Radical Fascist Rosa De Lauro’s Total Control of Food: H.S. 875

From Wikipedia:

“United States Representative Rosa DeLauro (born March 2, 1943), American politician, has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 1991, representing Connecticut's 3rd congressional district. The district is based in New Haven, and includes most of that city's suburbs.”

DeLauro and the voters who reelect her are our enemy.

People with the will to centralize everything at the highest possible level are our enemy.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn. -3), chairwoman of the Agriculture – Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee is wants to register your tomato patch.

She said this:

“By creating the Food Safety Working Group, the President is demonstrating his commitment to taking the necessary steps toward reforming our food safety system. It is imperative that the Administration ensures that the working group is not merely a cosmetic bureaucratic endeavor. The working group must produce definitive recommendations that result in the modernization of our food safety regulatory structure and an integration of our food safety functions.”

The plan is to combine the USDA and FDC. The plan is to control food from start to finish. The plan is to make producers pay for their own monitoring. The plan is to sign up every food producer. The plan is paperwork. The plan is licensing. The plan is control. The plan is snooping. The plan is getting permission. The plan is somebody telling you what you can and can’t do. The plan is to control everything – that means you, sucker. So shut up while they ram Total-Control down your throat…for your own good to justify their miserable existences! Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority to snoop into our lives with a “food-safety system.”

The plan is actually to protect the big food producers from the small ones. That is always the way regulation gets done. The big producers know that they can absorb any new regulatory requirements, so they push for them (for the good of society, of course). The regulations then put the smaller and marginal producers out of business and make entry into the field tougher, just what the big producers wanted.

And that’s all there is to it. It never has a thing to do with the good of society. It is just a way for the big to get bigger.

The incompetent voter is always fooled. But we can’t stop trying to change this. There is a way to stop the giants from ruling the world. This blog entry is a tiny attempt. The ability to tell this sordid story is a marvelous and new ability.

Many people want to be free from government tyranny and some of those are willing to work for that goal.

You can read about it Rosa’s latest effort to enslave us with, HB 875 here, here, here and here.

And here is the post that proves that the left and the right are not always natural enemies. It’s government and especially the government/business system we have that threatens us at every moment. The Daily Kos had this to say about HB 875.

Here is a list of the legislation Rosa DeLauro has sponsored.

Of the $1,098,930 Rosa DeLauro spent on her last campaign, a great deal of the money came from outside of Connecticut. Her major donors can be found here.

The way she and others survive is by putting together coalitions of special interest businesses. In DeLauro’s case the money comes from:

Labor	$213,500	21.0 %
Agribusiness	$184,250	18.1 %
Health	$161,246	15.8 %
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$130,700	12.8 %
Finance/Insur/RealEst	$83,950	8.2 %

Rosa DeLauro is married to pollster Stan Greenburg, famous for his continuing argument that Democrats must actively work to present themselves as populists advocating the expansion of opportunity for the middle class. As the pollster for Clinton in 1992, Greenberg was a major figure in the famed campaign "war room" (and hence the documentary film of the same name). (italics added)

The above is from Wikipedia’s entry on Greenburg. Notice how it’s phrased, “present themselves as.” This is the strategy of making yourself appear that which you are not in order to get elected so that you can do what you planned to do all along afterward. This strategy was illuminated in Adam Curtis’s great documentary, The Century of Self. Greenburg uses the idea of treating voters like irrational consumers to sell them a “product." And this emphatically does not imply giving them what they want.

You can bet that Rosa DeLauro is careful not to speak publically about the full measure of her radical agenda. But the fact that her husband has Monsanto as a client is reported in Wikipedia here. Can you imagine anything more sleazy? Monsanto pays Rosa’s husband for her work in the U.S.House of Representatives that will enslave us all. Rosa DeLauro is a PfH if there ever was one.

