The last time I wrote about Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro was when she was furiously lecturing RFK Jr. about what's unhealthy.
I repeat, this person was pointing a finger at the HHS Secretary about psychological and physical health:
83-year-old purple-haired Democrat Rosa DeLauro: “If I were the head of HHS, I would, by God, say, ‘Don’t take raw milk. It is dangerous to your health!” pic.twitter.com/NXNZBHah4W
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 17, 2026
Yeesh... that's like getting screamed at by a Sid and Marty Krofft character in the throes of 'roid rage.
Up next we have Rep. DeLauro, who thinks she's on the "pro-science" side, not tolerating anybody who disagrees:
DeLauro gets fed up with Lee Zeldin's arrogance and condescension: "You do not have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it's a hoax! And that's where this administration is coming from ... I don't have to listen to this BS." pic.twitter.com/FR6NGASCFA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 27, 2026
Is there anything less "pro-science" than "you don't have a right to disagree? The "arrogance and condescension" is coming from DeLauro (not to mention the ignorance).
It's not condescension when your ignorant question is being answered with facts.
— FugitiveMama (@fugitivemama) April 27, 2026
I've mentioned the words of Michael Crichton before and they're worth revisiting as a reminder that anybody who demands "consensus" and tries to portray those who question their claims as heretics. In actuality, DeLauro is on the "anti-science" side:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Dems like DeLauro give up what's really happening when they use words like "believe in climate change." It's one of the Left's religions (that just happens to require trillions of taxpayer dollars) and is definitely the furthest thing from "science." The crazy purple-haired congresswoman with more rings than Tom Brady just helped prove that again.
