Dianne Feinstein’s Liberal Solution For Guns: Treat Criminals Like Citizens And Lawful Gun Owners Like Criminals

One of the bright, shining examples of liberalism in action has been our treatment of criminals in society.  The ACLU and most Democrats believe that it is better for a hundred guilty violent predatory criminals to go free than for one innocent person to be falsely convicted of a crime.

This piece from the Congressional Record gives us the perspective that liberals would now like to accord to lawful gun owners: criminalize them.  And it is better that a thousand lawful gun owners have their rights violated and usurped than it would be for one violent criminal  predator to be shot by a homeowner defending his or her property and family.

It will be an uphill battle–all the way. I know this.

But we need to ask ourselves:

Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

This legislation is my life’s goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.

The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say “no” to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.

By Mr. FEINSTEIN (for herself,) Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BENNET, Mr.

It’s all summed up by the phrase that turns liberalism completely upon its head and proves once and for all time that liberalism stands for nothing but convenient hypocrisy: “we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all.”  Unless it helps Democrats, of course.

Tell you what, Democrat, if you want to take away “rights,” then please take away the “right” of the government to grow in size and power and debt.  Take away the “rights” of the government to practice Marxist class warfare and demonize and attack people for the crime of working harder to advance themselves and their families.  Take away the “right” of non-citizens and dead people and ineligible citizens the ability to vote.  Take away the “right” of foreigners to cross our border and enter our country illegally.  Take away the “right” of unions to collectively bargain and collectively strike and collectively shut down businesses while businesses have no right to collectively fire the useless lazy bums who keep demanding higher pay in exchange for less and less work.  Take away the “right” to have unemployment benefits forever.  Take away the “right” to enjoy welfare for five generations.  Take away the “right” for homosexuals to pervert marriage.  And please, PLEASE take away the “right” for a woman to decide to murder her baby and force the father of that baby to stand passively by while his son or daughter is brutally tortured and killed.

And if you really want less gun murders, geez, PLEASE take away the “rights” that the ACLU and Democrats have provided to proven violent animals by executing them like the monsters they are and instituting hard sentencing guidelines that liberals have banned.

There are PLENTY of “rights” you could take away that are not specifically cited in our Bill of Rights.

Just so you understand how incredibly cynical Democrats truly are, and how much they truly do not give one freaking DAMN about saving the lives of innocent children (55.7 million of whom they’ve already murdered in the abortion mills, fwiw), just look at liberals’ reaction to the Fontana Police Department buying a few AR-15s to protect schoolchildren in the event of a targeting of a school in their jurisdiction: outrage.  Liberals are outraged that good and decent people – even police officers – would be capable of protecting themselves against well-armed violent criminals.

This sentence from the LA Times sums up the crazy insanity that will manifest itself in trying to ban all guns:

The rifles are kept either in the trunk of the police officer’s vehicle or in a safe on campus.

“Still, Garcia worries that bringing such a weapon on campus could lead to it falling into the wrong hands.”

If even police departments can’t pass adequate muster to be armed, then what chance do the rest of us have to keep guns if Democrats are allowed the power to ban guns from us???

Mind you, some guns are stolen from gun owners’ homes by criminals because fascist liberals who would never publish the names and addresses of child molesters decided that legal gun owners were a far greater threat than the child molesters or the rapists or the violent murderers.

Police can’t bring guns on campuses that are “gun free zones.”  The mass-murdering psychos know that.  Which is why in every single case but ONE since 1950 in which three or more people were killed in a gun shooting, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OCCURRED ON A GUN-FREE ZONE.

Democrats have turned our schools into well-stocked preserves where crazy murdering psychos can have plenty of helpless targets.  And they actually have the blue-whale-sized balls to demonize us for trying to prevent them from creating even more carnage as they pass laws to keep law-abiding citizens from defending themselves knowing full-damn well that the criminals won’t bother to follow their stupid and immoral and unconstitutional laws.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely NO relationship between confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens and gun crime.  The so-called “assault weapons ban” had ZERO effect of reducing gun crime of weapons that were largely arbitrarily banned.  And therefore what IS now a proven fact is that Democrats are fascists and hypocrites who want to take away the people’s rights to be safe from their government that is under the Democrat Party walking roughshod all over the Constitution.

Why target assault weapons – which was a deliberately misleading title with the intent to falsely connect fully automatic military “assault rifles” with their semi-automatic civilian counterparts so that Democrats could falsely demagogue a straw man?  Because the left is looking for precedents: if they can take away these weapons, they can go after the next batch of guns using their success against “assault weapons.”

You should realize that most of the weapons on Democrats’ confiscation lists are only different by weapons they currently allow by shades of degree.  For example, a Mini-14 rifle is completely legal; but it is virtually identical to many weapons that share the exact same platform that are on the ban list.  The Democrats are savagely attacking what amounts to cosmetic differences such as a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.  The pistol grip was never on any rifle until the first assault rifles.  Why not?  Because it only provided any help for a shooter who was spraying a target with full automatic fire; it is virtually useless for semi-automatic fire that all “assault weapons” have.  To this day, most hunting rifles have a traditional stock simply because the traditional stock provides for greater accuracy and thus greater deadliness.  Flash suppressors were placed on assault rifles so that a soldier fighting at night on a dark battlefield would not night-blind himself with his own weapons fire.  They do NOT make you invisible to detection by others.  If you’re shooting an assault weapon in a city or in daylight, a flash suppressor is useless to you.  All these things are for style, to make the weapons look like the ones soldiers use on the battlefields.  It’s a marketing gimmick, much the way people buy sports jerseys to look more like their favorite athletes.

Democrats are also targeting ammo magazines.  Their primary justification for doing so is to ask the question, “how many bullets do you need to kill a deer?”  As if the 2nd Amendment only somehow guaranteed nothing more than the right to hunt squirrels with an 18th century musket as opposed to its trule purpose to prevent government tyranny over a helpless people.  They are currently trying to ban any gun with more than seven rounds.  The thing is, they are knowingly setting up massive, MASSIVE collateral damage.  That’s because such a ban would criminalize 95% of all semi-automatic handguns.  Democrats are hoping they can ban handguns without even appearing to have tried to do so.

They view “assault weapons” as low-hanging fruit through which they can grab a branch and tear down the entire tree of the 2nd Amendment right.

If you allow them to do so, they will gladly tear down the tree of liberty while the rest of us stand there stupidly gawking.

Gun Control: Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Bill Reminds Of Her Abject Debacle To Control Meth Labs

Dianne Feinstein is in the news for being the senator who applied for and exercised a concealed weapon permit who also wants to take guns away from everybody else.

Her assault weapons ban is apparently the Democrats’ favorite monster to devour the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.  After Obama gets finished acting like a fascist and imposing gun control by executive order just like the worst leaders in history did.

As a result of Obama’s demagoguing and he and his Democrats’ lying and slandering to exploit the next crisis, gun sales have absolutely skyrocketed during Obama’s first term.  And that fever-pitch rush for the people to arm themselves now before it’s too late has only escalated as Obama begins his next term.

Let’s say Obama gets his overturning of the Constitution like he wants.  Explain to me how that fascist thug didn’t cause the greatest proliferation of guns as frightened people rushed to buy their guns before Obama’s new dictates took effect.

And a whopping load of those guns are so-called “assault weapons” – because everybody knows that Obama and the Democrats are fascists who are going to take our right to keep and bear arms away and they want to make sure they get the guns that Obama wants to seize from us first.

Hey, if you want to reduce the number of guns, do you think Obama’s presidency did a good job of that?  I mean, hell, Obama HIMSELF was dealing thousands of assault weapons by proxy to Mexican drug cartels.  That’s how you can know that gun sales under Obama have skyrocketed like nothing ever has skyrocketed before.

And this is going to make any kind of intelligent gun control so much more difficult.  Because there are 300 million plus guns in America.  And as long as a thug or a murderer can get his hands on one, I want to be able to get MY hands on one, too.  And gun laws disarm the innocent people while allowing the guilty people to buy guns illegally and then exploit the fact that they’re going to be the only ones with guns when they crash into your house and round up your family for their night of fun before they kill you all.

And Obama has now added massively to that giant stash of guns in America.  Since he was elected in November 2008, Obama has panicked Americans into buying 67 million more guns.  And I mean, to put it in perspective, in just the last two months of 2012, Obama panicked Americans into buying more than enough guns to arm both the 2.29 million active members in the Chinese Army AND the 1.13 million active members in the Indian Army.

Now, assuming that you’re not a rabid Obama worshiping ideologue but rather somebody who actually wants to see fewer guns on the streets, how can you argue that Obama did anything but create a mass panic???  How could you possibly argue that what Democrats have done was the right way to have a responsible discussion about gun control versus the 2nd Amendment???

Have we ever seen a failure like this before?

Yes.  And frighteningly, it was an even bigger failure because it started out as a giant success.

I want to point out a little bit of history.  Once upon a time shy of a half century ago, there was an illegal drug called “meth.”  Oh, you’ve heard of it?  And Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein decided to win that war with government regulation.  She made it harder than hell for all Californians to purchase any product containing pseudoephedrine.  Because pseudoephedrine was an ingredient in meth, you see.  And by exercising a fascist takeover of a private industry, Dianne Feinstein and Democrats believed that they could use raw government force shut down the meth problem.  You know, kind of like they think they can shut the gun problem down.

What happened?  Well, it’s interesting.  To begin with, you’re still a casualty of the war Democrats waged against pseudoephedrine.  You’ve got to fill our government paperwork and show ID up the whazoo.  And hence criminals will be unable to get the ingredient pseudoephedrine and the drug labs will shut down.  And of course they largely killed a thriving product by largely shutting it down so the government could solve the drug problem.

Was it a brilliant idea?  Is it a story that ought to give liberals hope about how good a job Democrats can be at taking away guns???  Nope.  Not even close.

You see, when meth labs had access to even more abundant supplies of pseudoephedrine, they used a process that generated an incredibly powerful ammonia odor that could be smelled from significant distances.  So the labs had to locate way out in the boonies to cook their product.  And that slowed down the manufacturing process considerably.

Then Dianne Feinstein and the Democrat Party stepped in with their government ban.  And helped the drug makers overcome their inability to manufacture their product in cities.

You want to know what happened?  The meth makers very quickly found a different way to make meth.  They now use a method that is virtually odorless – so the process can be kicked into high gear in ordinary households in ordinary cities.  And its so portable you can now manufacture meth in your car.  As a result, meth production and hence meth addiction have skyrocketed.  Now they can make it right across the street from your kid’s elementary school.  And so what if they blow up next door to you?

All because the same stupid Democrats who think they can solve the drug problem by attacking legitimate private industry can solve the gun problem by attacking ordinary Americans exercising their 2nd Amendment protection.

Here’s the story on what happened with the meth production:

More meth labs showing up in cities, suburbs
Not just a rural drug anymore: Experts say more meth labs showing up in cities, suburbs
By Jim Salter, Associated Press | Associated Press – Thu, Dec 27, 2012

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Methamphetamine lab seizures are on the rise in the nation’s cities and suburbs, raising new concerns about a lethal drug that has long been the scourge of rural America.

Data and interviews from an investigation by The Associated Press found growing numbers of meth lab seizures in cities such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., and Evansville, Ind. Authorities are also seeing evidence that inner-city gangs are becoming involved in meth production and distribution.

“No question about it — there are more labs in the urban areas,” said Tom Farmer, coordinator of the Tennessee Methamphetamine and Pharmaceutical Task Force. “I’m seeing car fires from meth in urban areas now, more people getting burned.”

The increase in labs is especially troubling because meth brought into the U.S. from Mexico also is becoming more pervasive in urban areas. The Associated Press reported in October that so-called Mexican “super labs” are upping production, making meth more pure and less expensive, and then using existing drug pipelines in big cities.

Data obtained by AP shows that homemade meth is on the rise in metropolitan areas, too.

— St. Louis County had just 30 lab seizures in 2009, but 83 through July 31, putting it on pace for 142 in 2012. The city of St. Louis had eight in 2009 and is on pace for 50 this year.

— Jackson County, Mo., (which includes Kansas City) had 21 seizures in 2009 and is on pace for 65 this year.

— Meth lab seizures have tripled in the Nashville area over the past two years. In one case in late 2011, a man and his girlfriend were accused of recruiting more than three dozen people, including some who were homeless, to visit multiple pharmacies and purchase the legal limit of cold pills containing pseudoephedrine, a key meth ingredient. The couple and 37 others were indicted.

— The Evansville, Ind., area has seen a more than 500 percent rise in meth seizures since 2010, with 82 in 2011.

Authorities cite numerous reasons for meth moving into cities, but chief among them is the rise in so-called “one-pot” or “shake-and-bake” meth.

In years past, meth was cooked in a makeshift lab. The strong ammonia-like smell carried over a wide area, so to avoid detection, meth had to be made in backwoods locations.

As laws limited the availability of pseudoephedrine, meth-makers adjusted with a faster process that creates smaller batches simply by combining ingredients — mixing cold pills with toxic substances such as battery acid or drain cleaner — in 2-liter soda bottles. Shake-and-bake meth can be made quickly with little odor in a home, apartment, hotel, even a car.

“Bad guys have figured it out,” said Rusty Payne of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. “You don’t have to be as clandestine — you don’t have to be in rural country to lay low.”

Niki Crawford, who heads the meth suppression team in Indiana, said that with shake-and-bake labs, “the odors are not as strong. And they’re just so portable. We find them in backpacks and gym bags.”

And inside stores: A woman was arrested inside a St. Louis County Wal-Mart earlier this year with a meth-filled soda bottle in her coat pocket.

Another reason for the rise in urban meth is a process known among law enforcement as “smurfing” —the abundance of pharmacies in cities attracts meth-makers from surrounding rural areas, who can bring in friends to help purchase pseudoephedrine pills.

“We know the fuel for domestic labs is pseudoephedrine,” Farmer said. “The source for that is pharmacies and the majority of pharmacies are in urban areas.”

Farmer also has seen an increase in meth activity involving inner-city Tennessee gangs, which tend to be better-organized than rural cookers when it comes to marketing and selling the drug. For the most part, the gang members work as smurfers, though Farmer worries they’ll eventually become involved in the manufacture and distribution of the drug. Sometimes, gang members and meth-makers first connect while in prison.

“They see there’s a market there to make money off of pseudoephedrine,” Farmer said. “Pseudoephedrine has become as good as currency.”

Missouri State Highway Patrol statistics are indicative of the growing urban concern: All four of the top meth counties in Missouri were in the metropolitan St. Louis area — Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis and Franklin.

Ed Begley, a St. Louis County meth detective, said the drug is attracting users from all socio-economic levels.

“Lower class all the way up to upper middle class,” Begley said. “We’ve even had retired folks who have become addicted. It’s a brutal drug.”

You see, the problem is that you can’t completely shut down pseudoephedrine production.  Why?  Because it’s simply the best drug for congestion ever made.  And Democrat politicians get colds, too, you know.  Also, how are the drug makers getting their pseudoephedrine?  Largely by getting the welfare-slacking life-failures the Democrats subsidize to purchase it for them in exchange for a few bucks a month.  Let’s call that welfare from meth makers.  And it’s shockingly pervasive and the problem is exploding out of control.  Feinstein and Democrats did absolutely nothing to reduce the drug trade with their nanny-state fascism and instead made the problem worse.  In the same way, you ought to know that you can’t shut down gun production, either.  Because what would they protect Obama and his family with if they absolutely banned guns???  As long as Democrats can get colds and need some pseudoephedrine, and as long as Obama needs the guns to protect himself and his family that he wants to take away from you, we’re going to have the same sorts of government-caused disasters.  And don’t think for a second that guns won’t find their way across the border on the backs of the illegal immigrants who are streaming into America with Democrats’ abetting.

The Obama City of Chicago has a complete ban on handguns.  And there are so many gun homicides from the criminals who know that they can prey on helpless people shooting more people than are dying in our worst war zone.  310 Americans were killed in Afghanistan with a total of 405 Coalition deaths.  That compared to 532 homicides in the Democrat-owned city of Chicago.  That ought to tell you how well Democrats’ fascist power-grabs to seize all the guns will have on gun crime.

Democrat Gov. Cuomo gave a speech in which he said:

“No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer,” Cuomo said. “End the madness now!  […]

“Let’s lead the way once again in saving lives,” Cuomo said in an often rousing speech that some observers said better positioned the Democrat for a 2016 run for president.   […]

“New York leads the nation, it’s time New York lead the nation in this,” Silver said. His priorities are bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines of ammunition.

Cuomo has also specifically said he supported the confiscation of legally-purchased and owned guns.

Well, first of all, where the hell does the 2nd Amendment limit the right to keep and bear arms in order to hunt and not to be able to defend yourself???  That genuinely idiotic statement dismissed, I can also personally testify as a hunter that I have seen a fair number of hunters using “assault weapons” to hunt.  They are excellent multi-purpose weapons and in fact they are excellent deer rifles.  As for Cumo’s statement about “ten rounds,” well, on that argument Cuomo’s fascist Democrats ought to ban all weapons but flintlocks on the view that “no one needs” more than ONE bullet.

But that said, Cuomo’s speech was also idiotic in claiming that New York “leads the way” in banning guns.  Chicago leads the way in banning guns.  And if Cuomo wants people to consider the effects of his stupid and immoral and unconstitutional and frankly fascist laws, they have only to look at that city on a hill for Obama’s policies, Chicago.

Oh, we just found a new way for criminals to get guns, by the way.  They can depend on liberals who staff newspapers such as the Journal News and the leftist blog Gawker to publish the names and addresses of gun owners.  So that criminals can break into their homes and steal the guns, we now know.

You still think these demoniacs can keep guns out of criminals’ hands, do you?

What Obama is demagoguing might seem to make sense to you.  I’m sure Dianne Feinstein’s takeover of the pseudoephedrine industry made sense to you, too.

Unfortunately, what Democrats are now demagoguing on guns not only won’t work, but it will make gun crime far, FAR worse than it ever was.

Which is why so many million Americans have rushed to buy their guns before Obama the dictator takes them away.

I believe that a great many Americans realize that something bad is coming.  The sheer number of gun purchases is unreal.  I think a lot of people realize that after Obama implodes America, the Antichrist from the Bible will come.

Left Mocked Sarah Palin For Notes On Palm; Hope They Start Mocking Dianne Feinsten

Obama Mouthpiece Robert Gibbs mocked Sarah Palin for the five words she’d written on her palm, as did numerous mainline media propagandists such as MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

It is frankly amazing that the media went so nuts over Sarah Palin’s palm.  It’s like a dog and pony show, with all the media dogs and ponies prancing around whenever Sarah Palin says or does anything.

One interesting theory about the “palmgate” is that Sarah Palin is deliberately messing with the mainstream media’s minds, having every bit as little respect for them as they for her.  The only difference is that she keeps winning the game, and keep losing it.

Ordinary people who didn’t have an ideological axe to grind would probably find it difficult to understand how the people who are marching lockstep behind a man who literally has to bring his teleprompter into sixth grade classrooms could see a “gotcha!” moment in five words scrawled on a palm.

But let’s get past that obvious comparison and go straight apples-to-apples.

We now find out that the illustrious grand maven Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote words on her palm for a debate:

Sarah Palin wrote five words on her hand for a speech; there were no rules barring her from doing so.  In Dianne Feinstein’s case, she broke the rules and the etiquette of a debate.  She took an unfair advantage against her opponent.  She cheated.

Which makes her a Democrat in good standing.

Since Democrats argued that Sarah Palin was so stupid for writing on her palm, I propose that we administer an IQ test to Dianne Feinstein and to every single Democrat in office, and every Democrat who tests the same as or lower than Feinstein resign from office for being “f-ing retarded” (to quote Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel).

You find it again and again: hypocrisy defines liberals.  It is their core essence.

Democrats Believe Their Power To Regulate Our Lives Has No Constitutional Limit

We can sing the below story to Nancy Pelosi’s famous tune, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” regarding whether she should give the faintest of consideration to the Constitution while she tries to regulate one-sixth of the US economy and force citizens to purchase insurance.

Sen. Feinstein ‘Assumes’ Commerce Clause Gives Congress Unlimited Authority to Mandate Health Insurance
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The health care bills in both the House and Senate require that every American purchase a health insurance policy. At the Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Feinstein: “Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for an individual health insurance mandate?”

Feinstein said: “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.”

CNSNews.com followed up by asking Sen. Feinstein whether this broad power had any limits: “If there’s a health insurance mandate, is there a limit to that authority? Is there something that can’t be mandated?”

Feinstein responded: “My own view is that there is not, within health insurance.”

The Commerce clause is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It states the numerous powers authorized to Congress, including the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Senate version of health reform imposes an historic mandate on all Americans, requiring them to have government-approved health insurance, either through an employer or individually. The mandate also can penalize people with a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year if they do not have a health insurance policy.

The bill, which looks certain to pass the Senate sometime on Christmas Eve, is unpopular with the public, garnering the support of barely 40 percent of Americans, according to recent national polls. Those numbers led Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele to accuse Congress of “flipping the bird” to the American people.

“This is a bad bill, it is bad, certainly for individuals and enough is enough,” Steele said in a conference call on Monday. “I am tired of Congress thumbing its nose and flipping a bird to the American people. I’m tired of this Congress thinking it knows better than me and my family how to provide for our health care now and in the future. I’m tired of this Congress not listening to me and to the American people – to all of us.”

In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

My own view is that California should elect a Senator who actually understands or even cares about the US Constitution.

If Feinstein’s “view” were true, then the congress has no constitutional limits whatsoever.  On anything.  If they can regulate private citizens’ behavior or purchases as “interstate commerce,” then they can “regulate” anything and anyone on anything they want.  And this gives them the precedent to do more and more.  The Democrats’ vision of health care “reform” makes the entire idea of constitutional limits null and void.

Let’s call this what it is: a naked power grab.

Fascism, Marxism, take your pick.  We’re getting a hybrid of both (they’re both quintessentially leftist and socialist and totalitarian systems, you know) shoved right down our throats.

The Commerce clause regulates commerce between states.  It has NEVER been used even ONCE in our history to regulated the behavior of individual citizens.

This is almost as appalling as liberal activist judges reading “penumbras and emanations” into the Constitution so they could pull abortion out of thin air.

Democrats have been telling us quite openly that this bill is a clear pathway and vehicle to a government-controlled single-payer system.  It is past time that we took them at their word and started to realize the ramifications of what the Democrats are trying to accomplish.

Democrats aren’t focused in transforming either the quality or the costs of health care coverage.  Their bill does nothing to improve either.  Rather, it lays the architecture for a future socialistic system which they believe that they will ultimately be able to control and use to their own political advantage.  They want power and control.  They want to be able to wield the levers of government and “take care” of everyone and everything – or punish everyone and everything that get in their way.  And when big government has the power to shape things, it shapes them in a way that always favors big government, and favors more and more accumulation of big government.  And Democrats are nothing if not the party of big government.

These people aren’t going to let a little nuisance like the US Constitution get in their way.  Even our own president has repeatedly said disparaging things about our Constitution as well as the men who wrote it.  The once sacred and sacrosanct Constitution has come to mean whatever liberals want it to mean.

Tragically, a look back at history should tell you that the system the Democrats want will hardly be a success.  The fact of the matter is that Democrats are making the same arguments (that health care is a right) and the same promises (that every American will be guaranteed health care) that the Soviets made.

The former Soviet propaganda mouthpiece Pravda is watching America fall into the same catastrophic mistakes Russia did and is laughing hysterically .

The Obama administration and Democrats can swear all they want that rationing won’t be a part of their system, but you sure wouldn’t know it by looking at Obama officials such as Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel.  They will be all about rationing.

To summarize, this is a flagrantly unconstitutional power grab, packaged on lies, which can’t even in theory fulfill the pantheon of bogus promises it was sold on.