Sedgwick, Maine is first town to declare total food sovereignty, opposing state and federal laws

This is the right attitude toward gaining back our basic rights, whether it’s food rights (the right to buy and sell meat, eggs and produce with neighbors) or building codes. So even though the article may seem off-topic, it’s really not.

“(NaturalNews) There is a food revolution taking hold all over America, whether it is in the form of demanding labeling of GM foods, the right to produce and sell raw milk and other commodities, or – in the case of Sedgwick, Maine – declaring all local food transactions of any kind free and legal.

According to the website FoodRenegade.com, Sedgwick is the first city in the U.S. to free itself from the constraints of federal and state food regulation. Published reports say the town has passed an ordinance that gives its citizens the right “to produce, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,” regulations be damned. The ordinance includes raw milk, meats that are slaughtered locally, all produce and just about anything else you might imagine.

And what’s more, three additional towns in Maine are expected to take up similar ordinances soon, said the FoodRenegade.com.”

Read the complete article for free at Natural News (excellent source of information on healthy food)


Comments

Sedgwick, Maine is first town to declare total food sovereignty — 44 Comments

  1. You should know that Sedgwick, my home town passed this in 2011 and since then eight other towns in five counties have passed it as well, the latest being Brooksville. I personally brought the ordinance through the town of Trenton where I lived at the time. The towns are Sedgwick, Penobscot, Blue Hill, Trenton,Livermore, Appleton, Plymouth, Hope and Brooksville.

      • No, none as yet though there has been a challenge at the state level to the Ordinance to a farmer in Blue Hill, Dan Brown which is coming up for a hearing shortly. We believe Home Rule in our state gives us the power to make such ordinances which says essentially municipalities can make laws local in character as law as they are not specifically spelled out in State or US Constitution. Obviously food choices are not spelled out in the US Constitution. The tenth amendment supports that as well. At the State level the Ordinance is presumed to be valid according to Home Rule as long as it does not frustrate state law. The State is trying to say it does however when looking at why the Dept of Ag was created it clearly does not. THe problem is that some of the State laws do not adhere to the principle of supporting and being responsible for seeing that the small family farm prospers.

        • Thanks for the update. We know the Dept. of Ag. is broken when it becomes a revolving door for former Monsatan executives. More power to you and your efforts.

        • The Fed’s authority to regulate items such as this is granted in the Constitution under the “Commerce Clause.”
          Article 1, Section 8

          I’m not saying that I agree with the Feds that it is correct policy to regulate dairy production in the manner it has been done. I do not.

          What I am saying is that the Constitution clearly gives the Feds the right to regulate it, and the Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly upheld that Federal authority.

          The only reason the Feds have not challenged the Sedgwick law yet is probably because no huge corporate Dairy interests feel threatened by it yet. The moment they feel that the Sedgwick law and others like it threaten their corporate profits, they will challenge the law and have it struck down in court.

          I may not like it, but that’s the simple facts.

          Eventually the corporations will force the Feds to challenge the local laws, and the local citizens will lose, and they’ll lose a crapload of money paying attorneys trying to defend the law in court.

          You’d be far better off investing your money in a personal Goat that you can milk yourself.

          Less Expensive.
          Less Stress.
          More Fun.
          Better Milk.

          • I thought the Commerce Clause only pertained to products sold across state lines.

            A big 10+ for goats and goat milk. Except for their rambunctious personality (especially the bucks) they make excellent pets. The feed can get pricey though. Best to have some grazing land without too many weeds. Weeds can make the milk taste unpleasant. Another drawback is goats tie you down. Someone has to be there every day to take care of them.

  2. “Pointing fingers saying “the other side does it too,” does not justify the lies and betrayal of the vast majority of legislators that are supposed to represent farmers”.

    I don’t believe I said that or even inferred it. Your the one that took the partisan stance and was blaming just Republicans. I was just pointing out that one side is not any better then the other. I sure as heck was not condoning the behavior.

    I don’t think it’s a false equivalence. I honestly believe that the left /right dynamic is mostly theater. Both sides work for their best interests, not the nation’s. I agree they use issues that divide us and keep us from seeing their true agenda.
    You obviously have partisan leanings and I have no problem with that. But I can guarantee you that every rural district in the country could be represented by Democrats or Libertarians and not much would change. California is an example that cannot be discounted. If the left was so willing to change the corporate agribusiness strangle hold, they would be doing it in California. Instead they promote it and protect it. California agribusiness is the largest in the US and dwarfs many countries.
    The simple fact is that politicians are bought and paid for by big monied interests. Their political leaning are influenced for dollars.
    Even new politicians, freshly elected become indoctrinated after a few years. The only way I see it ever changing is term limits and getting corporate money out of the political game. Lol on that every happening.

    • Milton,

      I respect your right to voice your opinion.

      I do not respect misinformation about WHAT I HAVE SAID.

      Milton, you most certainly did expicitly make the initial claims in this comment thread trying to assign partisan blame for the situation.

      The comment you made is still here under this blog post proving that fact. I quote the key portion of what you said following:

      Milton says:
      April 3, 2013 at 6:51 AM
      Here is what will happen. We are already seeing it. Democratic legislators are already starting to push laws that will punish law enforcement officers that refuse to enforce federal gun control laws.

      I’m glad to see with this most recent post you have adopted my position where I responded to your initial partisan claims as I pointed out the flaws in your statements.

      Now… it’s time to move beyond pointing fingers, and start talking about solutions.

      Perhaps one of those solutions is to wean Americans off of our current dependence on Cow’s milk.

      Perhaps as many of us as possible should consider personally owning a goat or three. Goats’ milk has excellent nutrition, and makes excellent cheese.

      The beauty of owning a goat lies in the fact that goats produce a quantity of milk that is more in line with the dairy consumption of a typical family. Goats can much more easily be held in pens on small lots, and will eat a variety of foods including kitchen scraps and produce from our gardens that may be past its prime for human consumption. It’s a great way to turn less palatable foods that often go to waste into milk.

      Goats are also a lot more entertaining to have around than boring cows, and I come from a family of farmers that raised cows.

      I suggest that Goats would be a nearly ideal animal to include in a Permaculture system.

      Anyone that hasn’t tried fresh Goat’s milk really should. Commercially produced cow’s milk tastes like water compared to it. Even fresh raw cow’s milk taste pathetic compared to fresh Goat’s milk.

      If someone wants raw milk, GROW YOUR OWN. Goats are legal to own even in most densly populated urban areas.

      I’d rather spend my time tending a goat than exploding my blood pressure fighting the government, no matter which corporate stooges are elected to office from whatever party.

      For what it’s worth, there is one potential solution. It doesn’t require any political debate.

      Milton? What is YOUR POTENTIAL SOLUTION. I eagerly await reading it.

      • I agree about getting goats for personal milk consumption. The problem though is if people don’t push back in an organized way (such as the topic of this blog post) then it’s quite possible the fed gov will continue stripping away American’s rights in favor of supporting Big Ag.

        The perfect animal for a permaculture system? It’s a close race between goats and chickens. I’d vote for chickens.

        • Yes, Goats and Chickens are ideal animals for Permaculture systems.

          You’re entitled to your opinion of #1.

          I’m just confused. A big part of the context of this discussion has been raw milk.
          That leads me to challenge you to step up and prove your convictions Owen…

          /begin sarcasm
          I challenge you to demonstrate the chicken’s superiority…
          Owen, I eagerly await your posting of a YouTube video of you milking a chicken!!
          That video will change the world in so many ways.
          Don’t be afraid of the censors. Showing yourself pinching a chicken’s nipples won’t be considered adult content.

          C’mon Owen! AMAZE THE WORLD!!
          /end sarcasm

          • Chicken milk is delicious. It makes great ice cream and yogurt. It can be tricky getting them to hold still in the milking stand. Soft music, mood lighting and fresh scratch grain helps a lot.

  3. I have made homemade root beer. It is pretty good, but doesn’t last long. It goes flat pretty quick. We used champagne yeast. Tasty stuff when freshly made. You have to watch the timing or it get’s nasty.

  4. Owen,

    Great exchange of thoughts on times one of the most important topics of our time. We are some kind of screwe if we don’t start proving ourselves more self sustaining, especially when it comes to food. Kudos for including this in the blog!!

    • Thanks for the kind comment. Sometimes I have second thoughts about posting topics like this. But I passionately believe things are tipping out of control and I want to do my part before it’s too late. Again, these somewhat ‘off topic’ posts directly concern everyone who’s trying to live a sustainable life.

  5. We’re starting to see a pattern here.

    Oregon set to ban GM salmon and mandate GMO labeling

    “(NaturalNews) All across the country, people are rising up and demanding that the foods they eat be properly identified and honestly labeled. And the constituency of the state of Oregon is no exception, where a trio of legislative bills recently introduced would require that all genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) be properly labeled, as well as prohibit the import and sale of GM salmon, the first transgenic animal to ever be preliminarily approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human consumption.”

    Natural News http://www.naturalnews.com/039734_Oregon_GM_salmon_GMO_labeling.html

  6. The “attitude” may be correct, but the law won’t withstand constitutional challenge.

    Nullification has been attempted by State and Local governments for years and years on all kinds of laws, and not once has the court system ever upheld such attempts.

    Federal preemption is part of the constitution and the Sedgwick law, no matter how well intentioned, will not change anything, except to drain the wallets of Sedgwick residents that pay lawyers to try to defend this clearly unconstitutional law in court. Federal and State laws take precedence over any local law. Period.

    I would suggest that there are methods to get around these regulations anywhere, if one so desires.

    Take fresh raw milk as an example.

    This is an opportunity for some enterprising dairy farmer to create their own cottage raw milk industry, albeit indirectly.

    The key is that the farmer must create an economic system such that he doesn’t own the cows he is caring for. Yes, that may sound strange, but read on, and it will become clear.

    Individuals are allowed to own their own cow and drink it’s milk, whether that milk gets processed or not is up to the owner of the cow and milk AS LONG AS THEY ONLY USE THE MILK PERSONALLY. Where federal regulations get involved is if someone attempts to SELL raw milk that is unpasturized.

    So… here my suggested perfectly legal system to create a raw milk cottage industry.

    A dairy farmer, SELLS ONE OF HIS DAIRY COWS to a “client” (or a group of clients sharing ownership) that desires raw milk for their personal use. The farmer also contracts with the client to provide boarding services for the cow. The client is actually contracting with the farmer to take care of the client’s cow for them. This service may include such things as feeding, watering, veterinary care, and any other service that may be needed to appropriately care for the cow. That would include… MILKING THE COW. Once the milk is removed from the cow it gets delivered to it’s rightful owner to use however they wish.

    The raw milk would never be owned by the farmer in the first place, therefore the milk never gets sold to anyone. The owner of the cow, the owner of the milk, and the consumer of the milk are the same person. The farmer is simply supplying an animal care service for the owner, for a reasonable fee.

    The only real changes a farmer would need to make to his operation would be the obvious paperwork of keeping track of which client owns what cow, and then keeping the milk recovered from each client’s cow separated and properly stored until delivered the client owner.

    Think of this as kind of like CSA for raw milk. It has a different legal structure, but the net effect is about the same.

    Keep in mind that the farmer could offer payment plans such that someone that buys a dairy cow could pay off the farmer in installments (paid at the same time they pay the boarding fee, which… (wouldn’t you know it?) just happens to coincide with milk delivery day. It would have all the look and feel of selling raw milk, but technically and legally, it’s just a cow ownership installment payment and a boarding fee payment instead of a purchase price for the milk.

    This system, while complicated looking, isn’t all that unusual.

    Many urban people own horses and board them in stables in the country all the time. It’s pretty much the same kind of contractual situation.

    All perfectly legal, and the federal government and the big dairy corporations wouldn’t be able to win any legal battle attempting to stop the practice.

    • You said to pay someone to take care of your cow and it’s “All perfectly legal, and the federal government and the big dairy corporations wouldn’t be able to win any legal battle attempting to stop the practice. I guess you missed my previous blog post about the Rawesome Food raids in LA. This is exactly what they were doing and yet they got raided, the food thrown out and the owner put in jail. They were not selling to the general public, only using the milk from their cows (members of the coop). I’m reporting on a few stories like this because the severity of the situation is escalating and soon it will effect everybody who’s trying to live sustainably.
      http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/farmageddon-video/

      And by the way, over the years I’ve gotten a large percentage of my food direct from farmers or farmer’s markets and will continue to do so as I choose. I’m also working hard to grow most all of our food in the near future.

      • A coop is significantly different than what I suggested.

        A coop is simply a jointly held business enterprise. It is not the same as a private individual owning their own personal cow.

        Yes, this is about splitting legal hairs, and getting those details correct are extremely important.

        The whole key is maintaining records about who owns what, and being able to document and prove that ownership in court.

        • It’s a little bit different, but not much. Rawesome Food was a small group of people who bought shares of a cow or whatever. It would be like you, your brother and cousin bought a cow, paid a farmer to take care of it and then split the milk. The main point is the government has absolutely no right telling people what they can do in this situation.

    • Our model of government is based on voluntary cooperation between different levels (cities, counties, states, etc). When they stop cooperating, it breaks down. Sure, it’s unconstitutional. But they probably knew that when they enacted it (I hope). It’s really about sending a message. it’s about withdrawing cooperation. If the law gets struck down, what happens when city cops are told to stop enforcing those laws anyway? Is the county or state going to send in their own cops to do it? With consent withdrawn, government grinds to a halt.

      • It certainly sends a strong message. It also illustrates the limits of power. When laws, rules and regulations become overly restrictive and downright oppressive then people will naturally start circumventing the system. No one can stop people from trading eggs and veggies, no matter how many laws, no matter how many policemen, no matter how many drones. History has shown out of control, corrupt governments eventually implode and things swing back in the other direction.

      • Here is what will happen. We are already seeing it. Democratic legislators are already starting to push laws that will punish law enforcement officers that refuse to enforce federal gun control laws. There have been hundreds of county sheriffs that have openly stated in both letters to the press and representatives that they would not enforce any law that infringes on the 2nd amendment. Those that oppose the 2nd amendment are trying to force them to comply with laws that would remove them from office.

        What is interesting here is that the same people who are advocating that local law enforcement has the ability to enforce Federal gun laws, also say local law enforcement can’t enforce Federal immigration law. There seems to be a conflict.

        I can imagine the nitwits in Congress passing legislation punishing local governments that do not follow the food laws and set up another bureaucratic department to enforce them. The feds can withhold federal funding. That does have leverage.

        • And what would happen if this spread to dozens or even hundreds of other towns? I’m talking about very average, mainstream people that know some of these laws are total BS. It seems like we’re nearing some sort of tipping point where people’s opinion of Congress, etc. is at an all time low and they’re getting really pissed off about higher taxes, more intrusive government, loss of jobs and so on. If things keep going like they’re going, at some point the tide will turn and movements like this will spread rapidly. Now there’s talk of requiring insurance for all gun owners. That won’t go over very well.

          • Yeah the gun insurance is another California power play. No one is going to comply and the state doesn’t have the money to enforce it. Lol!

            The sad thing is before the last election Congress’ public rating was in the toilet. Yet some 90% I think were re-elected. Either the public is comprised of total morons or the election process has been fully corrupted. Either way it is going to take courage on the patriotic part of the American public to put an end to it.

        • Hate to break it to you, but Republicans are as much if not more to blame for the Federal Dairy and Agricultural regulations as anyone.

          The huge multibillion dollar agribusiness corporations practically write food safety laws for them.

          These laws are written for maximum benefit to the biggest corporations so that they can make the most money and screw all the local farmers, especially the small family farmers at every opportunity.

          The last thing those corporations want is for local farmers to have any real consistent to market to sell their products direct to consumers without those corporations handling the product in “government approved” conditions that supposed to promote safety. In reality, those massive concentrated processing plants are breeding grounds for e coli, botulism, salmonella, campylobacter, listeria, trichinosis, staphylococcus, and God knows what else. When one contaminated shipment of fresh food hits one of those massive processing plants, it contaminates thousands of more shipments of food. What should have been one small contained outbreak of disease affecting a few dozen people, spreads to millions of people half way across the country, and around the world.

          Hey… whatever is good for the billionaire corporate owners, screw the small farmer trying to scratch a living for his family out of the soil.

          We have surrendered our freedom to the corporations, we are all slaves to them. Our own government is a slave to the corporations too.

          • Everything you say is true. Excellent point about how big agra processing plants spread disease. There’s far lower risk simply buying stuff from your neighbor or farmer’s market. Hopefully people will figure this out soon so big agra goes bust. Local produce is so much fresher, tastier and healthier. I just fried up a batch of zucchini and onions. M-m-m.

            Oh, and just for the record I’m not a Dem or Repub. They’re all mostly crooks.

          • Seriously…

            Look at the price of food in a typical Supermarket.

            Pick any product.

            Take a loaf of bread for example.
            Most estimates say that around 5% of the price you pay for a loaf of bread makes it to farmers.

            Other products may fare better, but not as much as you might think.

            The overwhelming vast majority of the price of food in supermarkets goes to the huge corporations, and only a small fraction goes to the extremely hard working people that actually grow the food.

            I’m not saying that others that provide a valuable service getting food to market don’t deserve to make a profit. What I’m saying is that those corporations get the laws written exactly as they want them written to prevent competition and to force farmers to sell their valuable food for slave wages.

            When farmers are able to directly market their products and eliminate several layers of middlemen, they can earn a much better living, produce a product that is of a quality that the consumer wants, is fresher, contains fewer additive and chemicals, and simply put is healthier.

            The saddest part of this story is that the politicians consistently bamboozle farmers. The politicians that represent rural farming districts claim that they represent the interests of farmer, but they don’t. Those politicians almost always sell out to the interest of the billion dollar corporations that buy them off.

            In this modern age of the internet, it is easier than ever for a small businessman to circumvent the corporate industrial complex and market products directly to consumers.

            When more and more individual farmers sell their products directly to consumers and keep most of the profit for themselves, the world will be far better off.

          • More excellent points. Thanks for sharing. Using the Internet for selling products direct to consumers is the wave of the future, especially if the farmer has added value to the products. “Value added products: A new product created from processing, repackaging, or adding special features to existing products.”

            Big agra didn’t get much of my money over the years. I’m the skinny guy you see in the supermarket carrying a basket instead of pushing a shopping cart. I only buy a few items at a time like soap and potatoes. Then I wait in line and look at all the crap people buy. I don’t know how some people stay alive. It seems like some people practically live on cookies and soda.

          • Outstanding point about value adding.

            The way for a farmer to make millions per year is to never sell their harvest to the commodity wholesaler.

            /begin sarcasm
            When a farmer can turn their own harvest into a pre packaged convenience food that consumers pop into a microwave oven for 2min to produce a ready to eat meal, they’ll put the fear of God into the corporations.
            /end sarcasm

            and Owen…

            If you haven’t had homemade cookies and homemade soda, you haven’t lived.

          • I’ve had loads of homemade cookies. Homemade soda? I’ve only heard of homemade root beer. Oh, and I often mix fresh squeezed lime juice with soda water.

            Two value added products farmers could sell at farmer’s markets, craft shows, rodeos, etc.
            1. barbecue cooked in a homemade smoker
            2. homemade chili sauce — Yeah there are lots of brands already, but people are always wanting to try something different. Chili sauce has a long shelf life and can be shipped internationally. Also consider selling organics to boost profits.

          • In regards to potential value added products that a farmer could sell.

            Imagine the business model of “The Soup Peddler” from Austin Texas.

            Just imagine if he was a Food Forest farmer, making soup out of his own produce grown in his own Food Forest.

            http://souppeddler.com/history/

            That business model can be scaled to fit any size farm or community.

            I stumbled across that guy when I was looking into designs for building a bicycle trailer that could haul two extension ladders, ladder jacks, and assorted other tools years ago for a good friend of mine that was in the gutter cleaning and house painting business.

            Bicycle delivery not necessarily a requirement.

            Imagine a farmer inviting a young struggling family to build a house on their farm land, help cook up the soups, casseroles, and what not, then help deliver it. It’s not out of the question for such an operation to easily feed hundreds of fully cooked meals each day at a very fair price, and a massive profit.

          • “Hate to break it to you, but Republicans are as much if not more to blame for the Federal Dairy and Agricultural regulations as anyone”.

            Not in California. The way I see it, neither side of aisle is representing the general public. While the Left loves to depict themselves as champions of the working man and the average Joe, they are just as owned by big business as the Right is. One only has to look at the President’s doner list to understand it is all a smokescreen. The Left is stealthy and the Right more open about who they are really looking out for. Like George Carlin said “it’s a big club and you ain’t in it”

            Big ag is big money. In California they have purchased lock stock and barrel the entire Democratically controlled state legislature as well as both senators.
            I would hazard a guess that regardless of political leanings any major agricultural area’s representatives are owned by the biggest contributors. Those would be agribusinesses. In California Ag interests out weigh even those in Silicon Valley or Hollywood.

            Family farmers and consumers are the low man on the political pole. No one is really representing us. It seems to me both political sides want to control what we do, say, or think. The only difference is their motivations.

          • Milton,

            You’ll get no argument from me that both Dems and Reps both take money from the huge corporations.

            The point is, that is a false equivalence.

            The overwhelming majority of Farm districts are represented by Republicans. Those are the ones in office that claim to represent the interests of farmers, and they really do not. They represent the interests of the massive agribusiness corporations and sell their farmer constituents down the river.

            Claiming Dems do it too, when a small minority of rural farm districts are represented by Dems is a cop out.

            The sad part of the story is that the Farmers are getting lied to by the people they are voting for, and they are suffering the financial consequences of those lies. Until farmers wake up and see the political scam for what it is, and hold their politicians accountable for their actions, nothing will ever change. Pointing fingers saying “the other side does it too,” does not justify the lies and betrayal of the vast majority of legislators that are supposed to represent farmers. Those politicians just distract their voters with meaningless wedge issues so that their voters won’t look at their voting record at how they are running the family farmers in their district out of business.

            It’s not just Reps and Dems either. Libertarians, Green Party, and everyone else does it too. They do it because voters don’t hold them accountable for their votes screwing the famers in favor of helping the massive corporations running the farmers out of business.

          • Yeah, it happens quite often. So often in fact that it makes you wonder about the effectiveness of the FDA. The system is screwed up. I for one would rather have much smaller government and primarily buy and sell with locals I know and trust. I’ve never gotten sick from our produce or our neighbor’s food.

            Jay said it makes him want to throw up. It’s made me determined to grow most all of our food. More coming soon.

          • Smaller government, by itself, won’t solve the problem.

            Smaller government would simply allow the huge corporations to do whatever they wanted unchecked.

            I’m all for small government, but that small government must be EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE.

            A small government that is not corrupt.
            A small government that is responsible to the voters, and not to who provides the biggest kickbacks.
            A small government that protects our freedoms instead of selling our freedoms to the highest bidder.
            A small government that is effective and functional.
            That would be better than a “small government” it would be an “appropriate government.”

            That would be an appropriate small government I could support.

            Sadly, that type of small government doesn’t exist, and not one single politician from any political party is honestly promoting such a government. Oh sure, a few like to talk big about small government, but it’s just for show. The moment the microphones and cameras are turned off they are sucking up the corrupt dollars from the corporations buying their allegiance just like every other politician. Then they proceed to vote for the bills that will profit those corporations to maximum effect.

            The older I get, the more I realize that the more a politician talks about small government, the bigger the lies he is telling.

          • Corporations already run unchecked thanks to the corrupt politicians. But yes, appropriate small government is what’s needed in my opinion. The only way to get there is remove every politician currently in office and hold the next batch accountable. Then create strict campaign finance reform, reinstate Glass Steagall to reign in the banks, banish the Federal Reserve, ban insider trading in Congress and jail criminals like Corzine who steal millions. Then roll back all the unconstitutional legislation passed since 9/11.

          • I see the problems in politics are almost exactly the same as the problems in the corporate dominated world.

            Our current society is all about media and public perceptions, not about substance.

            Huge corporations are more concerned about creating appealing packaging for their products than creating a long lasting wholesome product that sells itself. Superbowl commercials are the height of this phenomenon. There actually are fan groupies that create a buzz trying to vote for which commercial during the Superbowl is the best. How screwed up is that? When is the first or last time you ever heard people debate which product being sold during a Superbowl was the most useful, most cost effective, or longest lasting? I’ve never heard such a discussion in my life.

            That cultural phenomenon is the root cause of the problems in society. It has corrupted almost every facet of life, including politics.

            Think about it.

            Politicians try to sell their product… their services representing us in the government.

            How do they try to get us to buy in? They create “Brand Loyalty” in the form of political parties.

            Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, blah blah blah blah blah.

            It’s all just mass marketing. Find a catchy sounding slogan and repeat it a gazillion times like a toe tapping commercial jingle. Don’t pay attention to the quality of the product, just pay attention to the marketing campaign.

            Even if every current politician were run out of office tomorrow, I don’t think that would change much.

            The people must change the culture of society. We must create a culture of honesty and responsibility. We must demand more of each other, and by extension our politicians.

            Catch phrases like “small government” are meaningless.

            Conservative
            Liberal
            Moderate
            Pro Life
            Pro Choice
            Family Values
            blah
            blah
            blah
            blah

            Those terms no longer have any real meaning. They are just slogans tossed around by politicians. The bear no real meaning in how politicians will govern. Those terms have all become distractions from what really matters about the individuals running for office. It’s a marketing gimmick, no different from packaged processed foods that claim to be “low fat” while containing 5 times the sugar to compensate.

            Politicians are more worried about their ratings from special interest groups than thoughtfully and carefully writing appropriate legislation or reading the bills they are tasked to vote on.

            Only the people can change the system, and it will start by rejecting the political brand names altogether. People that vote based upon actual real information about candidates instead of catch phrases still won’t elect perfect people, because no perfect person has walked the planet for 2000 years. However, people that ignore the political parties and the political marketing will begin to shift the system to a more balanced one.

            Brand Loyalty is for suckers. Political parties are for mindless morons.

            The smart voter looks for genuinely intelligent individuals and ignores party affiliation. They look for a candidate that doesn’t just claim to represent their interests, but fairly consistently demonstrates concern for constituents by their voting record.

            Show me a politician that votes with his/her party almost all the time, and I’ll show you a politician that is ignoring his constituents in favor of party branding and marketing.

          • Do what you’re saying and what I said previously, and then ‘small government’ will become more than a catch phrase.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.