Rosa DeLauro is a Politician from Hell and must be stopped! Outside the borders of South Carolina, she and her kind must be stopped completely, and their philosophy of total control by Biz/Gov buried forever!

The purpose of this blog post is simply to expose a Politician from Hell. It is not my intention to foment hatred for Rosa DeLauro personally. She is, no doubt, ideologically quite perverse, however, while she must be stopped from limiting the freedom of those of us who do not want her brand of “protection,” it is the system that allows ideas like H.R.875 to threaten us that must be jettisoned.

It is pitiful that the citizens of a place called New Haven and the 3rd district of a place called Connecticut, could want to be represented by Rosa DeLauro (and she was returned to the House for her 10th term by 76% of the vote) but if they want the kind of things she proposes than they should have them for themselves.

People who think as differently as the majority of South Carolinians do about these things should not have to be subjected to the continuous threats to their happiness that Rosa DeLauro poses to them.

The States of the united states should be free to run their own affairs. This is their legal right and it is a better idea than the one we have now under which the Rosa DeLauro’s of the world are continuously churning out grandiose schemes each more outrageous than the last. Huge numbers of jaws drop with incredulity when one of these schemes is trotted out and that doesn’t bother the Rosa DeLauro’s of the federal government. They will force a one-size-fits-all program on us all if we do not stop them.

So we must use harsh language. Rosa DeLauro is simply dead wrong for South Carolina and she must be stopped. But more important, the system that enables powerful financial interests to buy elections for Rosa DeLauro and others like her is the greater problem.

The power of the federal government must be curbed.

Senator Brad Hutto of Orangeburg Votes Against South Carolina!

During the Judiciary subcommittee meeting on 3/3/2009 the room was filled with supporters of the legislation.

Several spoke in behalf of s.424 and 4 of the 5 committee members seemed to approve. Chairman Larry Martin was most encouraging. He leaned forward from time to time, obviously encouraging the citizen speakers to feel comfortable as they presented their viewpoints.

One Senator, however, was decidedly uncongenial. Senator Brad Hutto of Orangeburg made his annoyance obvious. More than once he asked why anyone would think that this meaningless resolution could change anything.

“The question is short and sweet, what is the practical effect of this bill?” Hutto asked. "I completely support the Constitution. We have a system that determines the Constitution. That’s what the federal courts are for.”

Noting that a similar Sovereignty Resolution was passed in 1996 to no apparent effect, Senator Brad Hutto used colorful language to mock our naive sincerity, “Why, Senator Hutto asked, “do we want to waste a $.42 stamp sending a meaningless resolution to D.C?”

Discussion then ended with Senator Larry Bright’s answer, “Then we didn’t have 26 other states standing together.”

Again on 3/10/2009 Senator Hutto was the spoiler. Only he and Senator Laurie, of the 24 Senators present during the Judiciary session, spoke against the bill. Senator Hutto said the same things against the bill that he had said on the 3rd.

It went something like this: I believe in the 10th. The answer is, if you don’t like it, take it to court. Nobody is going to read this or change anything. If you don’t like it take it to court. The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court. Joe Wilson wrote a bill just like this one and he got to Washington before it did. Just a way to get Democrats. I’m going to write a Minority Report.

What Senator Hutto doesn’t know is that History has not ended.

You can let Senator Hutto, District 40, Orangeburg, know how you feel here.

Government Cheese

Rainmakers Song

Give a man a free house and he'll bust out the windows

Put his family on food stamps, now he's a big spender
no food on the table and the bills ain't paid
'Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A.
They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please
They're feeding our people that Government Cheese

Give a man free food and he'll figure out a way
To steal more than he can eat 'cause he doesn't have to pay
Give a woman free kids and you'll find them in the dirt
Learning how to carry on the family line of work
It's the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
Passing out drugs to the American people
I don't believe in anything, nothing is free
They're feeding our people the Government Cheese

Decline and fall, fall down baby
Decline and fall, said fall way down now
Decline and fall, fall down little mama
Decline and fall, decline and fall

Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
And he'll climb in the back even though nobody's driving
Too ******* lazy to crawl out of the wreck
And he'll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
Going to hell in a handbag, can't you see
I ain't gonna eat no Government Cheese

The Constitution was Deliberately Murdered

When State Senators such as Brad Hutto say that the Constitution can take care of itself, or that the Supreme Court will take care of it, they are saying that they don't care what the Constitution says. If it doesn't allow what they want to do than they just want it to go away. And people like him have made it go away.

Thomas Woods' new book, Who Killed the Constitution," points out the obvious, as he writes here, "United States government today is restrained not by the Constitution but simply by a sense of what it can get away with.

But ours is not the standard right-wing lament about the emasculation of the Constitution at the hands of liberal judges, though such judges receive in our pages none of the superstitious reverence Americans are taught to have for the judiciary. (Mencken once described a judge as merely a law student who graded his own examination papers.) To the contrary, we suggest that all three branches of the federal government, either separately or in collusion, have been responsible for turning the Constitution into just a museum piece, and that conservatives and liberals alike have much to answer for as well."

Here is another essay, this one by Kevin R. C. Gutzman:

"It is simple: the Constitution, as ratified, has no actual influence on them. It is just a totem toward which they bow, an arrow in the quiver of partisan argumentation, a trope for their use in crafting an intricate political argument. As an actual frame of government, in the hands of conservative pundits such as Mona Charen, the Constitution is dead. Conservatives’ favorite politicians and judges, as well as those of liberals, are among those who killed it. That is the verdict of Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush"

Below is a segment copied from Sarah Palin and SCOTUS posted by Bill Anderson at October 20, 2008 11:53 AM at the Lew Rockwell Blog.

The Constitution was not killed out of ignorance or because people truly misunderstood what it said. No, it was killed deliberately by people who did understand what it means. G. Rexford Tugwell, one of the main architects of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, wrote:

The Constitution was a negative document, meant mostly to protect citizens from their government.... Above all, men were to be free to do as they liked, and since the government was likely to intervene and because prosperity was to be found in the free management of their affairs, a constitution was needed to prevent such intervention.... The laws would maintain order, but would not touch the individual who behaved reasonably.

To the extent that these new social virtues developed [in the New Deal], they were tortured interpretations of a document intended to prevent them. The government did accept responsibility for individuals’ well-being, and it did interfere to make secure. But it really had to be admitted that it was done irregularly and according to doctrines the framers would have rejected. Organization for these purposes was very inefficient because they were not acknowledged intentions. Much of the lagging and reluctance was owed to constantly reiterated intention that what was being done was in pursuit of the aims embodied in the Constitution of 1787, when obviously it was done in contravention of them.

South Carolina Senate Moving on Sovereignty Bill

S424 received a vote up by the subcommittee on 3/3/2009

The room was filled with citizens representing themselves, as well as a number of individuals from The League of the South, The Palmetto Heritage Coalition and The Campaign for Liberty. Four citizens spoke before the subcommittee: Robert Slimp, Matt Kneece, Jim Hanks, and Steve Isom.

Matt Kneece spoke forcefully about the need to follow the will of the people. He pointed out that the federal government pursues wars that 70% of Americans oppose.

As Kneece rose to leave Hutto asked, ”Do you think we should have government by polls?

Matt Kneece answered, “No, but we should take them to count and elect new officials.”

Other speakers pointed out that this was a historic moment. One said that the federal government was trying to ram the “stimulus” package through to the groups in the states that they favored without allowing the Governors or Legislatures any say in how the money is to be spent, and that if states wished to retain any autonomy at all they had to stand up to this.

After the speakers finished Hutto said, “The question is short and sweet, what is the practical effect of this bill? I completely support the Constitution. We have a system that determines the Constitution. That’s what the federal courts are for.

Martin said: The stimulus package passed 4-2 (South Carolina U.S. congress members’ vote count). We can’t pick and choose which laws to follow. That would lead to anarchy. But we should pass it.

Rankin said that Joe Wilson used to make quite a few resolutions similar to this one. It became something of a joke.

Martin agreed, “You are right. We did it in 1996. It didn’t make a difference.”

Bright said: “Then we didn’t have 26 other states standing together.”

The vote was:

Larry Martin, 2, Pickens county: Up

Lee Bright, 12, Spartanburg county: Up

Tom Davis, 46, Beaufort county: Up

Luke Rankin, 33, Horry county: Up

Bradley Hutto, 40, Orangeburg, Allendale, Bamburg, Barnwell counties: Down

The members of the Judiciary Committee appear below. Contact them to support this bill.

Judiciary:

McConnell, Glenn F. , Chm. cosponsor
Martin, Larry A. cosponsor
Knotts, John M. "Jake" , Jr. cosponsor
Campsen, George E. "Chip" III cosponsor
Cleary, Raymond E. III cosponsor
Campbell, Paul G. , Jr. cosponsor
Bright, Lee cosponsor
Coleman, Creighton B. cosponsor
Davis, Thomas C. "Tom" cosponsor
Martin, Shane R. cosponsor
Mulvaney, J. Michael "Mick" cosponsor
Rose, Michael T. cosponsor
Shoopman, Phillip W. cosponsor

Ford, Robert
Rankin, Luke A.
Hutto, C. Bradley
Malloy, Gerald
Sheheen, Vincent A.
Lourie, Joel
Williams, Kent M.
Massey, A. Shane
Nicholson, Floyd
Scott, John L. , Jr.

Oklahoma Passes Sovereignty Resolution 1003

The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 1003 on Feb. 18, 2009 by 83 to 13. The sponsor of the resolution, state Rep. Charles Key, said that he considers it to be a “'big step toward addressing the biggest problem we have in this country – the federal government violating the supreme law of the land."

Charles Key

This was the work of a very small number of individuals who represent another relatively small group: just the citizens of Oklahoma. Who are they to demand any special dispensation by that other small group of people whom they were reacting against: the Congress of the United States?

The U.S. Congress has 535 members (435 Representatives and 100 Senators), while the Oklahoma Legislature has 149 members (101 Representatives and 48 Senators)

Oklahoma has about 3.6 M inhabitants. That’s 36,000/Representative and 75,000/Senator.

The United States, with a population of 301 M, has 600,000/Representative and as many as 37 M/Senator (California).

By what principle can the 535 legislators in Washington be said to represent the people of Oklahoma better than their own 148 legislators? How does one U.S. Legislator represent 600,000 or more people in any meaningful sense without acting contrary to the desires of many thousands of them? The only possible way to consider that these representatives are representing anything worthwhile, is to consider that they are representing the “best interests” of the people. And who says that this is so? How can they know anything more than what they, their friends and family (and a few wealthy interests who can finance their huge reelection campaigns) believe and want? How can minority views be represented at all?

That a system this remote from people could be good for them is a silly and harmful belief. The Constitution of the U.S. did not create it. Ignoring the Constitution did.

This is not only not the best we can do, it is probably much closer to the worst.

Surely each legislator in Oklahoma, representing far fewer people and paid much less and living much nearer to those he represents is truly representing his people. Washington is not.

Oklahoma, and Charles Key have fired a shot that is being heard around the world. Read about this historic event at WorldNetDaily

To thank Charles Key and the other members of the Oklahoma Legislature click here.

South Carolina House of Representatives Passes Sovereignty Bill H.3509

It didn't take long for the South Carolina House of Representatives to pass the Sovereignty bill. Introduced on February 12 2009, bill S. 424 passed the118th Session of the South Carolina General Assembly on February 27, 2009 by unanimous acclamation. A map of South Carolina showing the brave House sponsors of this historic bill can be seen at

South Carolina Lobby Man