Monday, July 30, 2012

Presidential Race and Adult Video Rental

Stop for a moment of silence, ask God what He want you to do next. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet. Presidential Race and Adult Video Rental Former Gov. Pete du Pont pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article after the Bush-Gore 2000 presidential race that, when he compared maps, the adult video rental map and the map of the counties that went for Gore were the same. E. Michael Jones, the editor of Culture War magazine, said, "If they want to survive as a party, the Republicans have to understand first of all, how sexual liberation is a form of political control, and secondly, how the Democrats increase their political power by mobilizing sexual deviance ... things like pornography and its scholastic variant, sex education, in addition to abortion and homosexuality. ... Those who are stupid enough to identify themselves with their sexual vices can always look to the Democratic Party and the dominant media culture as sympathetic to ... guarantee his bondage." Fred

Monday, July 09, 2012

Right-Left Mythology is a God of Destruction

Stop for a moment of silence, ask God what He want you to do next. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

-In this campaign of disintegration the Right-Left mythology is a perfect god
send to the forces of destruction.

It provides them with a crude and simple but highly effective instrument which can be applied to almost any situation and by which any number of different issues can be merged together in a mass of confusion and ideological clap-trap.

For example, there arc Liberals and Conservatives, there are Republicans and
Monarchists, there arc anti-clericals and clericals, there are Communists and Fascists, there are Socialists and Individualists, there are Semites and AntiSemites.

All of these are different oppositions, which have no necessary connection with one another, yet all of them are brought under the Leh-Right headings and thus forced into ideological alliances which may be unnecessary and absurd. Moreover, when you have got your opponents neatly ticketed you can then repeat the same process on any section of the in—dividing the Socialists into Socialists of the Left Centre and Socialists of the Extreme Left, or the Liberals into Moderates or Progressives, so as to submit them to the same process of confusion and disintegration.

Now the fault—or, it you like, the advantage, of the method of division is that it has no rational basis. it grades men and ideas according to their relation to a central point ; which, as a rule, has no existence.

Yet in spice of this irrational character, Left and Right become the centre of fierce ideological loyalties and enmities which overpower men's reason and sense of justice and drive them to acts of violence and inhumanity which would disgrace a tribe of cannibals.


http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/9th-november-1945/3/europe-is-belay-turned-into-_in-inferno-01-hatred-

THE LEFT-RIGHT. FALLACY

by Christopher Dawson

I am very glad to -have an opportunity of explaining more fully., the reasons why I object to the current terminology of Left and Right, most of all so far as Catholics are concerned.

It is obvious to-day that we are faced with the prospect of a return to barbarism. The ancient tradition of Western Christendom which was founded on the three pillars of Faith and Freedom and Law is withering away before our eyes, and in its place there is arising an enormously powerful but completely inhuman system of social organisation, which is usually known as totalitarianism.

This system is destroying all the forms of civilised life and moral behaviour which had been developed by a thousand years and more of continuous strenuous effort, and it is not only bringing back the old evils of barbarism—like slavery and massacre and torture—but also introducing new forms of organised evil and injustice which the old barbarisros could never have imagined or devised.

Islands of Civilisation It is our duty at 'the present time to do all in our power to preserve every existing breakwater against this flood of barbarism.

If we can maintain islands of civiiisation--if, for example. these islands can be such islands—then there is a chance that the tide may turn and that the submerged forces of Christian culture, will be able to re-assert themselves.

This task far transcends politics; but it has its political side, and if we surrender our political judgment and allow ourselves to be hoodwinked and blinded by the political tactics of totalitarianism, we lessen our powers of resistance on still more important issues. '

Now the traditions/ Western political order was founded on law and liberty. The ounimon bond of loyalty to the State did not exclude all kinds of lesser loyalties and corporate rights through which the rich diversity of Western Culture was developed. And this twofold tradition has been inherited by Western democracy by which I understand not aft abstract ideology, but simply the historic system of selfgovernment by representing institutions and ministerial responsibility and free elections and free discussion, which has been worked out in this and other Western countries in modern times.

The Totalitarian Tactic

This system like the older system from which it is derived cannot work unless there is a common bond of loyalty and a will to no-operate in essentials, in spite of all disagreements and divergencies of interest. This agreement is essential to the existence of a free society and consequently it is the key-point against which the totalitarian attack on Western Culture is directed. •

The tactics of totalitarianism are to use every difference of opinion and tradition and every conflict of economic interests into an absolute ideological opposition which disintegrates society Into hostile factions bent on destroying one another.

In this campaign of disintegration the Right-Left mythology is a perfect god
send to the forces of destruction. It provides them with a crude and simple but highly effective instrument which can be applied to almost any situation and by which any number of different issues can be applied to almost any situation and by which any number of different issues can be merged together in a mass of confusion and ideological clap-trap.

For example, there arc Liberals and Conservatives, there are Republicans and
Monarchists, there arc anti-clericals and clericals, there are Communists and Fascists, there are Socialists and Individualists, there are Semites and AntiSemites.

All of these are different oppositions, which have no necessary connection with one another, yet all of them are brought under the Leh-Right headings and thus forced into ideological alliances which may be unnecessary and absurd. Moreover, when you have got your opponents neatly ticketed you can then repeat the same process on any section of the in—dividing the Socialists into Socialists of the Left Centre and Socialists of the Extreme Left, or the Liberals into Moderates or Progressives, so as to submit them to the same process of confusion and disintegration.

Now the fault—or, it you like, the advantage, of the method of division is that it has no rational basis. it grades men and ideas according to their relation to a central point ; which, as a rule, has no existence.

Yet in spice of this irrational character, Left and Right become the centre of fierce ideological loyalties and enmities which overpower men's reason and sense of justice and drive them to acts of violence and inhumanity which would disgrace a tribe of cannibals.

The process of social disintegration by political faction has been;spreading like an epidemic in modern society.

It is transforming Europe, the most highly civilised region in the world, the home of Christian culture. into an inferno of hatred and suspicions.

It can only be checked by a great moral effort on the pan of all those who have not yet been dragged down into this whirlpool of destruction.

The Remedy The obvious remedy for these evils is to be found in the old natural and political virtues which have been denied and discarded by the new barbarians: the virtues of justice and goodwill, the virtues of truth and potience, above all, the virtue of prudence, which Aristotle defines as a truly rational and practical state of mind in the field of human good and evil. it is only by the exercise of these virtues that it is possible to save society from the political disintegration that threatens it, and maintain an island of society amidst the rival barbarians of Left and Right.

For what we are faced with is not a false ideology which can be met with rational argument, but a kind of contagious social malady which may be deliberately encouraged by coldblooded political schemes, but which is in itself a thoroughly irrational thing.

It is true that the Left-Right division existed long before the rise of modem totalitarianism, but from the beginning it was tainted with similar moral evils. For it originated in the French Revolution under the shadow of the guillotine and the reign of terror, at a time when politics were merged in civil war and when the totalitarian techniques of purges end liquidations and singleparty dictatorship were first evolved. Where such conditions exist the irrational dualism of Left and Right is natural enough, since every man is forced to take one side or the other, and he stakes his neck on the victory of his party.,

But in this country we have no excuse for adopting such divisions or such methods. They arc in contradiction with our whole political tradition, in which parties arc not instruments of revolution but form complementary parts of the normal machinery of constitutional government. Here the whole Left-Right business is an alien importation which only became popular at the time of the Spanish Civil War as a rather unreal reflection of a situation which tins no parallel or precedent in our political experience.

To-day the whole thing has become infinitely more serious owing to the breakdown of Western civilisation and the rapid spread of social disintegra tion in continental Europe. But this situation makes it all the more necessary that Sc should keep our heads and refuse' to allow our own political life In be involved in the Motional ven

detta of Left and Right, That way leads to destruction. The way of life is the way of justice which turns neither

to the Right nor to the Left. ,

The Law of Justice The political' older of the Christian State was founded on the belief in a law of justice which did not depend on the right of the stronger or the will of the majority, but on the eternal law to which kings and peoples alike were subject. This truth lies at the bask of the common law and is embodied in the English Coronation rite which is the oldest and most sacred thing in our political tradition. And this belief in justice still survives to-day, though its spiritual foundations are often forgotten, so that " law and order " seem no more than a tiresome convenience that we take for granted.

-Nevertheless, it is the most precious thing we have, and there are countless thousands in Europe to-day who are perishing for lack of it. And so long as there are men who stand for justice and truth against the violence of party passion and the lies of party propaganda, there is still a hope for Europe and for Christian civilisation.

Romney is a Example of the Right-Left Mythology is a God of Destruction

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2876138/posts

Soros Wants Mitt Romney
michiganman567.hubpages.com ^ | 2012

Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:15:55 PM by SoConPubbie

George Soros, gave his endorsement to none other than Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination. The reason why George Soros chose Romney is as he says, there isn't a bit of difference between liberal...uh hem.... moderate Republican Mitt Romney and Democratic President Barack Obama.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2876138/postsPosted on Monday, July 02, 2012 10:47:53 AM by Nachum

The Obama campaign has seized on remarks made by Romney adviser Eric "Etch-A-Sketch" Fehrnstrom this morning on MSNBC, to the effect that the individual mandate in Obamacare (and Romneycare) is not a tax. Fehrnstrom allowed Chuck Todd to push him off message--and re-ignited the fears that conservatives have long had about Romney's will and ability to fight. In response, conservatives--who had just coalesced around opposition to what many now call "Obamatax": Mitt, start fighting, or give up and let someone else do it.

Fehrnstrom's point--in defense of Romneycare--was that the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold Obamacare under the taxing power. The individual mandate was never intended to be a tax, Congress never called it a tax, and it wasn't a tax in Massachusetts, either. Fine--but now that Obama's lawyers went to court and called it a tax, and Chief Justice John Roberts called it a tax (and spare us the non-distinction between "tax" and the "taxing power") Obamacare is, undeniably, a massive tax on the middle class. Obama lied. It's that simple.

The GOP primary is over, and this is not a mistake that Fehrnstrom can merely shake away. It's going to be used--and already is being used--by the Obama campaign to save itself from the tax argument, and to label Romney as a liar (when that label belongs squarely on Obama, who campaigned against Hillary Clinton's individual mandate in 2008). Perhaps this is why Rupert Murdoch has been calling openly for Romney to "drop...old friends from [his] team and hire...some real pros," as he did on Twitter yesterday.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Romney Turned Obamacare From Tax Into Gaffe: No Formula For Winning
Crystal Wright

Jul 06, 2012
Tweet


Sign-Up

The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare constitutional as a tax with the pivotal vote of Chief Justice John Roberts, the politician. Despite Obama campaigning it wouldn’t be a tax on the middle class, that’s exactly Obamacare is. According to the Congressional Budget Office, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, “three quarters of those who pay the mandate tax will make less than $120,00 a year” and those people need jobs not more taxes.

Instead of coming out like every other Republican under the sun and agreeing it’s a tax, Mitt Romney’s campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney agreed with president that it’s a penalty not a tax. Then Romney reversed himself July 4th and said it was a tax. Well duh! In a scathing editorial on the goof up, the Wall Street Journal noted “he [Romney] offered no explanation so the campaign looks confused in addition to being politically dumb.”

Romney can ill afford any more mistakes like this. Don’t forget earlier this year, in March, Fehrnstrom infamously declared Romney’s strategy from the primaries to the general would be akin to an Etch-a-Sketch, one in which Romney would just shake up his campaign and start over. Maybe Romney needs to shake things up and start cleaning house because these sophomoric mistakes reinforce the perception he’s silly putty on the issues. Rupert Murdoch agreed tweeting, “Met Romney last week. Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to bat unless he drops old friends from team and hires some real pros. Doubtful.”

Another big Achilles heel for Romney is Romneycare. “The tragedy is that for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President,” wrote the Wall Street Journal. In an appearance on CNN in March, I discussed the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Obamacare and said the same thing that Romney would have to admit his signing the individual mandate into law in Massachusetts was a mistake in order for him to be credible on the topic against Obama.

The time has come for Romney to step out of the sand and take an aggressive stance on the issues and take the fight to Obama not throw in the towel like Senator John McCain did in 2008 for fear of being called a racist. Since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, no president has run for re-election and won when unemployment is at 7% or above. Now isn’t the moment for Romney to blow that trend. Since Obama took office the jobless rate has been persistently stuck at 8% or above for 40 plus straight months, despite the fact Obama has spent $5 trillion in three and half short years. That’s more than what President George W. Bush spent in eight years in office.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t repackage Humpty Dumpty aka President Obama into a leader in another four years because he has no record to run on. If he’s given more time, Obama will drive the country further into this black hole of economic misery. But we need Romney to convince us he’s the better man. It’s all in the message. So, let’s “shake it Romney,” there’s no time to waste.

Monday, July 02, 2012

Romney website: ‘Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts’

Stop for a moment of silence, ask God what He want you to do next. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

-Governor Romney's website holds John Roberts out as a model justice... will that change after yesterday's ruling?

-Awkward, right? Perceived betrayal always is, folks. Interestingly, Governor Romney’s response to the ruling was extensive but he had remarkably little to say about the Court itself, choosing instead to focus on the law from a policy perspective:

-Mitt Romney is only taking the anti-Obamacare position because it’s the only chance he has of getting elected.
"If Romney gets in, Obamacare(Romneycare) stays in place"

He loved this law when he himself made the move to implement it at the state level, and once approved of doing the same at the national level … even going so far as to say he did in the first edition of his book.

I hate to break it to everyone, but if Romney gets in, Obamacare (a.k.a. nationalized Romneycare) stays in place.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900670/posts

To: Uncle Slayton; All
Why would the website change? Mitt Romney will not change. Exactly.

We know Mitt is closer to "concrete" than "Gumby," right???

Or, try to follow Romney's meandering ways as he's weaved and bobbed on and off the campaign trail these past 18 years!

(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]

(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.

Well, what are the 1994 facts?

FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)

(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

(14): By December of 2007, you'd think after THREE supposed FULL years of being "pro-life," he'd have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"

(15): Now we come to the 2011-2012 campaign. The Romneys do an interesting Parade Magazine interview (Nov. 2011). Ann Romney is interviewed: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have NEVER CHANGED; we’ve ALWAYS BEEN PRO-LIFE: (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

What? Did you Romneybots & would-be Romney voters not get the Romney campaign memo issued late in 2011: Per Ann Romney, the Romneys have "ALWAYS been pro-life..." They personally "NEVER CHANGED."

Which all means you can't trust a damn word Romney says. He has no personal integrity -- no core values.


37 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:03:18 PM by Colofornian (Saying Mitt would keep past political promises is like prophesying that Gumby won't bend anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

http://savejersey.com/2012/06/will-roberts-remain-on-romneys-website/

Will Roberts Remain on Romney’s Website?Written on June 29, 2012 by Matt Rooney in Election 2012, Mitt Romney, ObamaCare

Governor Romney's website holds John Roberts out as a model justice... will that change after yesterday's ruling?

Don’t take it personally, Mitt, but I couldn’t help but appreciate the irony here.

Governor Romney’s campaign policy page (like many Republican candidates’ websites over the past few years) reports his determination to ”nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” They were thought to be conservatism’s constitutional firewall, Save Jerseyans.

Fairly or not, after yesterday’s grim ObamaCare ruling, most of Governor Romney’s base is no longer in the mood for judges “in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts.” We’ll still take a double order of the other three, thank you very much!

Awkward, right? Perceived betrayal always is, folks. Interestingly, Governor Romney’s response to the ruling was extensive but he had remarkably little to say about the Court itself, choosing instead to focus on the law from a policy perspective:

What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”

Bottom line?

I’ll be very curious to see if the Chief Justice’s name stays on Mitt’s website!


Phyllis
June 30, 2012 | 6:25 am

Mitt Romney is only taking the anti-Obamacare position because it’s the only chance he has of getting elected. He loved this law when he himself made the move to implement it at the state level, and once approved of doing the same at the national level … even going so far as to say he did in the first edition of his book. I hate to break it to everyone, but if Romney gets in, Obamacare (a.k.a. nationalized Romneycare) stays in place.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/15-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-is-a-mind-blowing-disaster-for-america

The following are 15 reasons why the Obamacare decision is a mind blowing disaster for America....

#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future?

#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.

#3 The IRS is now going to be given the task of hunting down and penalizing millions of Americans that do not have any health insurance. In fact, the Obama administration has given the IRS 500 million extra dollars "outside the normal appropriations process" to help them enforce the provisions of Obamacare that they are in charge of overseeing.

#4 Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here. If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.

#5 In an attempt to "control costs" and "promote efficiency", Obamacare limits the treatment options that doctors and patients can consider. This is likely to result in a decrease in life expectancy in the United States.

#6 Obamacare is going to impose nightmarish paperwork burdens on doctors, hospitals and the rest of the healthcare system. This is going to significantly increase our healthcare costs as a nation.

#7 Obamacare is going to send health insurance premiums soaring. This is especially true for younger Americans.

#8 Many small businesses are going to be absolutely crushed by the provisions in Obamacare that require them to provide expensive health insurance coverage for their employees. This is going to make them even less competitive with companies in other countries where businesses are not required to provide healthcare for their workers. This is also going to make it even less attractive for businesses to hire new employees.

#9 Obamacare is going to make the emerging doctor shortage in America a lot worse. Surveys have found that we could potentially see hundreds of thousands of doctors leave the medical profession because of Obamacare.

#10 Obamacare has already forced the cancellation of dozens of doctor-owned hospitals.

#11 Obamacare is going to result in a much bigger federal government. In order to fully implement all of the provisions of Obamacare, hordes of new government bureaucrats will be required.

#12 Thanks to Obamacare, you are going to have to wait much longer to see a doctor. Just look at what happened once Romneycare was implemented in Massachusetts....

In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.

#13 Obamacare contains all kinds of insidious little provisions that most people don't even know about. The following is one example from the Alliance Defense Fund....

"Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. One hundred percent free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn't it be the other way around?"

#14 As if the U.S. government was not facing enough of a crisis with entitlement spending, it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. You and I will be paying for all of this.

#15 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will add more than a trillion dollars to government spending over the next decade. Considering the fact that the U.S. government is already drowning in debt, how in the world can we afford this?





_______________________________________________