Teresamerica's News and Views: James Delingpole Talks To Roger Hedgecock On Watermelons & Communitarianism

Here is James Delingpole's article:



The most unsettling aspect of modern politics is that the Enemy is no longer plain in view.
The most unsettling aspect of modern politics is that the Enemy is no longer plain in view. We may feel in our bones that we are as oppressed, disenfranchised and generally shat upon, in our way, as those who suffered under Nazism, Marxism and fascism. But the actual evidence doesn’t seem to bear this out.
We’re free to fly wherever we want on our hols. No one is starving. We can vote. There are no death camps. We don’t dread the small-hours knock at the door. Our politicians consult focus groups because they feel they ought to care what we think. There are lots of channels on TV, not all of which reflect the ideology of the state. Being Jewish, gay or an intellectual are not crimes. (More’s the pity in the case of the last one.) We can speak out against whomsoever we want (so long as they’re not Muslim) without fear of being arrested. We don’t need to belong to the Party to get a job. There are no bread queues. Our kids aren’t obliged to spy on us.
Why then do we yet feel so un-free? By ‘we’ I don’t mean all of us, of course. I can’t imagine, say, David Aaronovitch waking up every morning and gnashing into his Coco Pops over the liberties Big Government is taking with his liberty. I doubt Michael Moore, Paul Krugman or the environment pod at the Guardian have ever done anything except shudder very pleasurably as the tentacles of state have crept ever deeper into their every orifice. But I’m guessing I’m not the only Speccie-reading type who surveys this brave new world we inhabit with growing alarm. ‘I do hope it’s no more than my imagination,’ we say to ourselves. ‘But it seems to me that, politically, we are ****ed.’


And if that’s what you think, you’re right, we are. But your problem — as was mine, till I discovered this thing I’m going to tell you about — is that you don’t really know whom to blame, whom to hate, whom to fight. And the reason for this is that the Enemy have arranged it that way. These are exactly the same kind of people who brought you Nazism, Marxism and fascism. Their controlling, bullying, puritanical, freedom-hating instincts are as intense as ever. The only difference is that this time they’re inflicting them on you with your permission.
This nebulousness and insidiousness is precisely what makes communitarianism so much more dangerous than any of the other totalitarian philosophies I’ve just named. Communitarianism? Though it crops up quite a bit on websites, it’s still not a term you find in quotidian use. Which is odd, because it’s the defining ideological concept of our age — embracing everything from the puzzling leftishness of the supposedly ‘Conservative’ David Cameron to Australian farmers no longer being able to cut down trees on their land, to the mystifying career of comedy academic Philip Blond, to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Barack Obama, the Big Society, the EU, the UN, the BBC, your kids’ schools, my kids’ schools, Maurice Strong and the Rio Earth summit, to name but a few.
How does it work? Well one good example is the Localism Bill mentioned by Charles Moore the other week, which will give you, the people, more citizen power, supposedly. Except it won’t. What it will actually do is undermine one of the pillars of a free society: your property rights. By allowing ‘local people’ (clearly whoever drafted it has never watched The League Of Gentlemen) to designate something a ‘community asset’ — say, to use Charles’s example, a private field which the owner allows villagers to use as a cricket pitch — the Bill will strip away the ability of the property owner to dispose of his asset as he sees fit. What’s happening is a more consensual, touchy-feely version of what Jews experienced under the Nazis or aristocrats experienced under Lenin. Call it Big Society; call it social justice; call it what you like. What’s going on is state-sanctioned theft.


I wish I had space to explain the communitarian philosophy in more detail. One of the best primers I’ve found is a blogpost by an Alaskan called Niki Raapana, who neatly defines it as ‘a Dictatorship of the Community’ whose ‘global standard of norms’ will ‘rebuild the world under a new model of governance with jurisdiction over all national state citizens’. Communitarianism’s great enabling act was a measure launched at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit called Agenda 21. Its almost risibly sinister name (quite accidental: it just means ‘an agenda for the 21st century’) means that whenever worried conservatives invoke it they come across like paranoid conspiracy freaks. But its effects are all too real. Over six hundred local government groups around the world from the City of Dallas to Woking Borough Council have signed up to Local Agenda 21, a voluntary code of practice committing them to a range of superficially worthy causes from (Marxist codeword) ‘sustainability’ to ‘diversity’. You didn’t vote for this stuff, but it’s on the books anyway.
One more brief example: lots of London councils have taken upon themselves the responsibility of ‘combating climate change’ by charging 4 x 4 owners more for their parking permits, encouraging electric cars, penalising non-recyclers and so on. But what if you’re a council taxpayer who knows it’s a crock: that electric cars are every bit as eco-unfriendly as normal ones, that recycling often uses more energy than it saves? Your view doesn’t count, nor even can you express it at the ballot box, since all the main political parties share the same valuesystem. This is communitarianism. And you are stuffed.


