Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients reblogged from THE MASON CONSERVATIVE

healthcareYou are a Democrat? Have you considered the stupidity you support? Sure! Democrats will resolutely protect your “right” to kill the unborn. But they will leave all your other choices wholly unprotected.

You would think that when your party is burying a hole that is getting harder and harder to get out of, you wouldn’t want to that hole get deeper faster.  But here is Kathleen Murphy, Democrat running for the House of Delegates against Barbara Comstock, telling a forum in Great Falls that she believes it should law to force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients.  Forced by government decree, mind you.  A birdie sent me this:

Continue reading “Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients” »

Have you considered what must run through the minds of Democrat politicians. When we object to Obamacare, is this what they are thinking?

You don’t want to do your job the way we want you to do it? YOU TRAITOROUS CRETIN! Don’t you realize you now work for the almighty state? Only your glorious leaders know what is right and what is wrong. And if we say YOU have to work for free, so be it. Your government knows what is good for you. YOU DON’T!

Vote for:

BUSY, BUSY, BUSY

Whether I want to or not, it has been one of those weeks when I get to take a break from blogging. As it happens, I suppose it is just as well. With Rick Santorum‘s announcement that he is suspending his campaign (see here), I am not exactly happy with our nation’s political situation. Supposedly, the suspension of Santorum’s campaign makes Mitt Romney’s nomination inevitable.

None of us is good. We are all phonies. None of us is as good as we would like others to think us. So anyone we elect must also be a phony. Nevertheless, I had hoped for something better than a choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Don’t we even care whether our politicians tell us the truth?

Anyway, I see no reason to hurry and get behind Mitt Romney, and I encourage Republicans to vote for Newt Gingrich in the remaining primaries. Should the Republican Party nominate Mitt Romney, I will vote for him, but that is only because he is not Obama.

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT MITT ROMNEY PROMISED RON PAUL?

When we consider our political system, we should wonder about the depth of the corruption. Just how deceptive are the people who want to lead us? Is there any doubt that they are extremely deceptive? Here is an example.

On Wednesday, Mitt Romney Senior Advisor Eric Fehrnstrom had an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien on Starting Point. Here, Romney advisor: ‘Big win in a big state;’ ‘you hit a reset button for the fall campaign’, is a link to the CNN story and video. What Fehrnstrom did is compare Romney’s currently Conservative platform to an Etch A Sketch drawing. Come fall, after Romney has the Republican nomination well in hand, Romney will “kind of shake it up” and “start all over again.” Considering the reaction, Romney probably did not want his adviser to admit his platform is so malleable.

Of course, Romney’s opponents publicized his adviser’s words.

Fortunately for Romney, one of Romney’s “opponents” is attacking his opponents. Romney’s ever reliable sidekick, Ron Paul, has gone into action.

Ron Paul is quite willing to criticize his Conservative opponents? Nonetheless, Paul is entirely unable to criticize a big-spending Liberal, the inventor of Romneycare, the man  whose healthcare bill served as the model for Obamacare.

Related Posts

Etch a Sketch Videos

RESTORING THE BALANCE?

Tony is one of our more persistent and interesting commenters. What does Tony think of our political problems? He thinks we need to restore the “balance”. Does that sound silly? If you are of the Liberal persuasion, and you have read his comments (here and here), I suspect you think Tony’s analysis of our political situation quite logical. Consider why Rick Santorum threatens Liberals, and Mitt Romney really doesn’t.  Rush Limbaugh put it this way.

Well, you know, I can see liberals being far more frightened of Santorum.  I think you have a good point there.  Santorum threatens them in their minds. He really doesn’t at all, of course… Ah, well, he threatens them if they’re big government believers. They think he threatens their personal freedom. If anybody’s doing that, it’s Obama.  But they are scared to death because Santorum is a man of core values, and Romney has this image that he goes back and forth, that he flip-flops.  Whether it’s deserved or not, that’s what people think of him.  Santorum, there’s a core there that’s undeniable, and it scares liberals. It scares ’em to death. Because Dave, most liberals don’t have a core and don’t want one.  Not having a moral core is their definition of freedom. (from here)

Does that sound absurd? Mean to Liberals? Well, consider Tony’s response to criticisms of his political philosophy. He refuses to address moral issues. Instead, he talks about working for the right balance. Yet, without a firm commitment to a sound moral code, mankind is helpless to resist sins such as murder, stealing, rape, and so forth. Even when we remain instinctively kind to the people closest to us, we will try take advantage of strangers. Isn’t that why President Barack Obama has such a long list of enemies? Because Liberals have no moral core, it is easy to pit them against the rich, right-wing Christians, oil companies, Wall Street, polluters, …..

Consider what Kenneth L. Grasso observes in LIBERALISM, DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM, AND THE CATHOLIC HUMAN RIGHTS REVOLUTIONLIBERALISM, DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM, AND THE CATHOLIC HUMAN RIGHTS REVOLUTION.

From this idea of man, its proponents draw a host of conclusions essential to any understanding of the contemporary American mind. First, a radical individualism: all social institutions and relations must be understood as nothing more than the purely conventional products of free choice on the part of naturally autonomous individuals. Social relations are conceived as something artificial, external and contractual, rather than being rooted in man’s nature as a social being. Secondly, a thorough-going subjectivism: the liberal individualist theory of man culminates in what Stanley Brubaker terms a “dogmatic doubt that we can ever know what is good for man and woman or that there even is such a thing as the human good.”5 Thirdly, the elevation, in the absence of a substantive theory of the good life, of individual autonomy, individual choice, to the status of the highest good. It issues in what Francis Canavan has described as “a steady choice of individual freedom over any other human or social good that conflicts with it, an unrelenting subordination of all allegedly objective goods to the subjective good of individual choice.”6 Fourthly, that the protection of autonomy of the individual demands the construction of an economic and political order that will be neutral on what Dworkin terms “the question of the good life.”7 Even when its proponents advocate a large, activist interventionist government charged with creating a more egalitarian economic order, they do so in the name of securing for each of the individuals who comprise the society an equal opportunity to live the lifestyle of his or her choice. Finally, on the privatization of religion, the systematic exclusion of religion and religiously-based values from public life. It results, in other words, in the construction of what Neuhaus has termed “the naked public square.”8

What is an alternative definition of freedom, one that actually works? Instead of trying to evade the moral laws God created for us, we can choose to love God and be obedient to Him. That is not a huge sacrifice. Without God’s love and guidance, we have no significance. Our lives are without purpose.

Here is an old post that explains, WHEN DO THE PEOPLE STEAL THEIR OWN FREEDOM?