Foodcare Reform

I’ve made the argument that it makes as much sense for the government to take over the food supply as it does Healthcare. Alas, we all knew that they’d eventually get to that too– and it looks like they are beginning to get to it with HR 2749, the ‘Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009′.

Our friends (and I use the word loosely) Waxman and Dingle have come up with legislation that typifies the sort of overreach and ominous tyranny indicative of all the legislation they are coming up with in congress now that they are the only party in power.

The one thing we know about the era of Obama is that every aspect of our lives will ultimately be under the tight control of the government whether we want it or not– and it’s all for our own good!

But don’t take my word for it. Natural News declares that this bill requires immediate opposition, a blogger at foodfreedom describes it as, “Totalitarian Control of the Food Supply,” a DailyKos diary calls it fascist (truly it doesn’t take much to be called fascist at DailyKos but I thought I’d throw it in there), and Stop socialism now says, “Fed Takeover Of All Food Production Almost Done!”

Some of the disconcerting and dire provisions within the bill include:

- HR 2749 will require the mandatory imposition of annual registration fees in the amount of $500 upon any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. Even though “farms” are exempt, the bill’s definition of “farm” is so scarcely defined that folks selling cheeses, breads, and other products from their farms or at the farmers market would be required to pay this fee, potentially driving many small producers and start-ups out of business, especially during tough times.

- HR 2749 will give FDA the power to directly regulate the methods by which crops are raised and harvested, essentially handing complete and total control of every farming operation to the federal government.

- HR 2749 will give FDA the power to halt the movement of all food in a particular geographic area in the event of a food contamination scare or outbreak. The provision directly includes “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area”, effectively shutting down any and all local food sources, farmers markets, or cooperatives within that area, even if their products have no connection to the actual contamination source.

- HR 2749 will give limitless power to FDA to conduct random searches of the business records of small farmers and local food providers without a warrant or even the slightest hint of evidence that there has been any sort of violation. It essentially allows clear passage by the federal government into the private records of its choice with no requirement of probable cause or legitimate reason for doing so.

- HR 2749 will appoint the Secretary of Health and Human Services as the taskmaster in establishing a food tracing system that will require an extensive, convoluted system of tracking each item and ingredient from origin to distribution. Because the bill fails to outline the logistical procedures for how this complex task will be accomplished and how it will be paid for, it once again hands an unprecedented amount of power over to the federal government to control and tax as it sees fit in order to accomplish whatever arbitrary requirements it wishes to inflict upon our farmers and food producers.

- HR 2749 imposes grievous criminal and civil penalties, including fines of up to $100,000 for each violation, per individual, and up to 10 years in prison~naturalnews.com

Who’s worried about the patriot act now? We are rapidly approaching the point where literally nothing will be exempt from the power of the government to directly control, dictate, punish, and intervene without warrant or respect to constitutional rights. It will be an administrative matter.

Reducing undesirables

Is abortion really about reducing undesirable populations? A Supreme Court liberal recently slipped up and highlighted this fact, that historically, abortion has been an important part of the Eugenics movement.

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. ~nytimes.com

Ginsburg redeems herself somewhat by going on to say that she realized she was wrong. But the fact remains that proponents of abortion today are advocating a form of birth control and not merely a medical procedure like an appendectomy. Abortion has it’s roots in the grisly and now disgraced Eugenics movement. The founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a huge proponent of eugenics.

Eugenics:

In the US eugenics successfully influenced three other policy areas: marriage regulation, sterilization of the unfit, and immigration restriction. By 1914 thirty states passed laws preventing marriage of the mentally handicapped and the insane, together with laws restricting marriage between people suffering a venereal disease, or between those from various categories of ‘feebleminded’. The first state sterilization law was passed in Indiana in 1907, and by 1917 fifteen other states had followed suit. Sterilization was legal for habitual criminals plus various categories of the insane, mentally handicapped, and epileptic. Eugenics in the US also provided ideological justifications for immigration restriction and the development of IQ testing. ~answers.com

Then there’s John Holden who brings back credibility to science for Obama.

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

  • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
  • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
  • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
  • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
  • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

A new leftist era?

Obama and Chavez brother handshake

Obama and Chavez warm handshake

It certainly looks like Obama is handing over Central America to commie dictators. But then what do I know? On the other hand, Tom Hayden seems convinced. He seems to believe that Obama is in league with the commies in our southern hemisphere. At the very least he believes Obama is highly sympathetic to the cause of global communism. But maybe he just sees what he urgently hopes for.

Apparently, Obama and Chavez have had lengthy (friendly) talks.

According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano.

What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present.  ~tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

Couple this with the fact that Obama has erroneously backed a leftist ally of Chavez who attempted to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and what you have is an apparent preference for 21st century socialism.

The idea that the left here in this country defends Obama and the would-be dictator Zelaya should be a caution. Is this something the left would approve of here in the US? The left views our own consitution as a, ‘flexible,’ ‘living document,’ that can be reinterpreted as they see fit for every ‘new era.’

Meanwhile Obama (and his news media) is silent about Chavez’s threats to invade Honduras to install Zelaya as a puppet of the new socialism. In fact, Chavez even printed the illegal ballots for Zelaya’s overthrow of the Honduras constitution.

What I think this reveals is that Obama is a stealth candidate whose purpose must remain mainly concealed from the general public because his true leftist policies would be completely rejected by a majority of Americans.

Thus Obama has to rely on doublespeak and alternating liberal and conservative messages about his policies. He says one thing while doing another. He claims to be for fiscal responsibility but then increases the deficit by a trillion dollars. He claims a, “fierce moral urgency,” in ending indefinite detention but then continues the policy. He claims not to be hostile to capitalism but then begins nationalizing the auto industry and begins the nationalization of the heath care industry.

Chavez, Zelaya, Castro, and Obama, captains of a new era.

Dissent is now terrorism

Behold the shifting sands of democrat definition. Dissent from current (The) One Party Rule is now unpatriotic traitorous terrorism. I thought dissent was the essence of patriotism? What happened?

“It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Waxman Report.” ~politico.com

It gets better:

“They [Republicans] want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They’re rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming.” ~realclearpolitics.com

Waxman isn’t the only one either. There is a sense that Democrats have forgot that they once felt that lying about and smearing your opposition was the embodiment of patriotism itself.

Far left writer Paul Krugman says opposing liberal policies is betrayal of the planet.

…but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet. ~nytimes.com

Video of Pelosi saying Republicans are unpatriotic.

More video of Pelosi saying that Enforcing American immigration law is un-American and illegal immigrants are, “very, very patriotic.”

The coup that wasn’t

Why can’t Obama get his facts straight about the removal of Honduras President Zelaya? Is it because Zelaya is closely aligned with socialist dictator Hugo Chavez?

Obama and democrats: imagine that as Bush approached the end of his second term he ordered an ‘opinion poll’ authorizing a convention to write a new constitution so he could serve a third term and then a fourth. Would removing him from office at that point properly be called a ‘coup’?

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.” ~csmonitor.com

The congress of Honduras along with the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office after his illegal actions attempting to prolong his term of office. This is the definition of the rule of law not a coup. So why can’t Obama get his facts straight?

“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered [?] the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term. ~reuters.com

Does Obama ally himself with leftist dictators because he longs to be one? It would make things easier for him in transforming America.

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. ~csmonitor.com

So why is Obama intent on reinstalling Zelaya who basically threatened to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and who no doubt would like to transform Honduras into a copy of Venezuela? Are they all just brothers-in-arms? Comrades in the struggle? Co-workers of light?

Destroying America

Literally. The Obama administration wants to bulldoze entire swaths of American cities in order to re-engineer them. The next logical step is forced re-locations.

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic “shrink to survive” proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline. ~telegraph.co.uk

Even I would not have dared suggest that Obama would already be moving forward with the physical destruction of America so soon.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential [liberal] Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes. ~telegraph.co.uk

I think that this is just a taste of the future in a progressive America. A shrinking America. Bulldozed and socially engineered according to what the best and brightest minds have deemed proper. Cram everyone into urban centers where they are more easily controlled and regulated. When leftists complain and bemoan about ‘Urban sprawl’ what they really mean is that people have too much freedom of movement and choice. They fail to make the right choices, i.e. the ones the left wants, and when people make the wrong choices (according to them) then government has to step in and correct yet another ‘market failure’.

Limiting growth is not just a side effect of an economic downturn it is in fact the goal for the left. Much of the popular liberal ideology focuses on downsizing America as a public good. Limited growth is the ultimate end goal of the left.

He said: “The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there’s an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.” ~telegraph.co.uk

The left has plans for where and how you should live, what you will eat and how much you will have to exercise. Once the government is paying for your health care your exercise and eating habits will no longer be a matter of personal choice, it will be a matter of national economics. Once the government begins paying for your life it will own you and then the government will be deciding your life for you.

Warning to mullahs…

Iranian protestors hold up sign warning mullahs, “Do not forget what happened to Saddam Hussein!”

From Gateway Pundit

Govt spending

Obama and friends are losing the issue:

…most voters (53%) believe increases in government spending hurt the U.S. economy. In fact, 51% favor an across-the-board tax cut for all Americans as an economic stimulus.

With signs that the economy is starting to come back and reports that only $36 billion of the $787-billion economic stimulus plan had been spent by the end of May, 45% of Americans think the rest of the new government spending authorized in the stimulus plan should now be canceled~rasmussenreports.com