan and freed it from a dollar peg to float within managed bands. But the yuan and China's trade remains tightly linked to the fortunes of the dollar.

The commentary suggested China must brace for grave economic fallout and look to alternatives, saying the crisis brings to mind the Great Depression of the 1930s.

"Lehman Brothers announced bankruptcy will not only have a domino effect on the global financial world, it will bring a shock to the world economy," the front-page comment stated.

(Reporting by Chris Buckley; Editing by Ken Wills)

Just think how much easier it will be to sell the Third Way synthesis during a global depression. The global planners know that desperate people make stupid choices. Will Americans fall for another New Deal? Maybe it's best to write it in Chinese and Russian so most Americans will accept a dumbed down translation of their new contract. Maybe too many of my generation can recognise the communist language in a globalist planning, so that's why they made such an effort to take over U.S. education, right Gislea?

Africans reject EU Trade demands!

In Africa, the governments appear to be acting in the best interests of their citizens. Compare this report with my post yesterday about Barack Obama and his Global Poverty Bill which claims to commit to helping reduce poverty via sustainable development coupled with the U.S. 's Transatlantic Policy Network which plans to reduce trade barriers between the U.S. and the E.U.

Too bad so many of these African nations can't see through the Hegelian scam as well. This came off Peter Meyer's elist:

Forwarded from: Global Trade Watch <info@tradewatchoz.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:33:16 +1100

* Africa takes a stand against Europe’s unequal economic partnership agreements (EPA's)

Food First ( www.foodfirst.org ) reports: "Times may be changing in Africa. Europe is no longer free to impose unfair trade agreements to the detriment of African farmers. At the second EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon in December African nations united against the EU’s push for trade liberalization and bilateral economic agreements. The EU’s 27 countries were asking African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries to permit EU goods and services to enter their domestic markets duty-free with a December 31, 2007 deadline for the new trade agreements.

Instead, African governments resoundingly voted no, forcing the European Commission into negotiations that are likely to resume in 2008. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal emphatically refused to sign saying “We are not talking any more about EPA’s. We have rejected them.” President Thamo Mbeki of South Africa and Namibia supported Wade in deciding not to sign. This is a turning point for Africa, with African nations rejecting European domination and colonialist policies. The mobilized strength of social movements and trade union organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa also contributed to the collapse of the Summit.

Breaking with the European Commission, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood behind the African countries that opposed unfair agreements. All in all, only 15 of the 76 poor countries involved in the discussions have signed EPA’s with Europe. Most African leaders fear that the EPA’s will flood their markets with cheap European goods, depriving them of duty revenue, while destroying local businesses and agriculture. Many also fear the EU’s strategy of single country deals that parallel the US’ inequitable trade agreements with Latin American nations."

Now what, if anything, does this have to do with the UN Law of the Sea Treaty? Here's an introduction from wikipedia, which sucks as a source sometimes but it's always a good place to start if you know nothing about the topic. For instance, Wiki has a link to http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.htm which has a fabulous page dedicated to the topic. I'm one of those who don't know anything about the Law of the Sea Treaty and for this I was chastised, more than once, in responses to my articles about communitarian law. I've got other pressing commitments but I will study this asap.

United States non-ratification

The United States strongly objected to the provisions of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, saying that the treaty is unfavorable to America's economy and security. The US felt that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states. The US also felt that the provisions might result in the ISA becoming a bloated and expensive bureaucracy due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over what the revenues could be used for.

Due to Part XI, the US refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the Convention. Even though the United States is not a party to the treaty, it considers many of the remaining provisions as binding as customary international law. {Explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law

[edit] Revision of the LOS Convention

From 1983 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law, while attempting to establish an alternative regime for exploitation of the minerals of the deep seabed. An agreement was made with other seabed mining nations and licenses were granted to four international consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to prepare for the eventual coming into force of the Convention-recognized claims by applicants, sponsored by signatories of the Convention. Overlaps between the two groups were resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals from the seabed made the seabed regime significantly less relevant. In addition, the decline of Socialism and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s had removed much of the support for some of the more contentious Part XI provisions.