I didn't have all that great knowledge of Agenda 21 so I did some research on it and found two informative videos on it. 



This video shows at least some of the key players of Agenda 21



This explains Agenda 21 very well. Plus, this video exposes the Communitarians purposeful, harmful goals.




I apologize for the delay in posting my Eagle Freedom Links post but I have had a health issue to deal with which is quite painful and will hopefully have the post up tomorrow.  Have a great day!Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/philosophy
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Catholic Colleges Very Identity Threatened by Obama Administration

So much for religious freedom at Catholic colleges.  The Obama administration is now targeting them. This has me fuming mad!  The Obama administration has issued new federal regulations which threaten Catholic colleges right to religious freedom and also threatens their right to be able to teach according to the Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.  This attack on our religious freedom must stop!!  In Chicago Obama was very chummy with Cardinal Bernardin who was the person who developed the seamless garment of life philosophy which "holds that issues such as abortion, capital punishment, militarism, euthanasia, social injustice and economic injustice all demand a consistent application of moral principles that value the sacredness of human life (as defined by the Catholic Church)."  This philosophy has done a great injustice to the pro-life community and is false when equating abortion with that of a public execution since the Church has officially declared Dogma declaring abortion to be intrinsically evil but not in the case of capital punishment, which, according to longstanding Church tradition, the state may justly apply when bloodless means will not protect society as effectively.  So, this "seamless garment" philosophy was a perversion of Church Teachings IMO. Obama was good friends with Cardinal Berdardin and I am going to speculate that that is when he and other Marxists started infiltrating the Church and using their community organizing efforts to teach Church members their Marxist ways while perverting the true meaning of social justice and making into some political philosophy of zealotry.  I am positive that this type of thing didn't just happen in Chicago where I am sure Obama had a hand in it.  It was and is widespread, and others like Obama did their part.  That is at least in part how I believe that the whole perversion of social justice got out of hand within the Church and why church members today feel that it is okay to dissent from certain Church Teachings such as abortion and contraception.  The Catholic colleges need to fight this and take the Obama administration to court for violating their religious freedom.

Here is the article from The Cowl:

"New federal regulations issued by the Obama administration a few weeks ago threaten not only recruitment for Catholic colleges, but more importantly, their very identity. The new regulations increase oversight for colleges through either state chartering or licensing, which are necessary for colleges to obtain federal aid. While states have always had to approve colleges that receive aid, the new law mandates that states approve colleges by name. States will also have greater power to act on complaints pertaining to colleges.



So why is this a problem? New regulations represent a federal encroachment on the independence of private institutions and especially religious schools. Even the Department of Education itself admitted that "a state's role may extend into defining, for example, curriculum, teaching methods, subject matter content, faculty qualifications, and learning outcomes." Catholic colleges that incorporate religious teaching in their curriculum may risk losing federal funding if state governments don't approve of the content.


All sorts of controversial issues come to mind that could be forced into the curricula of Catholic colleges by state governments as a condition of federal aid. Schools like Providence College might have to teach that it's acceptable to get an abortion or that creationism is a myth propagated by religious wackos.


We're not safe from a repeat of what happened at Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina. At this Catholic school, the administration issued a statement that employee health insurance would not fund contraceptives and abortions because it violated Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life. However, eight dissenting faculty members appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which responded by accusing the college of discriminating against women.



Unfortunately, federal regulation is already trying to undermine key precepts of the Catholic faith, which should be actively promoted by Catholic schools across the country. The scary thing is that even federal officials admit these new regulations do "not limit a State's oversight of institutions." In other words, states have total authority to rule against a school whose curriculum it deems "discriminatory" for promoting life.


Catholic schools that aren't approved by state governments will lose funding, which will hurt enrollment. Although enrollment obviously matters, what's at stake is greater. These new federal regulations threaten the responsibility of Catholic schools to spread their missions unimpeded by politically correct legislation, aimed at enforcing secularism—or even atheism."












Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/philosophy
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

Setting a Liberal Straight About the Tea Party Movement

In this article, the author made assertions about the Tea Party movement that were both nonsensical and fallacious. Then he tries to backtrack here. The author, J.M. Bernstein, states this:


"It would be comforting if a clear political diagnosis of the Tea Party movement were available — if we knew precisely what political events had inspired the fierce anger that pervades its meetings and rallies, what policy proposals its backers advocate, and, most obviously, what political ideals and values are orienting its members."

It is clear that he makes no effort or very little effort to understand the Tea Party movement, and the reasons for the participants' anger because if he really wanted to find out the movement's core princples all he had to do was perform a simple google search and he would have located multiple sites which state the basic political philosphy and/or the core princples of the Tea Party movement.

On TeaPartyPatriots.org one can easily find out that the three core principles of the Tea Party movement are: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. At TeaParty.org, the movement also calls awareness to any issue that challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our nation, the United States of America. In addition, the TeaPartyPatriots.org website clearly states that the Tea Party movement adheres to principles of personal responsibility, national sovereignty, and The Rule of Law. The site also shows Glenn Beck's 9 Principles and 12 values to follow for the 9-12 movement which were created to help guide the Tea Party movement.

He clearly believes in a metaphysical collectivism and has an infatuation with the collective. He believes in handing over more power to the federal government, and is willing to cede individuals' decision-making abilities and indivdual responsibilities to the government, and is willing to give up individual freedom and liberty so that we can be indebted to an all knowing God-like central government. Tea Partiers believe in the opposite. Tea Party members want to return a more decentralized government, curb the spending, reduce the deficit, and to have more individual freedom and liberty and not rely on the government to make certain decisions for us. We believe in the right to bear arms and protect ourselves from harm whereas big government types who rely on laws and the police, rely on an institution to protect them, meanwhile calling 911 may not be enough to save a life or lives. We do not believe in restrictive laws that give the state even more power over our lives. We believe in common sense laws and returning a sense of morality back to our society. Without God their can be no return to a civil moral society.


I am inclined to believe that this author is for the health care law and having the government decide what medical procedures are necessary or not, rationing in order to save costs while Tea Party folks would rather keep our health care between us and our doctors, leave the decision making as to what is medically necessary up to our doctors, and we would rather spend more for quality health care and have much less rationing than occurs under centralized governents or with socialist health care. Liberals seem to think having 350 million people on socialist government health care is going to be the same as having 100 million on medicare, medicaid, other federal programs for our military and federal employees. In addition, many individuals on medicare have an extra private supplemental insurance because government insurance (medicare) is not enough to cover certain procedures and the costs of medical care. Big government policies and rampant corruption within Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crisis. Liberal compassion consisted of forcing the Community Reinvestment Act down the bankers' throats to hand out loans to people who evidently couldn't afford to pay their mortgages which is what caused this financial crisis. Government trying to enforce compassion via legislation is what causes persons insurmountable heartache and ruins lives.

Would this guy be upset if he asked his spouse to fix something, his spouse ignored him repeateedly, the problem worsened over a period of several months, then refused to fix the issue, and purposefully made the issue worse since she disagreed with how to solve the issue?

If you replace the spouse with the government and the guy with the American people, replace several months with 20 years and that explains and justifies the Tea Party's anger. Tea Party is directed at how the government has ignored citizens' concerns for many years. There has been an expansion of government control, and our government has exacerbated problems over the years while citizens' concerns have fallen on deaf years, and politicians have even blasted full speed ahead in the opposite direction than we the people consent to so we have every right to be angry.

The three branches of the government have undergone a metamorphosis and morphed into far reaching tentacles that has spread like a horrible disease infecting the United States. Liberals want our government to mirror European-style socialist government while our Founders instituted a Constitutional Republic to avoid a centralized government type of government like that of Europe that would greatly reduce citizens' freedom. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence which proclaims that all men are equal in rights, regardless of birth, wealth, or status, and that the government is the servant, not the master, of the people. The problem is that Today liberals are trying to make the government our servant instead of it being the other way around. This author thinks that Jefferson wouldn't have been agreed with the way citizens acted at townhall meetings but I believe that Jefferson would have been proud of these people who are standing up for individual citizens against the enslavement of the government. Townhall attendees and Tea Party participants have been displaying righteous anger in the face of an out of control government. I believe that Thomas Jefferson would have been appalled at how our politicians are mistreating citizens and the likes of SEIU members who threaten, are violent and beat up individuals like Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative who was selling patriotic merchandise outside a townhall meeting.Source URL: http://outlawrepublican.blogspot.com/search/label/philosophy
Visit Out law republican for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection