By Niki Raapana
April 12, 2006
The ultimate communitarian vision is absolute control over the requirements for global citizenship. Anything that furthers this goal is a communitarian action or reaction. The escalating arguments between illegal immigrants and legal Americans can easily become a tool used by the nice people who are rebuilding us a more moral, collectivist world.
They're already steering the conflict away from the law and into a class-race war. It's obvious the "protests" were planned and led by Marxist-communitarian change agents. Listen to them. Their rhetoric is based in globalist, Marxist, or communitarian slogans. This is not a problem that just naturally occurred on our southern border. There are other international agreements that contributed to the situation. Each step of this conflict was carefully studied and executed. Marxists control the law, the arguments, and the streets. To them, this is a "war." They are on a violent offensive. Our nation is still too strong.
The smart Americans defending U.S. law or protesting the absurdity of illegal immigrants who demand their "rights" must necessarily become lost in the din of the violence. Racial "superiority," first exported across the globe by the Imperial British and Europeans, can now be used to discount any valid American legal concerns as ignorant American racism.
Internationalists also changed the meaning of U.S. individual rights to include global human rights. The "human" definition is used by educated, progressive Americans and most illegal immigrants. They've learned it from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, the Pope, Catholic priests, Lutheran pastors, Talmudic scholars, Mormon missionaries and who knows, maybe even the CIA teaches it in one of their "secret" training manuals.
Communitarianism is the ultimate solution to irresolvable conflicts between nations. It was tested on Middle Eastern, Asian, Latino and African people for the past fifty years. The new international law is a direct result of the success the solution has had in many regions of the world. The proposed wall is just like McDonalds' theory of duplication.
Do we think for a moment that the U.S. Congress doesn't know what it signed away under CAFTA? The USA and Latin America are already under a communitarian legal agreement that assures the supremacy of communitarian law in any national disputes.
The United States of America is not a sovereign nation anymore. It operates entirely under a global legal concept called divided sovereignty. And, like everything based in communitarianism, most Americans are unfamiliar with this term. Sources we hold in high esteem give us nice communitarian definitions for "divided sovereignty":
"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…" (Britannica)
Now most of us don't feel qualified to take on the credibility of Encyclopedia Britannica. I am no exception. But it may be worth the effort to examine this definition more closely. If we take the above Britannica quote apart, line by line, it's easier to understand the amazing influence communitarians have on all the "new" international definitions.
What is the "concept of absolute, unlimited sovereignty?" Well, in the former USA it was more than a "concept." It was not some lofty idea for protecting the colonial's royal bloodlines. In the USA, the individual citizens were the sovereigns, under their law. But, as they say, that "did not last long." It didn't last anywhere in the world that tried it. As for the term "sovereign," it basically means the king, the Caesar or the top dog. This is the individual with all the power to make the decisions that matter. (When it's applied to nationhood it often implies a nation that exists outside international community law.)
What "democratic form of government imposed important limitations upon the power of the sovereign and the ruling classes?" The American system is a constitutional republic ("and to the republic, for which it stands"… you remember that?). In the USA, elected representatives are limited to passing legislation that exists only within their legitimate parameters established under constitutional law. The USA is neither a democracy nor a monarchy. We are a constitutional republic. Our system is based in law, and not in men.
Plus, not only did our sovereign republic enlarge the power of the individual sovereigns, our system of checks and balances eliminated the "ruling classes" altogether. We the People self-declared ourselves to be the sovereigns. In the USA, the original law made every freeborn male the "king" over his castle (home). U.S. law was designed to protect common born, free men from whimsical and deadly government intrusions. Therefore, any democratic government that imposes limitations on the power of the sovereign can never refer to our form of government. This definition has to refer to a monarchial system of government, like the one in the United Kingdom. "Might is right" was also the UK's imperialist principle. British historians call it their "endless adventure in governing men."
As for that "increase in the interdependence of states," could it possibly refer to the original agreement between the states in the American union of states? Was the USA created to protect state citizens from ceaseless attacks by agents of the British Empire?
Was the U.S. Bill of Rights added to the original draft of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 after two years of debates in the state legislatures? Were the First Ten Amendments to protect the individual rights of the individuals represented by their state constitutions? Did the specific individual rights to freedom laid out in the First Ten Amendments deal directly with each individual's protection from government agents? Did you say yes to all? Then you also know this: We fired the Empire a long time ago. Their "superior" globalist methods were deemed inferior to local men and women governing themselves.
For a few more sources on divided sovereignty go to ACL Communitarian Law: What is divided sovereignty?
© 2006 Niki Raapana- All Rights
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Niki Raapana was trained in government document research at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Raised by a career Army NCO, she traveled the U.S. most of her life. Her dad taught her it is every American's job to defend the rights of people who are unable to defend themselves.
After her landlord complained that the city was out to steal his land, Niki agreed to study Seattle's development plans for him in March 1999. In September 1999 she found out the city planned to do a lot more than steal Hugh's land. She identified the Communitarian Network's connection to the plans in March 2000.
Niki filed many public disclosure requests for Hugh Sisley and in the fall of 2001 the City of Seattle ceased actions against his properties based on Niki's research. By 2002 she had provided 2500 documents for Dawson et. al. v. The City of Seattle et. al, a 4th Amendment lawsuit currently under consideration before the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
co-founded the Anti-Communitarian League with her (then) teenage daughter
Nordica, in April, 2001.
They're already steering the conflict away from the law and into a class-race war. It's obvious the "protests" were planned and led by Marxist-communitarian change agents.