In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories and non-signatories (including the United States) over the possibility of modifying the Convention to allow the industrialized countries to join the Convention. The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was adopted as a binding international Convention. It mandated that key articles, including those on limitation of seabed production and mandatory technology transfer, would not be applied, that the United States, if it became a member, would be guaranteed a seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority, and finally, that voting would be done in groups, with each group able to block decisions on substantive matters. The 1994 Agreement also established a Finance Committee that would originate the financial decisions of the Authority, to which the largest donors would automatically be members and in which decisions would be made by consensus.

[edit] Debate

In the United States there is vigorous debate over the ratification of the treaty, with criticism coming mainly from political conservatives who consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to US national interests. A group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the Convention, claiming that it would impinge on US sovereignty. The Bush administration, a majority of the United States Senate, and the Pentagon favor ratification. In addition, various special interests including scientific and international legal scholars, and mining and environmentalist groups have also expressed support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Stevens_Fisheries_Conservation_and_Management_Act_of_1976

Here's Senator Inhofe's speech on the Law of the Sea Treaty last October:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=ae6b61e3-802a-23ad-431c-19fcc771af03&Region_id=&Issue_id=4afd45b5-e2e8-be06-d58b-91d455490bcc

Inhofe appears to be a model Republican who supports the War on Iraq, and other lovely projects like turning Yucca Mountain outside Vegas into a nuclear waste site. Inhofe is painted as "out of touch fringe group" by Democrats. (http://www.dscc.org/news_item?news_item_KEY=3914) "Sen Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, painted Inhofe, R-Tulsa, as part of an out-of-touch fringe group that is ignoring the advice of the world's leading scientists and experts on climate change."

What's the odds Inhofe is a dialectical player, just like Boxer? Can't reach a synthesis without a left or a right. Somebody has to act out each "side." The problem is when people like me are forced to choose one or the other. I don't like the far right any more than I like the far left. It irks the hell out of me that the only elected officials who oppose the UN are right wing Christians (or Birchers) who can be labled "fringe" and discounted for their voting records in other areas like war and welfare. It makes it appear as if my anti UN sentiment is based on right wing ideology. Then there's the whole trap that if I can't identify with a side then I am a communitarian by default. There is NO place in the debates for anti communitarians.

Mexicans Better Equipped to Become NAU Peacekeepers

This isn't the article I started out writing tonight, and Nordica thinks the sarcasm will be lost on some people. She says that I should try to be a "better teacher." But I'm not a teacher. I'm not even really a writer. I'm trained as a government policy investigator. I got involved in this work while I was working on property rights lawsuits in Seattle. I tried to get my research and information into the hands of legitimate lawmakers and journalists beginning in1999. I finally started a website and uploaded our thesis and topic pages beginning in 2003. Then over the past several years I've contacted hundreds of American whistleblowers with our research.

It's been a rude awakening to recognise that certain members of the alternative "news" community consider communitarianism my own little term I like to use. I'm starting to understand the techniques in use against me, and I'm pretty much done ignoring accusations from Americans who label me as a tin-foil-hat. I'm also now accused of being an egomaniac for insisting on the inclusion of communitarianism in discussions and "exposes" about NAU communitarian regionalization. I'n not like that at all, and while I was always defiant when city officials told me I couldn't review their notes, I've made every effort to approach my fellow Americans with humbleness in my heart. But maybe I should go ahead and start acting like I'm the big whatever. Our thesis is downloaded every day by visitors from universities around the world. Either somebody disputes it, or we are the leading experts (in the nobody important category) on NAU regional integration and NAU communitarian justice in the United States.

Mexicans Better Equipped to Become NAU Peacekeepers
by Niki Raapana
February 16, 2008

It sure is a good thing the North American Union is just a silly conspiracy theory. Thank goodness President Bush put our minds to rest on that whole fallacy. If there really was a new system of regional government in the USA, then Americans would be like the Romanians, decades behind in a few significant areas:

"Over a decade since European Convention ratification, Romanian Law School graduates do not have elementary knowledge about the law system offered by CEDO and CEJ, and, only a few months before the adhesion, the communitarian law curricula is rarely present within law faculties programs of study, although the lack of adequate education of our legal experts in the field of European protection of human rights determined already great loss to the Romanian Government, at least 50 millions EURO. Because of these major deficiencies, the lack of personnel in the Justice Department can not be covered, despite the great number of Law graduates." (1)

We have millions of people in this country who devote their lives to researching, teaching, studying (and protecting) the original American political and economic system. Many of our citizens appear to be very well educated in the historical and legal foundations for our republic. Our people still study U.S. Constitutional Law because that's the law of our land. If the old system had been replaced with a new system, then Americans would have to be told about it, wouldn't they?

If it were true that the U.S. is integrating with Mexico and Canada under the supremacy of global communitarian law, we'd have attorneys like Marcos Mercado Delgadillo:

"MARCOS MERCADO DELGADILLO, Post-graduate degree in Education, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, La Paz – Bolivia; Masters in Industrial and Intellectual Property and Information Society Law, Alicante – Spain; Masters in Economic Law, Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar, La Paz – Bolivia; Law Degree, Universidad Católica Boliviana, La Paz – Bolivia. PRIOR EXPERIENCE: National Intellectual Property Office, Head of Trademarks and Distinctive Signs Department, La Paz; Pons - Patents and Trademarks, Madrid - Spain; Mostajo Sociedad Civil, Associate Lawyer, La Paz; Ministry of Justice, Legal Advisor in the Drafting Commission for intellectual Property Law Project, La Paz.OTHER ACTIVITIES: Professor of Intellectual Property Law. PRACTICE AREAS: Intellectual Property, E-commerce, Integration and Andean Communitarian Law, Corporate Law. (2)

If it were true that the USA is reorganizing itself under a global communitarian system of justice, we'd hear about it from our free press. We have thousands of news businesses whose job it is to bring us the news that matters. Something so huge (and so illegal) would never have slid past all those smart CNN reporters. If Amitai Etzioni and the Communitarian Network really held a summit in 2004, the U.S. freepress would have covered this historical event. Americans would have been introduced to their groundbreaking moral themes.

If Wolf V. Heydebrand from New York University really led a session at the 2004 Communitarian Summit on “Economic Globalization and the Logic of Process in American and European Law” this would have been reported by somebody, someplace in the United States.

If Heino Heinrich Nau from the University of Frankurt am Main presented a paper called “European Predecessors of Communitarian Economics” and Norton Garfinkle from The George Washington University Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies presented information about “Communitarian Economics: Maintaining Economic Growth and the Values of Civic Society,” the American voting populace would have been told a little something about their emerging economic system, wouldn't they?

America enjoys freedom of the press. If Amitai Etzioni really said on his blog on January 17, 2008, "If the current lineup holds, the Democrats will be represented in the forthcoming national elections by a communitarian" and then boasted that ".. communitarians should not uncork the champagne quite yet, but they can safely put a bottle or two into the fridge," that kind of news would have not only been in a David Brooks New York Times editorial, it would have made headlines in every newspaper in the country.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi never introduced a bill adopting UN Local Agenda 21 in the United States that was passed by the House the 102d CONGRESS, 2d Session, called H. CON. RES. 353, a

"CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. (3)

No authority ever printed the words: "Over 160 countries are now Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (the Convention) which was ratified by the United States in 1992. " ( Survey of International Agreements.) Only an idiot would believe "Congress also closely followed the progress of U.N. negotiations for achieving a framework convention on global climate and sent a parliamentary delegation to the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, in June. The Senate consented to ratification of the Convention [Treaty Doc. 102-381; the instrument of ratification was signed by the President on Oct. 13, 1992." (4)

The 109th CONGRESS, 2d Session did not see the introduction of H. RES. 873, designed for

"Recognizing the continued importance of the transatlantic partnership between the United States and the European Union by expressing support for the success of the forthcoming US-EU Summit in Vienna, Austria, on June 21, 2006."

We don't need to learn anything about communitarianism, do we? No, we don't. Don't listen to me. I haven't spent any time researching this subject. It's my made up word. I only made communitarianism seem important when it's actually so minor it doesn't even need to be mentioned by name. The editors at Wikpedia are right. Communitarian Law doesn't exist anywhere except in my imagination. If anything, it's only communism, and duh, we already know what that is. As a leading American speaker against the NAU recently explained in an email:

"I simply have not had the time to introduce communitarianism or community law which, to my way of thinking, is a concept that underlies the NAU but is MANIFEST in many ways which I DO cover extensively in my writings without specifically naming it... As for using Niki's communitarianism term explicitly . . . I informed Niki quite a while ago that I would write about it in my planned Communism article. A massive piece of research I have tried valiantly to write for nearly a year and a half." (5)

We have additional proof of the non-importance of studying communitarianism. There are millions of American bloggers and thousands of American websites who never mention it at all, ever. These are dedicated people who dilligently work to expose aspects of our history and current events that are ignored in the mainstream news. With so many people claiming to be seeking and exposing the "truth," communitarian regional governance would all have been exposed long before now.

No researcher or political party ever said the American people were too stupid to understand it. No patriotic Americans have claimed they don't include the UN/EU/NAU legal term when they're writing about the new laws for the American masses. Besides, even if it was true and they did want to tell Americans all about it, they know they can't. Everyone knows Americans are incapable of learning anything beyond common, ordinary issues. The real world is too upsetting for them, it sends Americans running in terror. Why would upper educated anti-NAU researchers waste their reputations on such obvious tin-foil hat material?

"Even though I am a Ph.D., and could write for the scholarly, I don't! Why? Because I know the masses are just plain everyday folks who haven't a CLUE what is happening all around them. So I use common ordinary language, everyday ordinary issues, real-world material about what is happening out there. That way they can see and relate to it, and understand what I am referring to when covering the SPP-NAU. I do that PURPOSEFULLY so that people will not run screaming into the night in total terror, or call me a tin-foil hat, who is a purveyor of conspiracy theories." (5)

Many American websites and blogs are well researched and include detailed scientific theories about what really happened on 9/11, HAARP technology, ChemTrails, AIDS and cancer. Other highly educated Americans delve deep into difficult studies of empires, wars, philosophy, religions, freemasonry, Sumeria, Atlantis and aliens. Our terrified, stupid people somehow manage to study and publish complex, jargon filled articles on sports, technology, economics and financial matters. But they could never understand communitarianism, so why bother?

Don't worry America. The European Union and other Communitarians never published volumes of papers regarding global and regional communitarian integration requirements.

"International law is about the creation of rules of the road for interaction between nations in order to promote peace and common interests." (6)

Amitai Etzioni is impossible to locate, either online, in person or at the local library. Etzioni's books can never be found on most American government officials' (and their NGO partner's) bookshelves. Amitai Etzioni is a conspiracy theory. Etzioni's Communitarian Network does not exist. The Communtarian Platform was never signed by hundreds of academics and politicians across America. UN and EU Communitarian Law is not the blueprint for all supra-national regional communities, especially not in the NAU (which doesn't exist anyway).

"Amitai Etzioni has provided a vision for developing a future global civil society. If his communitarian approach has any hope, its starting place will be modern Europe. The continent's bloody rivalries of the past are history. By creating a larger community, Europe has achieved what Etzioni seeks on a global scale. How has Europe done it? Can Europe's success be a model for other parts of the world, just as its development of the modern nation-state became the model for political life in previous centuries? And will Europe itself be likely to survive as a thriving community, or will it fail in the end to sustain its own model? This article explores the basis for Europe's remarkable developments of the past 60 years and the possibilities that Europe can lead the way forward for the achievement of Etzioni's vision." (7)

The American founders never had their own vision. The colonists never rebelled against the British Imperial Free Trade policies. The original American system never worked. Alexander Hamilton was a tool for the global elite. The national bank, coining our own money and high tariffs were bad ideas. Friedrich List didn't help the German unions kick the British out, he was ridiculed for his theory and killed himself he was so embarrassed. So, please, don't pay any attention to an article called The Lies Behind 'Free Trade', Chalmers Johnson's review of Ha-Joon Chang's "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" (Bloomsbury Press, 2007).

"The title of his 2002 book comes from the German political economist Friedrich List, who in 1841 criticized Britain for preaching free trade to other countries while having achieved its own economic supremacy through high tariffs and extensive subsidies. He accused the British of "kicking away the ladder" that they had climbed to reach the world's top economic position.

"Turning to the United States, Chang focuses on Alexander Hamilton, the first American secretary of the treasury and the man who coined the term "infant industry". Although he did not live to see it, by 1820 Hamilton's forty percent tariff on manufactured imports into the United States was an established fact. Hamilton provided the blueprint for US economic policy until the end of the Second World War. The 19th and early 20th century US tariffs of forty to fifty percent were then the highest of any country in the world. Throughout this same period, it was also the world's fastest growing economy." (8)

We can rest assured. Just in case the NAU and communitarian regional justice is real, at least one partner in the Strategic Partnership is training their citizens to enforce NAU law.

