Saturday, January 10, 2009

How Communitarians Change the US Legal System with Federal Regulators

Working on a new article. This may change but I'm kind of happy with it right now. Rense will probably publish it, but it may not make it past the gatekeepers who complain to newswithviews unless I remove certain facts from the story. Suggestions?

How Communitarians Change the US Legal System with Federal Regulators
by Niki Raapana
Anti Communitarian League
January 10, 2009

Across America, the old system crumbles before our eyes. Business and homeowners in every corner of America are trying to understand how the government got so much power. Many of us are busy people who race around all day, working. Most people who own anything here have been working their butt off for years to keep it. Our people aren't that stupid. They can see that every year their government passes a new law that restricts them from operating freely. A moron can see that all new regulations, acts, taxes, revisions, codes, and executive orders have one thing in common. It's part of every new ruling. Ask anybody. Every new law gives some new government agency the absolute power to take our property away from us.

One way (there are several) the communitarians steal our property is through their administrative courts. These are not to be confused with constitutional courts. Often called Hearing and Review Boards, they are appointed agents of the agency who rule on agency rules. What that means is they work for the official Department that also hands out tickets and fines for infractions of Department regulations. The same guy who sits on the sub-committee writing the new regulations can also be the Hearing Examiner who presides over the meetings held to determine the guilt of person's charged with violating the Department regulations he helped to write. Most Americans assume, because this is what we are taught, that they live under constitutional law. So when an average, busy, hard working American finds himself charged with a crime in an administrative courtroom, there is much confusion.

Here's the problem:

Americans are still taught the government of the United States was created for one purpose, and one purpose only. It was established to "protect and maintain individual rights." According to the rule of law, there are three very separate branches of government, and every government official must swear allegiance to protect and maintain the rights of every individual citizen in the nation. Our system was designed so that there would always be suspicion between the branches; it was a barrier to a coup or any one branch assuming more power than the Constitution allowed.

Administrative Procedural Law is communitarian. Communitarianism is the legal theory that claims the rights of individuals must be continuously "balanced" against the common good. The Communitarians believe individual rights hurt the community. So they took it upon themselves to be the community's "silent voice." That's why you never heard of them or their debates over your property and privacy rights. They know people don't like to sacrifice themselves or their children for the common good. (For years they're tried to convince Americans to give up their arms. Maybe these two things have something to do with each other.)

How can a government like ours, established only to protect individual rights, be slowly modified into a communitarian government that protects the rights of the majority to trample individual rights? Without amending the constitution, it had to be accomplished very quietly, at the highest levels of academia and government.

Communitarianism is the theory that created all the American "protection" agencies at the end of the 18th century. It's the theory of British Conservation imported in 1901. It's the theory behind Prohibition which created the DEA (who can never go away). This same theory fueled the protection of American Indian lands, and is used to protect the Palestinians the same way in Gaza today. (See also: Holocaust Denied, The lying silence of those who know 1/8/09 by John Pilger Rounding up dissidents and holding them in pens to protect them is nothing new to our federal government. Everyone knows the feds stole Japanese businesses and put them in prison camps for the community good. But not everyone is told the reasoning behind these violent, aggressive, and sometimes genocidal policies. Nobody ever explains it is communitarian balancing.

The theoretical foundation for communitarianism is a clever blending of ancient philosophy, theory, mysticism, alchemy, cabala, mythology, legends, religions and I would add delusions. Adhering to the dialectical form of advancing knowledge and utilizing both Hegel's ideological framework and Marx's materialist interpretation, the communitarian framers set up a series of conflicts that would help mankind achieve a higher state of social evolution. God told them to protect the community at large (who simply doesn't need to know that yet). Communitarians believe they are more advanced spiritually and morally than the average world citizen, and they've got the global public completely fooled into agreeing with their ego maniacal self assessment.

The assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 was a big boost to our human progress. His successor introduced massive communitarian agencies to take control over American lands. Conservation was a British policy used to destroy and rebuild local industry and agriculture in their Middle Eastern colonies. Teddy Roosevelt thought it was a great idea. Since good ole TR knew that in the U.S. it had to sound a lot nicer, our first communitarian president (by default) promoted it as a way to protect the people's lands. Over the last century the agency created to "protect" public lands has grown into a massive domestic armed enforcement interdepartmental agency with supreme abatement and local policng power. Today their open mission is to promote sustainability, a vague communitarian concept of "protecting" the future.

Over the past fifty years, protecting the land expanded to protecting the environment, and now, in 2009, it's expanding to protect our children from used clothes and toys. A federal law passed by the US Congress empowers an environmental protection agency to demand American compliance to expensive testing prior to the sale or donation of used children's items. The very last vestige of American political economic practices, our right to donate our goods and engage in unimpeded second hand bartering and sales, is gone. This couldn't have just happened overnight.

It didn't. Beginning with the creation of a new agency called the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, by the time of the New Deal the idea of balanced agency powers over the constitution was firmly entrenched in American lawyer's thinking. After WWII it became firmly entrenched in the American legal system.

Internationally, this same theory was used to legitimize the Nuremberg Tribunals and it was the moral justification for implementing the Marshall Plan for Rebuilding Europe. Today it's suggested we need Obama to establish a Marshall Plan for Rebuilding the USA. Oh yeah, and this was also the theory used for creating the Peace Palace, International Court at the Hague, the Criminal Court in Rome, the Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem, the League of Nations, the United Nations, the EU, the WTO and all new Free Trade Unions.

Communitarian Law is cited by the Chinese, the Russians, the Pope and the EU. It came to the US via several back doors. In 1884, the London Fabian Society began training "change agents" to quietly infiltrate established governments. (It was a London Fabian who tutored McKinley's assassin in anarchist action.) Peaceful Fabian theory is used by some Israelis to justify Zionist occupation and war in the Middle East. 1887, besides being the year legal balancing was introduced in the US, is also the year of the First Zionist Convention in Switzerland. Of interest to students of Zionism, the communitarian debate "between public power and private right" began in the 20th century under Zionist justices sitting on the US Supreme Court. In 1979, the Fabian-Zionist Communitarian guru Dr. Amitai Etzioni began making suggestions to US Presidents on ways to creating new volunteer and enforcement agencies in the US. Don't think for a moment that this idea for a citizen military agency came from either Obama or Biden. Today it is openly reported in the US Press that the current US Supreme Court bases some of its decisions on the Talmud. President Bush says our legal system is based in ancient Judaic Law. He's not lying if he's talking about Administrative Law.

On February 10, another new regulatory agency will assume power to confiscate our property. This agency wasn't created to take our land, limit our construction or protect our water and air. Oh no. The communitarians have already done all that. They're moving forward. This agency was created to steal our children's clothes and toys.

We can look around any American neighborhood and see what the communitarians have done to our country. The signs of change are everywhere. Conversations among Americans always include a reminder from one person telling another about some new regulation with, "Oh no, you can't do that anymore," or "You have to get a permit for that now." Even when the new regulation makes absolutely no sense, people are made to feel a sense of shame if they don't agree to the new requirement. This insane manifestation of communitarian federal agency power is now going to tell American mothers they cannot buy or share used children's clothes? These wackos think that by calling their invasive data gathering program the American Community Survey our people will believe they have to answer all the questions?

The most often heard justification for a new bizarre government agency's demand is that "everyone has to do it." No. They don't. They really, really don't.

+++++ end +++++

Notes, further reading:

Quotes below taken from Joanna L. Grisinger Department of History University of Chicago Reform in the "Fourth Branch": the Post-New Deal Administrative State and the Federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 Prepared for delivery at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 28 - August 31, 2003. Copyright by the American Political Science Association.

"The Fifth Amendment guarantees no particular form of procedure; it protects substantial rights."

"In the third Morgan decision, the Court expressed its view that the relationship between courts and agencies should be one of cooperation; this was a significant move away from the idea in earlier years that courts should supervise the administrative state. Justice Stone wrote, in construing a statute setting up an administrative agency and providing for judicial review of its action, court and agency are not to be regarded as wholly independent and unrelated instrumentalities of justice, each acting in the performance of its prescribed statutory duty without regard to the appropriate function of the other in securing the plainly indicated objects of the statute. Court and agency are the means adopted to attain the prescribed end, and so far as their duties are defined by the words of the statute, those words should be construed so as to attain that end through co-ordinated action."

