Tag Archives: Paul Ryan

Dems doing what they accuse Republicans of

7b373ae1f0cc2ea4b05fb48758fb165dOriginally posted at American Thinker

Psychological projection is the tendency to project one’s own negative qualities onto someone else. That is exactly the element at work within a political party that has forged a reputation for accusing its political adversaries of what they’re guilty of doing themselves.

Last year, Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) took a lot of heat from the left when he made the comment that free school lunches offer children a “full stomach and an empty soul.” Ryan’s point was that a meal provided by a loving mom is more gratifying and dignified than being spoon-fed from cradle to grave by a cold, bureaucratic Nanny State.

The indignant left trumpeted Ryan’s message as follows: Republicans want to starve poor children to death!

Now, just a year later, a school lunch program overseen by Mrs. Okra, I mean Obama, implements exactly what liberals accused Ryan of endorsing.

From the looks of things, the left was jockeying to orchestrate bureaucratic food deprivation, because based on what’s showing up on lunch trays lately, it appears that Democrats didn’t want to be outdone by Republicans in the starvation department. Currently, under the guise of healthy eating, the School Nutrition Association, together with Mama Obama, metes out food portions so meager and paltry that Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids are fast becoming ravenous and emaciated.

Besides, if that young upstart Paul Ryan had managed to convince Americans that hearty bagged lunches were the way to go, how, pray tell, could Calorie Control Central continue to serve a 6’5” high school football players a cup of fruit, a cup of vegetables, two ounces of grain, two ounces of meat, and a cup of milk and pass it off as lunch?

Back in 2012, when speaking with Al Sharpton of MSNBC’s Politics Nation, left-wing congressman Barney Frank (D- MA) accused Ryan of wanting kids to starve. Frank told Sharpton:

These are right-wingers who have this philosophy, going back to Ayn Rand that says we should not come together to do things for the common good. That individualism is the answer, and that everybody should be on his or her own. So feeding poor children, cleaning up the atmosphere, putting out fires in older cities: those are things for which they would deny funding.

Based on the “accuse others of what I’m guilty of” premise, Barney’s statement certainly explains why the proponents of “cleaning up the atmosphere” have the largest carbon footprints, and why those who are so concerned about “putting out fires in older cities” are the ones starting unquenchable fires everywhere from the Middle East to Ferguson, Missouri. Moreover, it also clarifies why the left considers it part of the “common good,” by way of the school lunch program, to deliberately deprive growing children of adequate nutrition.

After all, when government does such a bang-up job of breaking what doesn’t need fixing and worsening what needed only minor repairs, Barney Frank is right – far be it from me to believe the baloney that “individualism [in the form of a PB&J sandwich] is the answer, and that everybody should be on his or her own.”

It was during the heated FY2012 budget debate that Paul Ryan’s economic “path to prosperity” dared to suggest repealing Obamacare and (heaven forbid) privatizing Medicare.

The left was apoplectic, and even came out with an ad that featured a Ryan lookalike pushing an elderly “grandmother” off a cliff. Erica Payne of the Agenda Project, the progressive group sponsoring the ad, said America’s elderly would be put in a “bad spot” if Ryan’s “immoral” budget deficit plan passed.

In response, Fox News host Neil Cavuto accused Ms. Payne of “fear-mongering,” saying, “You are saying that an attempt to rein in the growth of an entitlement program that … [is] going to be running out of money five years earlier than we thought is akin to pushing Grandma over a cliff?”

Yes, Neil, that is exactly what Erica was saying. Because just as with the deplorable school lunch program, liberals were accusing the right of making the immoral choices liberals themselves had plans to enact. The difference is that their idea involves literally seizing control over life and death. In fact, the brother of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, admitted it.

As one of the architects of Obamacare, the good doctor does not recommend euthanasia per se, but he does believe that medical care should be denied after the age of – ready for this? – 75, which would make way for what oncologist James Salwitz calls the “75 Plan.”

Much as Michelle Obama feels qualified to determine what Americans should and shouldn’t eat, apparently Zeke has decided he’s qualified to dictate when Americans should or shouldn’t die. Emanuel argues, “Society and families – and you – will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly.”

Dr. Emanuel said that at age 65, he intends to stop diagnostic tests, and at 75, unless he’s going for palliative care, he will no longer visit the doctor. That kind of talk coming from an Obamacare architect/advisor forebodes a future where Medicare funding is stopped at a predetermined age. In other words, health care is about to be school-lunch-sized.

There you have it. Liberals accuse Paul Ryan of starving children and wanting to throw Granny off a cliff.

Then, the first chance they get, via a government-funded school lunch program, Ryan’s accusers withhold food from the very children they claim need to be fed. And, for so-called cost efficiency, they would save old ladies from Paul Ryan just so they can dump both Granny and her wheelchair over the Obamacare cliff.

Joe Biden, ‘Practicing Catholic’

Originally posted at American Thinker

Amid all the smirking, chortling, and “give me a break, kid” sniggering that ill-mannered Joe Biden exhibited at the 2012 vice presidential debate, when he piously explained his stance on abortion, he exposed in totality the hypocrisy of liberal thinking.

Toward the end of the debate, Biden’s friend and one time houseguest, moderator Martha Raddatz, posed the following question to the candidates: “We have two Catholic candidates … [a]nd I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion[.]”

After Paul Ryan expressed how personal faith impacts his pro-life views, Joe Biden sobered up for a second and said, “My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life.”

Like many liberals, whether it’s a game of constitutional Twister or flexible religious creed, Joe fashions his faith to accommodate his personal beliefs.  Therefore, the vice president and the enthusiastically pro-abortion Barack Obama both feel comfortable calling themselves Christian.

Mr. Biden identifies with Roman Catholicism but doesn’t let that identity get in the way of his support of policy that directly contradicts church teaching on the sanctity of life.  Joe may believe he’s been “practicing” Catholicism his whole life, but he’d better keep those training wheels on his theological bicycle.

Echoing fellow Catholic Nancy Pelosi, Joe told Martha that except when it comes to the legally sanctioned death of innocent human beings, Catholicism has “particularly informed [his] social doctrine.”

According to Joe, “[t]he Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who-who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help,” which Biden agrees with except when he’s approving of brutally dismantling helpless innocents “who can’t take care of themselves.”

But isn’t that what liberals do?  Quote Scripture and fund Planned Parenthood?  Talk about caring for the “least of these” and then lobby for dilation and curettage?  Receive communion and vote “yea” for partial-birth abortion?

After attempting to convince America of his firm commitment to the largest Christian church in the world, Joe Biden repeated twice that, “with regard to abortion,” the church’s position that “life begins at conception” is de fide, or “belonging to the essentials of the faith, by virtue of a papal ruling.”  Happy-go-lucky Joe said he accepts “divinely revealed teaching,” but only in his “personal life.”

In other words, Joe Biden’s liberal form of religion says that in the political realm he can grant himself dispensation to approve of, fund, and justify the murder of the unborn, all of which he claims he shuns when he’s at home or attending Mass.  Sorry, Joe, but Pontius Pilate found out that personal disapproval doesn’t erase the stain of innocent blood from guilty hands.

Biden further extended Christian charity to Raddatz, Ryan, and the Sandra Flukes of the world, as well as to “equally devout Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” whom Joe believes also condone abortion on demand.  Joe Biden explained that as a Christian, he cannot impose his unwavering devotion to Catholic doctrine on others.  However, he is perfectly comfortable with imposing an agonizing death on those whom, if he’d walk in the faith he professes, he could save.

For the entirety of the debate, Joe hid his Roman Catholic “light under a barrel,” especially when, referring to Paul Ryan, he said that “unlike my friend here, the-the congressman, I-I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body.”

Winding down his touching soliloquy on faith, Joe stressed that when it comes to abortion, “[i]t’s a decision between them and their doctor.  In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that[.]”  And Joe Biden is certainly not going to let God or the Catholic Church sway or interfere with that opinion.

In light of Biden’s lopsided philosophy, one can’t help but wonder whether the form of trendy religiosity he professes also believes that Jesus had no right to tell the adulterous woman to go “and sin no more.”  After all, she was a woman, and it was her body.

In the end, Joe Biden can smirk, sneer, and disparage Paul Ryan and his stance on abortion that marries truth, core conviction, and selflessness with personal faith all he wants.  For those who had ears to hear, Biden’s apostate theological view concerning abortion confirmed during the debate that, as Peter said in 2 Peter 3:3, “in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.”  And those scoffers occupy the pews of the liberal Democratic Party, right alongside “practicing Catholics” like Joe Biden.

Liberals’ Illegitimate War on Women

Originally posted at American Thinker

Willingness or unwillingness to prevent or terminate a pregnancy appears to be the sole criterion upon which liberal women judge how well they’re being treated.  It’s stunning that the left actually embraces the idea that taking a stand for life instantly translates into hostility toward, or contention with, the female gender.

The right to abort the unborn is so precious to left-leaning women that they are even willing to overlook the fact that 50% of the fetuses losing their lives in abortion clinics are of the gender they believe Republicans are currently waging war against.  The truth is that it’s pro-choice women who discriminate; they’re fine with liberal men being womanizers, perverts, and adulterers, and if women like Juanita Broderick consider what Bill Clinton did to her a “legitimate rape,” then the men they admire can even be alleged rapists.

But if the offender is a Republican, liberal women react quite differently.  Take for instance the beleaguered Republican congressman from Missouri, Todd Akin, who messed up big time when he attempted to explain his pro-life position by saying that it’s never right to abort a child conceived as a result of a rape.

When asked to explain, Akin fumbled and, in the process, suggested that oftentimes pregnancy does not result from rape.  Asked to elaborate, Akins explained his flawed logic: “It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

As a result, the same liberals who refuse to acknowledge the racial undertones in Joe Biden’s “they gon’ put y’all back in chains” remark immediately interpreted “legitimate rape” to mean that Republicans don’t take rape seriously and that the right is truly at war with women.

It’s certainly perplexing how pro-death liberals, all of whom choose to believe the lie that an infant growing in its mother’s womb isn’t a living human being, are now attempting to reinforce the case for their fictional Republican war on women based on one man assuming that the trauma of violent rape could prevent pregnancy.

Scientific verification or not, there’s nothing that gets liberal ire up more than perceived disrespect for the sacrosanct right to choose.  That’s when abortion-loving leftists like Barbara Boxer sprout horns and breathe fire.

Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that at a Planned Parenthood event in California, radical abortion advocate Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) referenced Akin’s “legitimate rape” statement and used it as gotcha fodder to stir up the abortion-obsessed women in attendance, saying, “There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan — if they are elected — would become its top generals.”

Boxer linking Akin’s poorly thought-out comment to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is as ridiculous as Republicans claiming Joe Biden’s “chains” rant implies that Southern Democrats want to reinstate slavery.

Absurdity doesn’t matter, because even logic couldn’t stop Babs from exploiting Todd Akin’s faux pas and using his misstatement to whip up the girls’ outrage by calling the remark a “direct outgrowth” of the “extreme positions on abortion held by Republicans.”

In Barbara Boxer’s irrational pro-choice world, wanting to save the lives of the innocent is “extreme,” and the desire to add to the 60 million human beings who have already been aborted since 1973 is considered measured “moderation.”

Warming up the crowd in anticipation of the big pro-abortion celebration due to take place in Charlotte, NC, Barbara inserted snarkiness into the discussion when she said, “There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and I’m not kidding.”  Barbara Boxer is correct; the extreme “sickness” she’s referring to is called respect for the sanctity of life.

Senator Boxer finished up her down-with-Republicans comments by asking: “Where’s the outrage by Mitt Romney?”  Democrats may not be aware that Republicans are outraged, all right, and have been for decades.  The difference is that, unlike liberals, most Americans disgusted with the ubiquity of violence don’t differentiate, and are just as outraged over the vicious horror of rape as they are the unnecessary savagery of abortion.

Tea Party Terrorists and other Patriots

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Starting any conversation with “it’s not ideal” is a lead-in as disingenuous as the breakup line “It’s not you, it’s me” — both excuses are a pusillanimous way to look better by candy-coating the truth.  Yet that is exactly how Republicans in Congress — save a gang of 21 Congressmen and one woman who refused to submit to the President’s pressure — verbalized the imperfections of a debt deal that they claim to have made for the benefit of the nation.

After deciding to vote for a disappointing deal, riddled with guilt and refusing to make eye contact with the camera, Republicans explained the decision by commencing with rueful disclaimers.  From Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) to Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and right on through to Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), each one halfheartedly defended a bill that raises the debt ceiling, authorizes trillions in new debt, and while lowering discretionary spending stands to potentially leave the government $20 trillion in debt by the end of the decade.

Gone were the vibrant passion and firm indignation of a week earlier, when John Boehner and his caucus acted as if they had an actual backbone.  Cowed by Obama’s threats of default, starving seniors, and a government shutdown, the champions morphed into cowards and then offered the lame analogy that “the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars is a lot like redirecting or turning an aircraft carrier.”

Rather than disembark from a doomed jetliner headed south, Republicans en masse agreed to give Captain Barack Obama trillions more in Monopoly money and put him in a perfect position to do what he does best:  Place the blame elsewhere after the crash.

