No Lunch for You!

My favorite comedy series of all time is Seinfeld. No, I am not Jewish. And yes, I know about the show Friends. And no, I do not find it at all amusing. Why do I find myself in situations where people bring up and compare Friends to Seinfeld? This is my blog so you will get my opinion and my opinion is that Seinfeld is immensely better than Friends.

Any who, I have digressed, in fact, I haven't even begun to approach my main subject. So, back to the greatest comedy series of all time, (one last jab to you Friends fans) Seinfeld, there is a famous episode called the "Soup Nazi." In this episode Jerry and the gang traverse to a new soup cafe that opens up. They all experience the "Soup Nazi" one by one. The man that runs the soup cafe is an imposing figure of Arab descent with a dark complexion. His stare that protrudes from his deep dark eyes would make Chuck Norris snap to attention. Through his more Stalin-type mustache, his lips would utter the famous line, "No soup for you!" He would say that to the customers who would not follow his strict rules for entering his cafe, approaching the counter, and ordering soup. Hence, the nickname "Soup Nazi" was given to him.

"No Soup for You!"

I know what you are thinking. "Is this guy blogging about Seinfeld?" Yes and it is very relevant to our current climate created by our Government. Not only have the Utopian Statists wanted to regulate what light bulbs (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/12/morning-bell-lights-out-for-the-light-bulb-ban/) we put in our house, they now want to regulate lunches made by parents for their children (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/school-lunch-guidelines-p_n_1278803.html?ref=mostpopular.) Read the article and continue to search to get more info on this sad display of Government overreach and intrusion. 

A 4-year-old preschool student at West Hoke Elementary School in North Carolina had her lunch seized from her by school authorities because the lunch did not meet the Department of Health and Human services regulations. The lunch was prepared by her mother and an agent from the DHHS seized the lunch for not being nutritious enough according the strict rules of the DHHS. The lunch consisted of a turkey sandwich, chips, banana, and an apple juice. No, really...I'm serious. It wasn't Fugu, the poisonous blow fish (http://nymag.com/restaurants/features/46462/), but a turkey sandwich. It wasn't a bag of fries boiled in lard and oil with a deep fried Twinkie. It was a turkey sandwich which has protein and grains. The chips are not the best for you, but it was just a small bag. Furthermore, the lunch came with a great healthy fruit, a banana. I am not about to start arguing the nutritional value of the lunch. The mere fact that the Government is now taking lunches from children prepared by their parents and throwing them away is appalling. They are being "Lunch Nazis." Since when does the Government have the authority to determine a lunch prepared by the mother to be "not meeting the requirements" for a "healthy" meal? Now, I do understand the certain autonomy the Government has in the Public Schools; but to search/seize children's lunches and to replace it with their food, is just Marxist/Maoist/Leninist in nature.

Now, if you are already somewhat angered about this, try not to pull out your hair and bang your head on the computer desk you are sitting at when I tell you this. They replaced the girl's lunch with chicken nuggets. Chicken nuggets were deemed more healthy for the child than a turkey sandwich with a banana. I usually don't use curse words in my writing, but, what the hell? Does this make sense? Is this even logical? How about, is this right? The answer to all those questions, is an emphatic, "No!" I am reminded of a phone conversation between a Chinese-American man and a radio host. He spoke about this issue and said that in China they would inspect all the children's lunches too. Now, an "agent" of the DHHS who seized the children's lunches and inspected all of them is troubling. This sounds like a similar situation to the Chinese Communist agents searching/seizing little Chinese children's lunches. Sadly, America has sped up down this road because of the Obamas, especially Michelle Obama who has been pushing this type of health/food regulation through. Forget a simple road analogy, we are on the Autobahn and going 200mph down to a Utopian-centralized government that regulates even the lunches that parents make for their children. The "Lunch Nazis" of our Government have given their edict in the cafeterias to the children and their parents, "No lunch for you, when your mom makes it."

America's Slippery Slope: The Constitution (#2-February 14, 2012)

It seems in politics today that the Constitution is used to justify unconstitutional acts. One current example is the Patriot Act which violates the 4th Amendment that protects US citizens from unwarranted searches/seizures. Older examples in history are the Alien/Sedition Acts of 1917-these acts also shredded Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and of the press. Throughout history there seems to be two common reasons for unconstitutional acts; either fear or the social public need. I addressed fear with the above examples. Social need was used to establish the unconstitutional Welfare program. In fact, many Americans believe in a large State and more flexible Constitution to fit their political ideology. I am going to take you down a rabbit trail right now because I have to say this. Republicans seem to anger me more now-a-days. I debated one Republican sheep who said to me, “we need to fit the Constitution in our modern day,” which was in response to my claim that we have been waging unconstitutional wars. The Founding Fathers knew a little something about war and illegal invasions of sovereign countries. They just fought one and won it against King George III when framing the Constitution. James Madison once postulated, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”  Conservatives tend to want undeclared war and more government intrusion for the sake of security at the expense of our Constitutional rights. Liberals tend to want the government to entitle and regulate as many Americans at the expense of our Constitutional rights. 

Now, a third group and more dangerous group are the Progressives or Utopian Statists. This term is not commonly used by the media or those in government. Just think of it as the term abortionist used to describe those who espouse woman's rights to choose. Liberal Progressives, who believe in a fairyland Utopia as written about by Thomas More, Karl Marx, and Thomas Hobbes, are Utopians. Utopians desire an America without the old rigid Constitution and many Americans don't know better. We know throughout history Utopian experiments do not work and usually end in death. Just look at Mao’s China or Cambodia after the Vietnam War. Canada is another example. They attempted the Utopian experiment of Government controlled healthcare which lead to the Supreme Court deciding it “unconstitutional and inhumane” in the landmark case, Chaoulli v. Quebec in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General))

I believe in a society that resists Utopian-engineered government—government that is centralized and retains all power of both entitling the people and regulating every facet of the people's life. Furthermore, liberty must replace Utopian-centralized government. I say replace; because the Utopian style of government has been growing as a terrifying overreaching tree whose roots are firmly attached into the sinews of our society. It grows stronger everyday while the people become complacent and the youths of the next generation are sheep, fed with Utopian propaganda throughout their years of education. Fed is a more soft term; no, Americans are being brainwashed to believing that we simply need a government that "works" and not worry if it is too big. (President Obama's Inaugural Speech http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address) Liberty can only be protected and encouraged by a return to Constitutional Republic form of government. But there are those in Government who know about this crazy thing called Liberty and how it endangers their Utopian dream. They must actively undermine the Constitution till they render it completely irrelevant.

You see, when someone wants to do something that contradicts the law above them like the Constitution, they vaguely justify the behavior. How do they vaguely justify? Political rhetoric is used to etch in false reasoning and wording between the lines. Liberals say "separation of church and state" and this phrase is etched in between the lines of the Constitution. "Right to privacy" is more political rhetoric that was used to justify the unconstitutional deprivation of life to the unborn. Just try to follow this flawed logic. I’ll give a disturbing comparison. Woman should be able to kill human life in private but people shouldn't have all their private wealth and property. Liberals are not the only ones that use political rhetoric to justify unconstitutional doings. Republican conservatives have also done this, more on fear rationale and military intervention. They also have attempted to engineer society in their own way with Prohibition both with alcohol in the past and currently with drugs. They also seem to think the government has an authority not given to them by the Constitution in defining marriage. However, the Utopian-progressive motives are much more dangerous to our country with their push for a strong centralized government envisioned by Marx whom their savior-complex minds salivate over. What I am getting at, is that the Constitution is in danger of further being ignored and usurped—usurped by a powerful Oligarchical-centralized government with an all-powerful Premier.  

Why has the Constitution become another paper document gathering dust on the back shelf in the library of American history?  To many Statists, it needs to fit to their ideological purpose. To Utopian Statists, it is irrelevant and outdated needing to be burned over an open flame. It is too rigid and keeps the president from getting things done. A powerful Chairman is needed to direct the central government without opposition. The people can't have so much freedom and prosperity from that freedom. Supreme Court judge, Ginsberg, said to Egypt, don't use our Constitution but use Canada's or South Africa. This is an important time in American history. We desperately need a return to a Constitutional republic that protects and promotes liberty. When the Constitution is treated as another old paper document, our liberty will cease to be. As my favorite author, George Orwell, bluntly said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” We Americans have been told much nice, unrealistic, illogical rhetoric to convince us we need Utopia.  It is time we listen to what we don’t want to hear, the uncomfortable and politically incorrect truth. Our Constitution is still relevant and must be guarded. 

America's Slippery Slope: Security and Liberty (#1-12/26/2011)

A question sparks debates and increases understanding. That's a nice way of saying it though; as we humans tend to get mad and take it personal when someone questions our stance on an issue. An important issue that needs questioning is the fine line between security and our liberty during times of war. I will have different blog entries on a number of issues concerning security and our liberty. Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul has said, “There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom.” (Paul, Ron, "Is America a Police State?" speech delivered to the House of Representatives, June 27, 2002.) Benjamin Franklin once postulated on liberty and safety that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 [1963]). Congressman Dennis Kucinich previously stated, "America stands strongest in challenging terrorism when we do not give up an inch of our civil liberties" (Speech, Cleveland City Council (13 October 2003).

One area where our liberty and security has been dangerously blurred is the "battlefield" and who the "enemies" are in the so called, "War on Terror."  I want to pause here and explain that you can't declare war on a tactic. I believe that this phrase "War on Terror" is another incorrect term regurgitated by political pundits and honest patriotic Americans; similar to "Democracy" in place of Constitutional Republic. This term is not only false but also a blanket statement. When you declare "war" on a tactic then any place can be deemed the "battlefield" and any person can be deemed the "enemy" (terrorist). This is true recently in America with the NDAA Bill which makes America a "battlefield" and all Americans as "terrorist" suspects with the option of "indefinite detention" at the Government's disposal. The bill's section 1031 specifically and vaguely states if you "substantially supported" forces "associated" with al-Qaeda or the Taliban (but according to VP Biden, Taliban is not our enemy, right...) that "are engaged in hostilities" against the US or coalition forces then you can be indefinitely detained by the President. No terms are defined hear, sadly. For example, who are forces or groups "associated" with al-Qaeda? That can be any group the Government sees as "extreme" or a "threat." We have seen similar fear mongering and excessive Government control throughout US history. A few examples in history do come to mind such as the Japanese Americans who were put in detention camps during WW2. Lincoln suspended the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War to which the Supreme Court justice at the time, Taney, declared that executive order unconstitutional. How about the Sedition Act of 1918 or the Espionage Act of 1917 that placed our Bill of Rights over a candle stick to be decimated. Freedom of speech and of the press was infringed upon. Paul Johnson, a world renowned historian author, put it this way in reference to the Espionage and Sedition acts during a time of war:

Thus the war demonstrated both the impressive speed with which the modern state could expand itself and the inexhaustible appetite which it thereupon developed both for the destruction of its enemies and for the exercise of despotic power over its own citizens. (Johnson, Paul, Modern Times, pg. 17, [1991, revised 2001])

                                                   

 "The exercise of despotic power over its own citizens" is such a powerful and bold statement that holds true every decade of tumultuous times in America's history, especially now during this "War on Terror." We must believe that our own citizens whether bad or good should be protected by their Constitutional rights from "despotic power." A prime example is Anwar al-Awlaki who was an American citizen hiding in Yemen working with Al Qaeda. He was never charged with a crime and was targeted for assassination by POTUS. Now, I am not going to argue if he should have been assassinated. There could have been intelligence that proved he was an imminent threat at the time. But I wanted to bring this example up to question whether Constitutional rights are for all citizens and whether this is a slippery slope combined with the NDAA bill where American citizens can be targeted for assassination without due process. 

A fine, bold line should exist between security and our individual liberty. If not, then we become suspect terrorists and America becomes the battleground. Senator Lindsey Graham shockingly stated in support of the NDAA, “Is the homeland (i.e. America) the battlefield? You better believe it is the battlefield.” Fear and Big Government during times of war is a dangerous concoction that leads to the suspension of Civil Liberties guaranteed by the Constitution-the Constitution becoming just another piece of paper with old guidelines. We need to ponder and consider what John C. Calhoun said in response to Andrew Jackson's defense of a stronger central government (stronger Union), "The Union, next (emphasis added) to our Liberty, most dear." Our liberty is first when the Government makes decisions on security in times of war.