"Justice Frankfurter, writing for the Court, described why judicial standards were neither appropriate nor required in administrative proceedings. Administrative agencies have power themselves to initiate inquiry, or, when their authority is invoked, to control the range of investigation in ascertaining what is to satisfy the requirements of the public interest in relation to the needs of vast regions and sometimes the whole nation in the enjoyment of facilities for transportation, communication and other essential public services. These differences in origin and function preclude wholesale transplantation of the rules of procedure, trial and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts."

From ACL Research: "The Fabian Society was created in 1884 after a suicide note left by Derby Fabian Henry Hutchinson also left 10,000 British pounds to the Fabians "for propaganda and other purposes." British Fabian socialism was created to promote international communism and free trade with a friendlier face. Unlike Marx's open and violent revolutionary agenda, the Fabian's agenda was to quietly infiltrate and re-direct established governments."

""Today is a great day for America's public lands," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "This big, bipartisan package of bills represents years of work by senators from many states, and both parties, in cooperation with local communities, to enhance places that make America so special."

The measure — actually a collection of about 160 bills — would confer the government's highest level of protection on land ranging from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range to Oregon's Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. Land in Idaho's Owyhee canyons, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan and Zion National Park in Utah also would be designated as wilderness.

"Besides new wilderness designations, the bill would designate the childhood home of former President Bill Clinton in Hope, Ark., as a national historic site and expand protections for dozens of national parks, rivers and water resources.

"Reid said about half the bills in the lands package were sponsored by Republicans. Most had been considered for more than a year." Senate boosts wilderness protection across US, By Associated Press Writer Matthew Daly, Sun Jan 11

Jan 11 update:

I've been thinking about all the AGENCYS that could come under this Administrative quasi-judicial legal system. Could this also explain Agency for International Development supranational activities in Central America in the 80s? Central Intelligence Agency? National Security Agency. Community Policing Services isn't an agency, but they never answered any of my FOIA requests so who knows what law they operate under. Child Welfare Agency, Child Protection Services... is Admin Law the source for all their power too. Child Support Enforcement Agency, look at all the power they've claimed over men and women both. Hmm, does a government agency have to call itself an agency to expand their own power using Administrative legal concepts?
"The new Bush law provides farcical judicial supervision over the NSA and other government trackers and databasers. Although Senator Barack Obama voted for this law, dig this from the ACLU: "The government [is now permitted] to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing."" (boldface added) Obama's Black Widow


Anonymous said...

This is good. Ilike the last couple of sentences. That is one of the most important parts of the message I think, to erase this aura of inevitability that they are trying to put up.

mam said...

Brilliant as usual. Thanks Niki.

Ted said...

The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).

While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.

Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.

sewneo said...

Excellent. I'm glad to see you caught that damned "toys and clothes" law.

I called the local second hand store nerby my house. They had a 'going out of business sale'. after I found that law, i thought it might be the reason. They said it was not. They just were not making much of a profit. The store was run by the "humane society" for animals. No profit meant no good reason to keep the store open.

Suprisingly, they had never heard of the new law. The lady on the phone said she'd look into it.

I'm going to work on a transcript of the last Cumbey interview later today... and I could run this new article through my 'editor in my head' for ya.


Niki Raapana said...

Very encouraging. I fell asleep thinking about what I left out of this article because I wanted to keep it short. Realized I have to revise it to include the Fabian agenda and Etzioni's committment to that too.

Sean I got the transcript and took the link to PIRG and bingo! They call the Consumer Product Saftey Act a VICTORY, one they fought for.

The overhaul of the Act was based on their last survey. The comms always claim action based on their own surveys. Like Etzioni claimed his survey told him after 9/11 that "most Americans" would give up some privacy rights to feel safer. I asked all the Americans I came into contact with if they agreed with that statement, and couldn't find ONE who did. And our LA21 neighborhood "vision" for the safe future claimed to have taken a lot of surveys prior to writing the plan. I couldn't find one person in King County who knew what the plan was, let alone have any input on acheiving the vision. But the final plans adopted into law in 99 ALL claimed the community had agreed to the plans.

I'm wondering how important it is to look for the names of the guys who headed up the 1887 Interstate Commerce Commission, and to see what else those boys believed in.

angry cheese said...

An excellent article, very informative, well done. Can't wait to read the finished version although it is already an accomplished article in it's own right.
By the way, I assume you have seen these?: