It doesn’t get much clearer than this from a Constitutional scholar. And now they are thinking of ways to slip it through without anyone, including the Senators and members of Congress having a chance to read it!

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

via The Truth About the Health Care Bills – Connelly.

We must keep the pressure on the members of Congress and our Senators! We really need at least two weeks of public posting on the Internet to allow us to read it and to allow the people who are elected to vote on it to read it and to hear from we the people before they cast their vote. We cannot allow uninformed legislators to be voting on such important matters when we would advise any friend to read every document before they sign it!  It is simple common sense.

The President says we do not want to cover illegal aliens but the Senate does not want to ask for proof of citizenship and identity. Who is trying to fool us?

Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare

By Jeffrey Young – 09/30/09 01:03 PM ET

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley’s amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

via Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room.

A man and woman were sitting in their living room when they heard something outside. The man got up to investigate while the woman, who was seven months pregnant, stayed where she was.

That’s when their personal Hell began.

He saw the three men, all wearing balaclavas and scarves, at the end of the path and tried to shut the front door but the men forced their way inside and shoved him to the ground.

Once inside, the men demanded the keys to the couple’s car. The man was threatened and hit in the head with a sawed off shotgun. Then, it made a horrible turn for the worse:

The woman was then grabbed and forced upstairs by one of the attackers and forced to perform a sex act on him which police have described as ‘oral rape’.

He threatened to shoot the couple unless she did what he said.

Speaking for the first time about the rape, the victim said: ‘I just wanted to protect my baby. I was absolutely terrified and being so late in the pregnancy I didn’t want to get into a fight where they might hurt me or my baby.

‘He (the rapist) said it was my lucky day.’

If you are living in or around North London, please read the article and see if you can help identify these subhumans.

But I have to put some of this blame where it belongs. See, the gun control lobby has a stranglehold on the once Great Britain. The gun control laws are so strict their Olympic shooting team currently has to practice in Switzerland. They’ll have to amend the laws just to let them practice in the country they’ll be playing for.

So who doesn’t have guns? Any law abiding citizen.

Who has guns? The criminals.

In response, allow me to quote at length from “Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard,” written by historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and published in the fall 2004 issue of Journal on Firearms & Public Policy:

[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled…. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed….

Clearly since the ban criminals have not found it difficult to get guns and the balance has not shifted in the interest of public safety….

In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century….

A recent study of all the countries of western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime….

And here’s the icing on the cake: “[A] United Nations study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, published in 2002 … found England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league, with the worst record for ‘very serious’ offenses.” [Emphasis added]

And all this while crime in the United States, including violent crime, has been steadily falling.

In America, you have the right to defend yourself. In Great Britain, will probably be prosecuted for it.

Hyperbole?

Not at all:

• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

In America, the pregnant woman maybe gets a gun while her boyfriend fights with the robbers at their front door. Then maybe she shoots them as they enter the house. Maybe she doesn’t get raped.

It happens every 13 seconds.  Clayton Cramer’s Gun Defense Blog is proof this happens more often than people think. 

In America, this could end differently. 

On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong led the Communist Party of China into power. Since then, anywhere between 35 to 65 million people have been killed in China by the communists.

The Great Leap Forward was the second five year plan implemented by Mao in 1959. It was intended to rapidly develop China’s industrial sector through collectivism. It resulted in the Great Chinese Famine. The official death toll is 14 million, but the general consensus among scholars puts the death toll anywhere from 20 to 43 million.

In 1950, the Chinese Communist central committee ordered a “severe suppression” of “counter-revolutionary activities.” The shortened term for this order is “Zhen Fan.” Time magazine wrote:

In no previous war, revolution or human holocaust, either in the days of Tamerlane or in the time of Hitler, have so many people been destroyed in so short a period…. The Chinese Communists were so certain of their moral right to kill for the revolution that they attempted at every opportunity to make the people also a party to their act, e.g., enforced spectator participation in the mass trials.  By the end of 1951 and the beginning of 1952 the slaughter had reached such a pitch that the whole of China (as the Communists intended) was shaken to its roots with terror.^[9]

In 1955, the purge of counter-revolutionaries was on again, this time known as the Shu Fan movement. There were three targets to purge:

1. Ex-Kuomintang personel, regardless of war captive or surrender.

2. Anyone with landlord or wealthy families.

3. Students and literati.

The initial directive was “the absolute purge and cleansing of hidden counter-revolutionaries.” Mao issued an additional directive: “To be firm and absolute on the purge of counterrevolutionary, to solidify and fortify the proletariat dictatorship.”

This purge ended in 1956, with over to 200,000 people arrested, more than 20,000 executed and another 25,000 plus dead of unnatural causes.

In 1966, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution, aimed at removing the “liberal bourgeois” who wanted to restore capitalism. He enlisted the youth of China, who in turn organized into groups called Red Guards. During this time, millions of Chinese lived with the luxury of their basic human rights. The young were forced from the city to the countryside for reeducation. Incidents of cannibalism were reported in Guangxi, where “‘counterrevolutionaries‘ were beaten to death and in the most beastly fashion had their flesh and liver consumed [by their killers]."

One recent scholarly account asserts that in rural China alone some 36 million people were persecuted, of whom between 750,000 and 1.5 million were killed, with roughly the same number permanently injured.^[29] In Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday claim that as many as 3 million people died in the violence of the Cultural Revolution.^[30]

We have witnessed the oppression of the communist government on our nightly newscasts. Hundreds of civilian protestors were killed in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Religion continues to be oppressed in China. People are not free to worship as they choose.

As recently as the last Olympics, there were reports of people being rounded up and suffering “30 days of persecution and oppression.”

For 60 years, this country has aided our enemies, spied against us and held over a billion people under the brutal thumb of communism.

So why is America celebrating this anniversary:

New York’s iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.

The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.

It was reported that the White House would have a ceremony on the grounds of the White House commemorating the anniversary, but the White House debunked that as untrue. Oh, they had a ceremony, but not on the White House grounds. Instead, they had it on “the Ellipse, which is on the other side of E Street from the presidential residence.”

Here’s some nice video of the event:

Sickening. Just sickening.

Current national correspondent for The Atlantic, James Fallows, is both giddy with anticipation and sad he’ll miss the events in the communist nation.

Why anyone would celebrate a 60 year history of oppression, famine and mass murder escapes me. It is baffling that the Empire State Building will light up red, but it infuriates me that official ceremonies were held in our capitol.

There was a time when communism was seen as evil.

Via Breitbart.tv, the followers of Teh One are now actually praying to him:

This is disturbing. It isn’t funny. It isn’t weird.

It’s disturbing.

Liz Cheney was one of the featured speakers at the Smart Girl Summit in Nashville. She is currently being stalked by a New York TImes reporter who introduced himself to the RFC Radio crew as we were doing our live remote. While I can be quite engaging, he was more attracted to another member of our crew, one Fingers Malloy.

Fingers tends to stand out in a crowd. Standing at about 6 foot, 3 inches and sporting a mohawk, he doesn’t fit the stereotypical image of a conservative. So when this New York Times reporter saw him, he had to talk with him.

And Fingers talked:

“The future of the Cheney message,” added a conservative blogger who goes by the name of Fingers Malloy (a rare man in this crowd, and even rarer, one with a Mohawk). He also called her “one of the fresh faces of our movement.”

I don’t know if Fingers noticed it, but a version of this story was on the front page of the print version. At least I assume it was. A1 sounds like the front page.

Overall, it was a fair article on Liz Cheney.

What is clear is that Ms. Cheney, at a minimum, has become a rallying point for conservative views on national security. In a broader sense, she is being promoted as a rising star of the Republican Party, one who is hardly shying from the Cheney brand. (She is married to the lawyer Phillip Perry, but uses her maiden name.)

Ms. Cheney’s resolute national security positions seem to differ not at all from those of her favorite vice president. “I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any daylight at all between Liz’s and my father’s views,” said her younger sister, Mary Cheney. “It’s not because she’s been indoctrinated. It’s because he’s right.”

I was there to hear Liz’s speech, and tweeted snippets from it while it was happening (which is why you should be following me.) She is a great speaker and owned the crowd. If she so chooses to run for any office, she has a future. And I might be mistaken, but I think she already has a grassroots movement hoping she runs.

It has yet to be determined how her extremely remote association with Fingers Malloy impacts her chances.

Cross posted at Right Wing News.

It wasn’t too long ago I posted this on the death of Hitler. Now, a new DNA test puts the evil man’s death in question. The skull assumed to be Hitler’s can’t be. It’s female:

HISTORIANS were rocked yesterday after a DNA test showed Hitler’s skull to be from a WOMAN.

The discovery was made by an expert given access to the Fuhrer’s remains by Russia.

Last night it cast doubt on whether the Nazi tyrant really did commit suicide in his Berlin bunker in April 1945.

…

US archaeologist Nick Bellantoni flew to Moscow after being granted permission to examine the artefacts in the state archive – including bits of the bunker’s bloodstained sofa – for one hour.

He not only discovered the skull was female but also that it was from someone much YOUNGER.

He said: "The bone seemed very thin – male bone tends to be more robust. It corresponds to a woman between the ages of 20 and 40."

Could it be Eva Braun?

Hitler’s lover Eva Braun, who also took cyanide, was 33. But Dr Bellantoni said: "There is no report of her having shot herself or having been shot afterwards. It could be anyone’s." (Emphasis mine.)

If you read the article associated with the previous post on Hitler’s death, the last man living who was in Hitler’s bunker said they burned Hitler, but he didn’t witness it:

"Then Bormann ordered Hitler’s door to be opened. I saw Hitler slumped with his head on the table. Eva Braun was lying on the sofa, with her head towards him. Her knees were drawn tightly up to her chest. She was wearing a dark blue dress with white frills. I will never forget it.

"I watched as they wrapped Hitler up. His legs were sticking out as they carried him past me. Someone shouted to me: ‘Hurry upstairs, they’re burning the boss!’ I decided not to go because I had noticed that Mueller from the Gestapo was there – and he was never usually around. I said to my comrade Hentschel, the mechanic: ‘Maybe we will be killed for being the last witnesses.’"

Interesting that he says he saw Hitler slumped with his head on the table. No mention of blood or a gunshot wound. Perhaps the BBC could go back and ask him some follow up questions now that this has come to light.

If Hitler wasn’t shot, but was ferried out of the bunker alive, that could explain why Heinrich Mueller was there. Mueller was at the bunker the next day, but after that he was never seen again. He could have ensured Hitler’s escape, then his own.

But then, what happened to Hitler?

Or maybe the Russians don’t have any idea what they had then or have now and Hitler was dead, buried and lost to history.

What do you think?

When the news broke about the Iranian nuclear facility in Qom, three world leaders stood behind a microphone and condemned it.

The United Kingdom’s Gordon Brown was very direct with his language:

“The level of deception by the Iranian government and the scale of what we believe is a breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community and it will harden our resolve,” Mr Brown said, adding that it was time to “draw a line in the sand”. He went on: “This is the third time they have been caught red-handed, not telling the truth.”

French President Nicholas Sarkozy handed down a deadline and threatened sanctions.

Obama? Meh:

Flanked by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s dead man walking, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, our president offered more uselessly vague rhetoric in response to proof of a major “covert Iranian enrichment facility” and its implications.

Obama’s statement amounted to, Ooooh, I’ll huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow your house down . . . maybe . . . eventually . . . but not really . . . let’s talk . . .

Only Sarkozy made a serious attempt to get the Iranian leadership’s attention, stressing the consistent failure of negotiations and the need for action. He understands that a decade of talking with Tehran brought zero results.

Obama cringed.

Shouldn’t we be ashamed that a French president’s leading the fight to protect Israel and the free world?

What’s worse than that is the verbal beatdown Sarkosy gave our commander in chief:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

The world is now officially upside down.

Hat Tip: Don Surber

President Obama has decided that he can hold detainees for as long as he wants and that Congress granted him that authority when they give Bush the authority to go to war.

This really has to hurt if you are one of those bleeding heart liberals who voted for “change”:

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said that when Congress on Sept. 18, 2001 gave President George W. Bush the authorization to use force against those behind the 9/11 attacks, lawmakers gave President Obama the power to indefinitely detain prisoners captured in that effort.

“Congress has already provided authorization through the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to detain persons who the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks, and persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” Boyd said.

The problem is if you are going to keep these guys indefinitely, where are you going to put them. I guess we could just keep them in Gitmo, since it’s not going to be closed in January…or anytime soon:

They cited legal complications for the delay, but said they were still optimistic about shutting the detention facility for terrorism suspects soon.

The announcement represents a blow to the president, who signed an executive order and set the deadline with great fanfare during his first week in office.

During a signing ceremony at the White House on January 22, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have “to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals.”

Just for the record, Obama has continued renditions, says he can keep detainees for as long as he wants and isn’t closing Gitmo.

That’s some good change you elected there, lefties. Feel dirty yet?