Is It Okay to Kill in the Name of Public Safety?

During the French Revolution, the King’s (King Louis XVI, dethroned – called Citizen Capet) fate was determined by Maximilien de Robespierre. Robespierre said that “Citizen Capet was a ‘criminal toward humanity’ and killing him merely ‘a measure of public safety’.”(Coulter, 2011) This was just one instance, of many, in the span of world history where the fate of one has been decided to protect the fate of many.

“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.” – Albert Camus

The ‘War on Terror’ will never end. You cannot extricate evil from humans. Humans’ will is subject to the whims and discretion of individual’s choices. You cannot control all of humanity – nor can you protect it. This is a question much greater than us – and I think that we should at least start having a conversation about recognizing that, so that we can attempt to protect the individual liberties and natural rights of Coloradans, and all of those people living in the respective States of this country.

There are bad people all over the planet – and some of them do want to do harm to American people. You will not stop them by killing innocent people who live in those countries – with that approach, you create more enemies. The recent study by Stanford and New York University, outlining the amount of innocent civilian’s deaths in Pakistan, should bring us to have a discussion about the executive powers of a President and the potential impact of wars not declared by Congress. Congress is who we can hold accountable for such atrocities, but they are not technically responsible since the ‘War on Terror’ was not officially declared by them. Also, by having a war on a subject, it will allow the powers to be to perpetuate that war for an infinite amount of time.

Wars on subjects, just like hatred towards factions of people – is a dangerous road that has serious consequences for the life, liberty, and property of citizens. The world is imperfect, and I do think there are bad people roaming around that we should defend ourselves against – but there is a fine line there that we should not cross when it comes to protecting the American people’s civil liberties – including their life and property. Indefinite detainment is real (suspension of habeas corpus is “okay” with provisions in Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)) – and just as we should have constitutional declaration of wars – we should have people in Congress that mean what they swear when then hold their hand over the Constitution. Remember – policy is interpreted by those with the opportunity to use force – could you be a threat to public safety?

In my lifetime, I want to make sure that we, as a country, never turn into a mob that decries that it is okay to kill people “in the name of public safety”. Remember – our actions overseas can soon reflect on our actions towards our own citizens. We are being terrorized into thinking that killing innocent people is okay if we are protecting public safety, and we have to understand that those human beings who have lost loved ones are full of pain and remorse from their losses – which we would have too if someone was flying drones over us day and night (oh wait, we do already have that, they just haven’t been outfitted with ammunition, yet).

There is a place for war – but there is also a place for peace. To truly protect our country, I think we should have a discussion of a more efficient means of implementing a smart and strong foreign policy that truly protects the borders and economy of this country.

If you think my concern is controversial or conspiracy-based – just ask our young men and women returning from overseas, and they will most likely have a story that backs this up.

 

Resources:

Coulter, A. (2011). Demonic. Crown Forum. p.112

Greenwald, G. (September 25, 2012). New Stanford/NYU study documents the civilian terror from Obama’s drones. Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths?newsfeed=true

 

To read the whole report: Stanford Law School/ New York University School of Law. (September 2012). Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan

 

We Need To Get Kids Fat

Now that I have your attention, let me start with this:

Good, quality, natural fats are absolutely essential to the growth, development, and preservation of the human body and the human brain. And we, as a community, need to embrace local, natural diets that support getting essential and natural fats into the bodies and brains of the generation upcoming (as well as ourselves).

And, one should not consume only fat (personal responsibility always embraces moderation) – it is pertinent to have a diet with high-quality proteins and carbohydrates as well. But I do think that many people, especially kids, are devoid of foods that are dense in nutrients, proteins, and high-quality fats – and that is a cause for disease, and for the problems we see with behavioral issues and depression.

There are: Saturated Fats, Monounsaturated Fats, and Polyunsaturated Fats. All of these are natural, and produced (found) in nature. Saturated fats have long been demonized as the culprit of disease, but this is not the case (quality butter is actually good for you, margarine is not; quality eggs are also very good for you in moderation).

Trans-fats are one of the worst culprits in today’s society, and although many labels claim to have “Zero grams trans fats”, they are actually lying – if there is .5 grams or less, then the label can say zero. The problem is that “.5” is not zero. And these man-made fats are detrimental to the human body – they increase the bad cholesterol in our bodies while also lowering the good cholesterol. Trans-fats are the type fats that should be chastised – many other fats are very, very good for you (for digestion, your organs, your skin, your nervous system, and more).

Thanks to the federal government, we have the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has come up with a guideline of what we should eat. Now, this guideline could be influenced by political lobbying and studies conducted and made possible by the special interest groups that benefit from such – so we should think for ourselves a bit too, and do research and reading on our own about our health. We can take control of what we eat – and we can work on knowing the people who produce our food (whether they are local or not).

Many parents are having issues feeding their kids the high-quality foods that they would like to, and many lunch-lines in public schools are serving products that are devoid of nutrients. The little experience I have with trying to get local foods to market, shows the even eliminating bureaucracy in the school systems (including having to follow federal guidelines for kids’ lunches) would help get kids better food (e.g. if local farmers are willing to sell products to their local schools, then why can’t we make this happen faster?). It will take time, but we need to work on getting our kids higher-quality food – including high-quality fats that are going to help their bodies and brains develop in a healthy way.

I am working my way through a book called “Nourishing Traditions” by Sally Fallon – and it has a great outline of the components of our food, including high-quality fats, proteins, and carbohydrates (produce, legumes and grains). There are studies, antidotes, and recipes, and a great way to start learning about the “politically incorrect” diet. There are more books too that I will continue to reference – look online, go to a bookstore, and start to take back your power as a consumer by changing what you eat.

 

 

Arsenic in Our Food – Blaming & Changing

Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance, and in the environment, and even naturally occurring in some foods (for instance, in apricot kernels – which are also very high in Vitamin B). But there is evidence of an increasing amount of arsenic in rice, and the occurrence is not natural. As a matter of fact, it may be contributing to various sicknesses – including cancer.

The federal government and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have (in the past) been charged with protecting the American people and their health (along with other agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)). Unbelievably, “they” monitor (attempt to monitor) the levels of arsenic in water – but not in food. This is a minor oversight, but serves as an example, that no large, bureaucratic agency is capable of adapting to the needs of over 307 million Americans.

State and local governments are more apt and able to be in tune to the needs of the people – including keeping an eye on levels of arsenic in the water and the land that we grow our food in. In addition to this – to mimic what Dr. Oz said this morning – consumers can “nudge” companies to change their practices and make sure that we hold companies accountable to us – the consumer. After all, we are buying their product and contributing to their bottom line. That creates instant solutions – by people voting with their dollar and holding companies accountable for the toxins they put into the environment and the food that they produce. That is quick, smart, and a natural way to change this bad situation. It is, in essence, letting the free market work. We, as consumers, hold immense amounts of power. Because, we at any time, can stop buying their products.

This news about arsenic levels is not surprising – the United States’ centralized food supply is dangerous to our economy, our health, and the environment. News like this can encourage us to know our farmers, know our producers, and hold companies accountable for what they are doing. It can also show us that the centralized bureaucracy at the federal level of government does nothing to protect us – our State and local governments are better able to serve our needs when it comes to our health and wellness.

 

 

Food Freedom – We Can Decide What Is Best for Us

A good fight, or a good challenge, is what keeps us achieving our best. As individuals, as a team, as a family, a community, even a country. So our Food Fight is one to be recognized and embraced by people who respect that each of us should have the opportunity and ability to decide for ourselves what we want to eat, what we want to use as medicine, and what we put both in and on our bodies. Consumer choice is the basis for free-market capitalism.  If you let people decide what they want to buy, then this leads to innovation, lower prices, and ultimately competition – which again, is a very good thing.

 

I have been drinking raw milk on and off for several years now – it is so good for me – I notice immediate benefits in how I feel, my complexion, and the health of my teeth (see disclaimer on cover page). I am actually lactose-intolerant, but can drink milk that has not been pasteurized (from a source that I trust) because of the enzymes (enzymes are destroyed when milk (or anything for that matter) is pasteurized). I do not want any governmental entity telling me that I cannot decide for myself if I can drink raw milk. I want to be able to make that choice and vet my farmer – I do not need a health department or any federal agency doing that for me – guidelines are fine, but at the end of the day, I do deserve to make the ultimate decision.

 

I also believe that genetically-modified organisms are a rather recent and untested phenomena in the span of human existence, and that people should have a choice whether or not they consume products that contain such entities. Consumers can hold farmers and ranchers accountable for what they are doing with their land and crops – consumers do this through voting with their dollar – and supporting farmers and ranchers that are engaging in practices that they like and trust.

 

Alternative and naturopathic medicines are another category where the food fight is alive and well – people should always have the opportunity to choose for themselves what medicines they use to treat sickness and disease – no government entity should stop people from choosing what goes in or on their body. We are individuals, and we all have a responsibility to protect and feed our body and mind. Oftentimes, in an effort to “help others” or “protect others”, people use the law (force) to try to make people make decisions that are better for them. These laws can eventually be interpreted to stop people from engaging in freedom of choice. I see that with raw milk, with organic and natural foods, and with alternative medicines (e.g. herbal supplements).

 

Our food freedom is everything – it allows us to embrace agriculture (the basis for all human development), our roots, our being – and choose how we want to take care of the body and mind that we enjoy life with. It is a very good fight, and one… that’s natural!

 

Tisha Casida is running for Congress as a former Independent in Colorado’s District 3. She is an advocate of food freedom, knowing your farmer, and supporting our local economy here in Colorado. 

CREATIVE DESIGN FROM BROOKLYN

Big or small, we’ve got a solution when you need it. Our advanced service and support tools provide step-by-stepinstructions without being put on hold or waiting in line.