"On November 16, 17 and 18 the Communitarian Police celebrated their 12th anniversary in Zitlaltepec, municipality of Metlatónoc (the mountain area in Guerrero). The System of Communitarian Security and Justice extends across an area which includes 53 communities in the Coastal and Mountain area and operates from three headquarters.

".. since its foundation the System of Communitarian Security and Justice has been persecuted, undermined and criminalized by the Guerrero government. Almost 20 arrest warrants have been issued against the leaders of the Regional Coordinator of Communitarian Authorities (CRAC) and against the founders of the Communitarian Police, and investigations have been launched against several communitarian policemen." At the 12th anniversary of the Communitarian Police, they demand unconditional respect for the Communitarian Justice system (en 12 aniversario de la Policía Comunitaria, piden respecto irrestricto a sistema de Justicia Comunitaria)" (9)

References

1. The Romanian Legal System
http://www.sojust.ro/sistemul-juridic-din-romania-raport-independent-septembrie-2006/abstract.html

2. http://www.hierosgamos.org/hg/db_lawfirms.asp?action=attorney&n1=70536

3. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.CON.RES.353:

4. http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-7823:1.

5. name withheld

6. The Creation of a Communitarian System of International Law, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/pinochet/IntlLawFull.htm

7. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 48, No. 12, 1545-1557 (2005) DOI: 10.1177/0002764205278072, © 2005 SAGE Publications, A Communitarian Future, What Can the EU Experience Teach Us? James M. Goldgeier

8. The Lies Behind 'Free Trade' by Chalmers Johnson, a review of "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" (Bloomsbury Press, 2007) http://www.rense.com/general80/trade.htm

9. CDHM Tlachinollan, 19/11/2007) http://sipazen.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/guerrero-12th-anniversary-of-the-communitarian-police/

From Common Market to People's Europe

Somehow I lost ALL the chapter references I added over the weekend to 2020. Now I'm re-doing the research all over again, and well, let's just say it's hard to get inspired to repeat drudge work. But, there are always rewards when we do things we don't want to do, and here's one of them. Americans and Canadians who study the evolving North American Union and the NAFTA-CAFTA trade agreements would do well to read the first paragraph below VERY carefully. THIS is how trade agreements become projects that develop "far reaching" rights.

From common market to people’s Europe, 02/01/08
http://europa.eu/50/news/article/080102_en.htm

Entering into force on 1 January 1958, the Treaty of Rome laid the foundations of the modern EU. Primarily an economic organisation at its inception, the EU has evolved into a project to guarantee high levels of social protection for its citizens.

In the much harsher climate of post-war Europe, the overriding priority was to secure Europe’s economic prosperity through a common market. As living standards improved, EU efforts to improve social rights quickly gained momentum, and greater importance was attached to promoting democracy, human rights and civil society, and combating discrimination.

Important achievements in this context include:

• gender equality laws on access to work, training, career advancement and working conditions, as well as equal pay, security benefits and the right to parental leave
• rules making EU bodies more transparent, such as free access to documents and more openness over EU spending
• a European ombudsman - an independent body set up to investigate complaints about maladministration by EU bodies
• the Charter of Fundamental Rights, bringing together the EU’s founding principles of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
• European communication initiatives, designed to involve Europeans in EU law-making through debate, discussion and public consultation.

The EU is moving with the times, developing more far‑reaching rights – the right to a sustainable environment, consumer protection and data protection are now among its top priorities.

+++++

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." Giuliano Amato - speech at London School of Economics, 21 February 2007
http://www.caef.org.uk/D104quotes.html

I was sending 2020 to the printer tonight... now I face just one more delay in this series of delays that are beginning to look like a phenomena my friend Maynard Ekan used to describe. He said when we start to do something for "good" reasons, sometimes all the forces of the universe rise up to stop us from doing it. Maynard said it may mean that what we are doing is so important we cannot be allowed to accomplish it unless we overcome great obstacles first.

