Virtually Identical

I am seeing this video for the first time tonight and believe it is important that all Catholics see it.

29 Responses to Virtually Identical

  • I hear the Administration saying it, but is it true? And, if it is, what do you propose we do about it?

    Romney is the GOP nominee. The debate for Catholics is no longer whether he is the best candidate to carry the Republican flag but whether or not he is the better of the two candidates for President.

    Besides, there is a qualitative difference between the political expedience that Romney seems given to and the strong distaste for people of faith that the President has displayed. Even if the bills were identicle – and I have neither the time, nor the inclination to wade through them – in result, I am satisfied that the underlying purposes of this president are malicious and directed to make people reliant on the State rather than themselves, their kin, and their God.

    I need no more impetus than that to do all that I can to send him packing.

  • I’ll be doing a write-in. I plan to complain as loudly as possible that neither of them care about the freedom of the Church so that one or both of them will back off.

  • Then this is a question with which I am sure he will be confronted. We must pay attention to see what his answer is.

  • I am no huge fan of Romney and am under no illusions over what he is all about. However a write-in is a vote for Obama….

    At least with Romney if we yell loud enough he may listen out of political calculation. Obama just doesn’t care at all.

  • However a write-in is a vote for Obama….

    Please. We’ve been over this ground before, but this is a logical fallacy.The only vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

  • I am no fan of Romney, either. But he is not the left wing Marxist ideologue that Obama is. That said, I prefer the Constitution Party whose platform is closest to Church teaching:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

    Nevertheless, given that the only electable choices are Obama and Romney, I shall have to vote for the lesser of two evils: Romney. Sadly, Virgil Goode doesn;t have a chance at winning the Presidency:

    http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/

    :-(

  • Please. We’ve been over this ground before, but this is a logical fallacy.The only vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

    It would be agreeable if we had practices which could process the participation of the dissatisfied electorate, such as ordinal balloting. Until then, you have these dilemmas.

  • Obviously a planted question by one of the White House stenographers masquerading as the press corps. You can see Jay referring to his notes, which shows he knew it was coming. But his response raises an interesting point: Since Obamacare is basically Romneycare writ large, what’s the difference? Very little. Mormonism is as much of a turnoff as Obama’s tepid and flawed Christianity as to cause this potential voter to sit this one out. If Ron Paul were the GOP candidate, I’d be enthusiastic come November. But what we will get is the quadrennial sham of a choice between tweedledum and tweedledee. And once again, money, as it did in Wisconsin, will decide the winner. It’s like the true Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules.

    Besides, I no longer want to live in a country where roughly half the people either believe in abortion or same-sex “marriage.” I have no choice unless I luckily obtain the means to live abroad.

  • Further amplification on my disgust with America:

    Only in America—Top Ten

    1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich

    at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.

    2) Only in America could people claim that the government still

    discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President,

    a black Attorney General, and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is

    black while 12% of the population is black.

    3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible

    for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury

    Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means

    Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher

    taxes.

    4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of

    Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims

    might be harmed by the backlash.

    5) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become

    American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens

    of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting

    anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American

    citizens.

    6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the

    budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as

    “extremists.”

    7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to

    cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

    8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate

    whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas

    went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company

    (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes

    (Nike).

    9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from

    the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion

    dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER

    MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

    10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income

    taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t

    pay any income taxes at all.

  • But my, my…aren’t we missing the point here?

    Railing about the inadequacies of the two parties that currently control the US government gets us nowhere. Seems to me that if one wants a true read on whether teh President’s press secretary just to ld a big fat whopepr of a lie would be to contact the Archdiocese of Boston…and ask! He stated taht parochial schools were exempt under the President’s policy…but not by my reading. He stated that parishes were exempt, and perhaps they are…but what about Catholic Charities?

    If the exemptions in Massachusett’s law are broader than Obamacare, or if Catholics can opt out should they wish to…then Carney lied.

    But he’s accomplished his purpose: are any of us discussing Obamacare and the mandate? No. We are talking about whether Romney is the right guy t lead in place of Obama. Which is just what the political caulculation wished for.

  • Chip, if Carney lied, where was the rebuttal from Romney? He hasn’t said much other than to utter platitudes about “religious liberty.”

  • Re: who my vote is for…my vote is for whomever God wants me to vote for. No one else. See Rick Santorum Versus Lisa Graas?

  • Romney’s “exemption” is only for schools and parishes, not for universities and hospitals, same as Obama’s. They’re the SAME.

    Given that they are the SAME, there is no “lesser of two evils” argument here. Romney’s recent fundraising from the “gay rights” lobby and from the abortion lobby indicate he’ll be the same there, too. Those folks don’t donate millions of dollars to protect life and marriage, folks. They get a return on their investment.

    Write in.

  • Mitt Romney’s positions on abortion, stem cell research and marriage are decidedly different that that of Barack Hussein Obama. Based on this and other factors, I shall vote against Barack Hussein Obama by voting for the only viable candidate opposing him. There is no other viable candidate than Mitt Romney. To be a purist and either not vote or vote for a third party candidate is an effective vote for Barack Hussein Obama. The title to this post, “Virtually Identical”, is misleading at best.

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

    Abortion

    Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

    Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

    Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.

    Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that “I fully understand” and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.

    Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.

    Stem Cell Research

    Great advancements in science are welcome antidotes to human frailty. The desire to save and strengthen the lives of those we love is noble and good, yet the promise of science does not justify discarding our moral duty to protect human life in its most vulnerable form. Scientific research and the preservation of human dignity are complementary, and America’s laws must reflect this conviction.

    Stem cell research is a great scientific frontier, and it must be pursued with respect and care. When confronted with the issue of stem cell research as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney chose to support life by vetoing a bill that would have allowed the cloning of human embryos. Quite simply, America cannot condone or participate in the creation of human life when the sole purpose of its creation is its sure destruction.

    Adult stem cell research and alternative methods to derive pluripotent stem cells, such as altered nuclear transfer and direct reprogramming, are scientific paths that carry much promise and avoid raising ethical concerns. As president, Mitt will focus his energy on laws and policies that promote this kind of research to unlock the medical breakthroughs that our loved ones so desperately need.

    Marriage

    The values that Mitt Romney learned in his home have enriched his life immeasurably. With his parents’ example before him, he married, had five sons, and now basks in the joy of eighteen grandchildren.

    Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

  • To continue with what I wrote above, the following is Mitt Romney’s position on health care. It is very dissimilar to the position held by Barack Hussein Obama.

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

    Health care is more than just one-sixth of the American economy. It is an essential source of well-being for individuals and families.

    Our health care system is blessed with many extraordinary strengths. It produces and attracts the best and the brightest across all fields of medicine, and provides unparalleled innovation, choice, and quality of care. But it also faces significant challenges: high cost, inefficiency, inconsistency, and tens of millions of Americans lacking insurance coverage. We can fix these problems.

    Obama’s Failure

    Unfortunately, the transformation in American health care set in motion by Obamacare will take us in precisely the wrong direction. The bill, itself more than 2,400 pages long, relies on a dense web of regulations, fees, subsidies, excise taxes, exchanges, and rule-setting boards to give the federal government extraordinary control over every corner of the health care system. The costs are commensurate: Obamacare added a trillion dollars in new health care spending. To pay for it, the law raised taxes by $500 billion on everyone from middle-class families to innovative medical device makers, and then slashed $500 billion from Medicare.

    Obamacare was unpopular when passed, and remains unpopular today, because the American people recognize that a government takeover is the wrong approach. While Obamacare may create a new health insurance entitlement, it will only worsen the system’s existing problems. When was the last time a massive government program lowered cost, improved efficiency, or raised the consistency of service? Obamacare will violate that crucial first principle of medicine: “do no harm.” It will make America a less attractive place to practice medicine, discourage innovators from investing in life-saving technology, and restrict consumer choice.

    In short, President Obama’s trillion dollar federal takeover of the U.S. health care system is a disaster for the federal budget, a disaster for the constitutional principles of federalism, and a disaster for the American people.

    Mitt’s Plan

    On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.

    In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.

    Restore State Leadership and Flexibility

    Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.

    •Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
    •Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
    •Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
    •Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
    •Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

    Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition

    Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.

    •Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
    •Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
    •Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
    •Facilitate IT interoperability

    Empower Consumer Choice

    For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the power to make decisions about their own care. Placing the patient at the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually want.

    •End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
    •Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
    •Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
    •Promote “co-insurance” products
    •Promote alternatives to “fee for service”
    •Encourage “Consumer Reports”-type ratings of alternative insurance plans

  • “…The only vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.”

    Let us assume the following scenario (however hypothetical and non-reflective of history): 40% of the people in a “red” State vote for Obama, 30% for Romney, and 30% for some third party candidate. Even though a clear majority of 60% votes against Obama, the net effect is that Obama wins because 40% is greater than either 30%. If that is done in enough “red” States, then Obama wins because of the fracture in the votes against Obama.

    Like it or not, if one doesn’t want Obama for another four years, then one must vote for Mitt Romney. Of course, if one wants to be a purist just to say, “But I voted against both evils,” then one will have to accept responsibility for enabling the continuing reign of Barack Hussein Obama. Romney is clearly better (or at least less bad).

    I shall vote for Mitt Romney even though I prefer Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party.

  • Click on over to Democrazy for an analysis of Romney’s record as Governor: http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/does-romney-live-up-to-the-culture-of-life-part-2/

    Pro-abort.
    Pro-emergency contraception.
    No exception for Catholic hospitals.
    Catholic Charities forced out of adoptions for refusing to place children with gay couples.

    There are reasons to prefer Romney over Obama. But anyone who thinks The Weathervane is pro-life is sadly mistaken.

  • I agree with Thomas Collins about Governor Romney’s record in Massachusetts.

    However, none of that reflects his current stated positions at:

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

    and

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

    One can be purist and vote for a 3rd party candidate, or one can suck it up, hold one’s nose, and deliver the only effective vote against Barack Hussein Obama by voting for Mitt Romney, saving the regurgitation for the vomitorium of political excess later.

    Obama cannot be defeated without voting for Mitt Romney, and it is absolutely essential to defeat Obama. We can survive a Mitt Romney. We cannot survive another four years of that godlessly wicked man of depravity, idolatry, sexual promiscuity and downright ruthless evil that is Barack Hussein Obama.

  • The two-party system is not the issue at hand. Contraception and sterilization are not either. The issue is the federal government changing the well-established legal definition of what is a religious entity. If an identical HHS policy simply used the federal definition that has been in use for decades, there would be no lawsuits. A state governor dorking it up is goofy, but the federal government doing it is fatal.

  • The more the national debate is taken off this drastic change in narrowly defining religious entities, the more likely it will happen. Then the ACLU definition (which is exactly what the HHS definition is) will become the law by bureaucratic fiat.

  • Paul could you explain Virgils plan for greencards to me? because I read something about it but it was not very clear.

  • How many prosecutions have taken place under that law in Massachusets?
    How intent is the state on persuing the letter of the law?
    As the movie “For Greater Glory” indicates, those laws that caused the Cristeros war are still in place – the state is not persuing them rigorously – that’s the difference.

  • Bruce abortion is a huge issue because it is killing people at an age where they barely done anything or have been able to do much. That seems like an issue at hand, I do not much care for the party system it seems to much like cliques rather than people trying to instuting laws that are just and right, the party system turns it into a sort of popularity shoving match.

  • Valentin,

    I am not familiar with Virgil Goode’s position on Green Cards. The Constitution Party’s position on immigration is given here:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Immigration

    Because immigration is not the topic of this post (Virtually Identical), I will defer fully discussion on the topic to a possible future post that may deal with it.

  • thank you.

  • @valentin: of course abortion is a huge issue. So is contraception, embryonic stemm cell research, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and no-fault divorce. My point was (and is) that none of these issues is what the bishops and Catholic universities and hospitals are suing over. The issue is how the HHS policy re-defines religious entities in such a narrow definition. That is the close fight we must focus on and it must be won. I am quite confident we are on the same side on all of these other important issues.

  • If Romney were here, he would say what he did in MA was the best he could get in MA with a democrat legislature. And, what was good for MA is not indicative of what he would propose for the nation.

  • OMG…I can’t believe what I’m reading…Keep It Simple Stupid is my advice…OMG…Obama Must Go…!!! End Of Story…!!

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .