Sunday, January 2, 2011

More Thoughts On The Food Police

Look at that video that I posted on Friday with Elmo.  Notice the title?  "Elmo Doesn't Fear Obama's School Lunch".   Odd, isn't it?  Perhaps they're telling us more than they realize - the proverbial "Freudian slip", as it were.

First, there's "Elmo doesn't fear".  Doesn't it seem like they're trying to quell our instinctive revulsion to interference from On High?  This is quite characteristic of any entity that is trying to exert undue force or coercion on another - disarm their natural protective instincts by subtly making the victim feel silly for having reactions of fear - fear that has very real basis.  It's a brainwashing, thought-reform technique.

Then there's "Obama's school lunch".  Where to begin with that one?  Let's just start anywhere.
  • We have here the bald-faced admission that this attempt at control originated with the Messiah Most Miserable himself.  This is his program, and you Great Unwashed better fall in line - right now!  Will the lunch trays now bear that "O" symbol on them?
  • Obama claims to be the President of the United States.  As far as I'm concerned, there is the teensy matter of his birth status that has yet to be resolved, but that's fodder for another post.  At any rate, if he is indeed president, then the US Constitution clearly spells out the duties that are within his purview.  I've read the Constitution.  I've looked up and down, right and left, front and back, and I can see no mention whatsoever of any authority of the President to determine the diets of anyone in the United States.  But the video clearly states "Obama's school lunch".  The White House produced this thing - courtesy of your tax dollars, hard at work!
Whether or not we fear Obama's lunch or not, why must our school children eat it?  What is to be feared and yes, hated and resisted, is this shameless attempt of Big Brother, Nanny-State, Nazi-wannabee Government to bust its big bazoo into our personal lives and take dominion over us.  This crap about being concerned "for the children" is a flimsy, shallow excuse through which most school children can see, "Elmo's" little schtick not withstanding.


  1. So, the President and First Lady can't encourage good eating habits in a population rife with obesity because you're stupid enough to be a birther?

    And what does this have to do with Catholicism?

  2. Thomas, I debated whether or not I should publish this comment. I do ask for respectfulness, and your calling me stupid does step over that line. I decided to allow it through, however, to demonstrate to other readers the intellectual vacuity of the progressive mentality.

    I’m not sure if this is merely a case of you not reading the post carefully, or an attempt to obfuscate the points I made by grabbing bits and pieces and jumbling them together in a way not indicated by the original context. Frankly I suspect the latter.

    As I said, the United States Constitution does not give the President authority to determine the diets of any citizens. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem of eating habits in this country. I’m saying that matter is outside the purview of the Federal Government to broach. Actually, I don’t say it, the Constitution does; I’m merely reiterating it. Now in all fairness to Obama, he did not invent the overreaching of the Federal government; there’s been plenty of precedent for that – from both parties, I might add. However, he’s taking it further by leaps and bounds.

    That same United States Constitution also states quite plainly that the President must be a natural-born citizen in order to be eligible for that office. That is a legitimate concern of a great many people. Your snide comment about “birther” indicates to me that you don’t respect the United States Constitution enough to consider that, and you will stoop to belittling those who do. Shame on you, Thomas!

    As for the last question, you’ve asked me that before, and I’m not going to rehash the whole business. If you don’t like it, well, that’s just tough tiddly-winks. What you see on my blog is what you see, like it or lump it.

    Your entire tone towards me seems to be one of resentment for daring to broach questions that you’d rather not see aired. I could be wrong, but I cannot fathom any other reason for your rancor and condescension. Be advised that I do reserve the right to disallow comments, so I’d suggest you learn to talk like a big boy who knows his manners.

  3. Hey, I think it would be more to the point of good health if the government took control of the school bathroom habits. They can install cameras in the restrooms to make sure kids wash their hands and wash them properly. They can play happy birthday and give detention to any kids who stops scrubbing before the end of the song. Oh, and if they don't use soap, double detention.

  4. Great idea, Mary Ann! The cameras would also help curtail the .. uh.. "other activities" that often occur in those restrooms, too!

  5. 1. The idea that the President was not born in the US is as absurd as the idea that the sun revolves around the earth, that medicine is best practiced according to the ancient theory of humorism, or that the moon landing was faked. To advance it without irony is to announce a departure from one's own critical thinking, and invite much-deserved derision. I'm not the only one who feels this strongly on this issue; long-haired hippie socialist Ken Buck agrees with me. As you are fond of saying, the truth hurts.
    2. The Preamble to the Constitution states "We the people of the United States, in order to establish a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It is under this mandate that public health initiatives, such as the NIH, the CDC, the Department of Agriculture's Food Pyramid, and the program you're freaking out about derive their constitutionality.

  6. Thomas,
    1) You state that my opinion is "absurd", but you haven't proved it. All you've done is repeat your assertions. All we're asking is proof of citizenship.
    2) Read the entire Constitution. You might want to pay particular attention to the 10th Amendment (or maybe you'd rather not?).

  7. 1. I don't have to prove that the paranoid and insane notion you call an opinion is absurd. Many, many, many other people have already done so. Thank Al Gore for introducing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (which he inarticulately referred to as "inventing the Internet"), spend about 10 minutes on "the Google" and exercise the sense that you say God gave you and you'll see better arguments than those than even a nigh-peerless intellect such as mine I could devise. If you remain unconvinced, I see no point in engaging in the sisyphean task of trying to change your mind. I think I'd sooner argue heliocentrism to Urban VIII. I will instead spend my time pitying you, and probably quietly giggling at your foolishness. However, I will sincerely make every effort to refrain from troubling you on your blog for a good long while. Consider this comment (which you will not offend me by deleting) my last attempt to lead the proverbial horse to water. Whether you choose to drink a draught of common sense is up to you.
    2. Article II; Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, ...[to] nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ... other public Ministers and Consuls, ... and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper...".
    Most public health issues fall under the purview of the Departments of Agriculture (food pyramid), HHS (obesity epidemic), or Education (school lunches), which derive their authority from the executive branch as quoted above. This power is given to the federal government, so the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. Nice try, though.

  8. Thomas, you're like other progressives who comment here. You get yourself worked up in such a self-righteous blather that your rants are quite humorous! 8-D
    1) I'm so glad that you don't believe you have to prove my opinion absurd. Truth is, you can't.
    2) The "ministers and consuls" can only exercise authority already established in the Constitution. They don't arrogate authority to themselves by fiat. Your confusion about this matter is very understandible, since it has existed at least as far back as FDR.
    "Quietly giggling at my foolishness"? Whatever! Enjoy!

  9. Thomss, I don't if our president is a natural born citizen or not, I would not call myself a "birther," but I am unclear on how this topic relates to "food police." But, as long as you brught it up, I do have some questions; these things make no sense to me. Why was Obama not vetted like other candidates? Why has he spend 2 MILLION dollars in hiding his records? What is he covering up? Do we as citizens of the United States of America have the right to know? I am very puzzled by these things.

  10. Actually, Nancy, I broached the topic of Obama's birth in a side comment. One of the purposes of that was to illustrate the general disregard for the US Constitution. At any rate, you do raise very good questions that deserve answers, Thomas's dismissive attitude notwithstanding.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.