This book has been nothing but grief for months, and now I'm planning on using our last cash to pay the new printer. It's still 25 below outside, we're exhausted from camping all winter, and suddenly I wish I were living in a place with running water, an inside toilet, and heat I can simply turn on with a button. Last night I was sick as a dog after eating some bad sausages, and this is not a good place to let that happen. So, in order to have ALL those creature comforts I'd have to move to a city, get a manual labor job and give up the TIME and energy I need to do ACL work. By choosing this rugged lifestyle I've been able to subsist on practically nothing, but it's a choice that has begun to cause me and my daughter much heartache and grief. While we have quite a few projects in the works that may bring rewards in about six months, right now we're barely living on what's left of the donations we got last month. Now that there's a baby to take care of, maybe it's time to re-assess our committment to exposing the communitarian government system. Once the book is back out there, do I really need to keep working to save a nation that doesn't care to know which of their presidential candidates are communitarians? I must be nuts to think it matters whether the ACL website is up-to-date or stays online.

I'm also currently editing a book written by a man who found our ACL work. It's beautifully written, and he's touched me in a way I rarely consider anymore. When I started this research in 1999, I did it because I believed it was what God wanted me to do. I spent months praying to Jesus for guidance, asking for the courage and stamina to keep going, even though I hadn't stepped foot in a Christian church in over a decade. I left the organized church a long time ago and today I won't even call myself a Christian. I don't know what I believe, as I have become suspicious of all religious writings and am now wary of anything based in Judaic-Christianity.

At the same time, it's obvious the goal of communitarianism is to destroy the modern Christian Church and replace Jesus with some hybrid Earth-Sun God religion that is absolutely repulsive to me. The New Age connection to the communitarian synthesis is well-documented by Bobby Garner. So, when I pray, who am I really praying to? Is there really a just God who directs my thoughts and actions, or is what I feel just a need I share with other good hearted humans for a belief in something greater than myself? I used to believe in our nation and our laws, which I thought was all based in Christian values. Then I read the truth about our founding fathers' affiliations with freemasonry and was left with the distinct possibility that the USA was created by them only to usher in their illuminated vision of a new world order. Then I was forced to look at the fundamentalist Christian ethics as practiced by Dave Hoddges of the Arizona Constitution Party (whose reaction to my accusation of plagiarism was to add me to the party's mailing list!) The Christian Right seems to be just as interested in keeping the dialectic going as the left.

Trying to figure out what was going on in 1787 between Hamilton and Jefferson is also wearing me out. All the praise for Jefferson and the accusations against Hamilton and the National Bank and the American system of economy always seem to leave out the American founder's written connections to the Jacobin Reign of Terror in 1789 France.

Even though I hate watching TV I still watch movies, and last night I watched Amazing Grace, the story of the man who wrote the bill in the English Parliment that outlawed the slave trade. What a fabulous propaganda film it is! The "heros" have shady connections to revolutionary Jacobin activities in France but, oh well, the movie didn't need to go into that too much, because we should only look at the wonderful thing the British accomplished and how we can ALL become "agents of change." After I saw how the whole film was designed to promote the communitarian ideology and teach it to us "sinners," it left me wondering what the REAL story is about the anti-slavery movement... because as we all know they were also VERY ACTIVE in promoting the American's civil war seventy years later. Didn't the Southern states sell their slave cotton to English manufacturers LONG after the British Empire declared the slave trade illegal? Didn't the British Empire continue to colonize the Middle East and Africa long after they became anti-slavery global naval policemen? And was the little English bill the abolutionists introduced during Napolean's wars the very thing that allowed Imperial ships to confiscate ships flying the American flag as a prelude to the U.S. - UK War of 1812?

What IS a People's government, really? Am I just another useful idiot defending an elaborate freemason plan to rule the world? Considering all the answers I still have, anything is possible.
So, back to book edits... guess I just needed to come here and dump all my angst so it wouldn't end up in the book..heh.

European leaders sign landmark treaty

What does the emerging global government do when citizen refrendums reject their supremacy of communitarian law clause (the basis for authority in the European Union)? Do they amend the proposed constitution and re-submit a modified proposal to the national voters? Heck no. They just get together and sign a new "treaty" that makes all constitutional contracts obsolete.

If Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans want to know how they are losing their sovereignty to the silently emerging North American Union, they need look no further than the trade/treaty processes used to form the EU. The new form of "global justice" is called communitarian law. Why don't the Americans against the NAU/SPP identify the emerging legal system by name? Why can't the people be told what the new system is called and what it's based upon?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22240182/

By Tony Barber in Brussels

updated 10 minutes ago

European Union leaders on Thursday signed a treaty designed to strengthen the bloc's institutions and put behind them the worst crisis in the 50-year history of European integration.

The leaders of all 27 EU member-states except Gordon Brown, Britain's prime minister, put their names to the treaty at a ceremony in Lisbon's Jerónimos monastery.

Mr Brown, who was attending a parliamentary hearing in London, flew to Lisbon later and signed the treaty on his own. His absence from the main signing ceremony however prompted charges from the opposition Conservative party that the prime minister's "gutlessness" was turning the event into a "national embarrassment.""

According to Eu Truth.org , there have been six treaties on the way to regional government:

"The six treaties are:
1. The European Communities Act 1972.
2. The Single European Act, 1986.
3. The Maastricht Treaty, 1992.
4. The Amsterdam Treaty, 1997.
5. The Nice Treaty 2001.
6. The European Union Treaty, 2003.

The final treaty has been named and a date has been set to abolish Britain:

The abolition of Britain by The Reform Treaty in 2008

The sixth {seventh?} and final treaty has now been named: its is the Reform Treaty, due to be signed by the Queen in the Summer of 2008. This is a year before the deadline set by the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel.

Merkel and former French President Giscard d’Estaing are among many European ministers who have confirmed the Treaty is the EU Constitution, almost unchanged. If they are right, it will abolish the British Constitution, and therefore the nations of Britain and England, sweeping away our Westminster Parliament, and giving the EU dictatorship the power to close it.

This sixth treaty is the fastest moving and most secret the EU has drafted; opposition to and recognition of the EU as a police state is growing, and they know speed is vital.

The Countdown to abolition

Tony Blair agreed to it on 23rd June 2007 as his final stab in Britain’s back. On the 23rd July there was an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), when we should have seen a first draft of the Treaty.

Foreign ministers agreed its terms on 7-8th September at the resort of Viana de Castelo, Portugal. There was a summit in Lisbon on the 18th and 19th October, where they hoped to sign the Treaty, but Gordon Brown now signs on December 13th 2007.

The Queen and Parliament to abolish Britain summer 2008

Parliament begins the ratification in February 2008 and has allocated 29 days to discuss this treaty and its own abolition. They could well vote in March. The Queen plans to give her Royal Assent in June 2008. This means Westminster will pass the treaty, and the Queen will sign it behind our backs, as they have the other five treaties.

No referendum

German Chancellor Merkel chose this sixth Treaty instead of pushing through it’s constitution to avoid referendums in its member nations. She twice visited 10 Downing Street and forced Gordon Brown to cancel both his promised referendum, and his General Election.

Whereas the 465 page EU Constitution would have abolished the five treaties and replaced them with a single document conferring absolute power, the Reform Treaty adds to the existing five treaties, bringing them up to the powers of the EU Constitution. All six treaties with appendices will add up to something like 100,000 complex and unreadable pages.

The EU remains illegal

Each of these six treaties are completely illegal under the British Constitution, our 1689 Bill of Rights, our treason laws, and under our common law. It is unforgivable that the Queen, her Ministers and our Parliament have committed the criminal act of treason by signing these treaties, and broken our laws to abolish our nation.

The EU will always be illegal in Britain; but once the EU has complete power and control here, we can no more get rid of it than we could Germany, had their planned illegal occupation of Britain in 1940 been successful.

You have one year left

Treason is the most serious of all Britain’s crimes. You have just one year left to bring these vile British traitors to justice, and get us out of the EU dictatorship.

Around 45 million British people are against the abolition of our nation, and with the little European voting that has been allowed, it seems clear over 200 million of its victims don’t want the EU. But we will never be given the choice. YOU have to decide to act yourself.

There are ways to stop the EU - see "Your Campaigns" on the left. Then we will need a mass blockade of Westminster to stop our criminal MP's and Queen breaking our constitution and laws for the last time.

Copy of the EU's Timetable at the BBC.

Original 2009 article from German Parliament -.pdf for download
Then check it at the German Parliamen here "

http://eutruth.org.uk/