After resigning themselves to proudly voting “Yes,” Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison felt compelled to explain the rationale behind Republicans settling for removing a pinky toe from a gangrenous leg and calling it “better than nothing.” Kay Bailey Hutchinson said:

This is the best agreement we could have hoped for now, with Republicans in control of just the House of Representatives, and Democrats still controlling the Senate and White House. The agreement takes a series of small but significant steps in the right direction, which is better than big steps in the wrong direction.

Clearly, there remains a large group of Republicans in Washington DC who still don’t know which direction is the  “right direction” and apparently fail to comprehend that small steps deliver the same end if heading over a cliff — only at a more leisurely pace.

The only Republican caucus able to remain faithful to the constituency that placed them in power during the last election was comprised of 22 congresspersons all of which align themselves with the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party is a grassroots group of Americans from all political viewpoints, economic classes and income groups who believe in strict Constitutional principles, smaller government, less taxes, American sovereignty, and a balanced budget.  The political faction is so committed to the idea of rescuing America from the clutches of the likes of Barack Obama that they managed to incite a groundswell of support during the 2010 election season.  In turn, America was partially freed from the Democrats’ grip by an army of newly elected Republican/Tea Party favorites sent to Washington DC to slow President Obama’s liberal goose-stepping march toward European socialism.

Nonetheless, thanks to the left, an occasional RINO or two, and the media all working in tandem, the Tea Party is viewed as an assemblage of fringe-element radicals — unreasonable fanatics whose goal during the debt debate was to use difficult demands to spoil a bipartisan negotiation process that would otherwise be abounding in convivial compromise and cordial conciliation.

Middle-grounder, Senator John McCain (who looks a little like Gollum himself) called the Tea Party activists, refusing to compromise, “hobbits. ” McCain accused Tea Partiers of undermining the debt debate process by insisting that Republicans do what every Democrat, including the one leading the current charge to raise the debt limit, Barack Obama, did when G. W. Bush wanted to do the same thing, which was to vote against it.

In addition to Senator McCain’s insightful comments, Vice President Joe Biden provided his usual lucidity, calling Tea Partiers “terrorists,” and in so doing likely felt he was assisting the Department of Homeland Security while simultaneously providing clarity for moderates who have hungered for someone to blame for keeping the nation divided.

What Joe didn’t realize is that by saying the Tea Party is “acting like terrorists,” he misidentified a surviving faction of patriots who menace Democrats merely because they thwart the left’s plan to create a bankrupt, Godless, demoralized America void of liberty and burdened with bureaucratic bondage.

In the end, because of an anemic dedication to what they claim to profess, Republicans helped implement a compromise Obama’s big spending White House is lauding as a “bipartisan deal that is ‘A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline’,” which explains the apologetic attempt to defend caving under pressure.

In essence, for lack of a better plan, rather than dump the proposal into the proverbial harbor, faint-hearted Republicans requested surplus tea served with a spritz of lemon and lots of sugar.  Instead of joining Congressional representatives who have no problem being identified with an earlier group of Tea Party “terrorists” who refused to give in to the oppression of a king who lived to regret the words, “The colonies must either submit or triumph,” John Boehner and his conciliatory caucus of congressional cowards rejected Tea Party anti-tyrannical terror and submitted.

The Secret to Understanding Liberals

Posted at Renew America

Personal perception is everything, especially when it comes to liberals.  Barack Obama is a perfect case in point.  Here you have an individual with minimal qualifications and expertise who thinks so highly of himself, and so little of the American people, that he had the impudence to run for a leadership position that he had no business seeking.

Unfortunately, in American politics as well as in personal relationships, the least qualified are the most driven to control. Those lacking authentic confidence are the braggadocios in the group, reminding everyone how ahead-of-the-pack they are regardless of the topic, circumstance or discussion. That is precisely how someone of Barack Obama’s character made an unbelievable move from a highchair to the Oval Office chair.

Liberals gain power through a finely tuned mix of self-exaltation and subjugation – traits not exclusive to politics. Ordinary self-exalting subjugators are found everywhere. In day-to-day life, you meet them on the street and sit next to them at Thanksgiving dinner. They busily push their self-important weight around in the business world and, to the detriment of America, have recently taken up residence in the White House.

The President is a liberal subjugator. The definition of subjugation is: the act or process of bringing someone or something under one’s control. Rest assured, Barack Obama is a master of subdue-and-conquer.  The way Obama maintains power is to woo detractors to a front-row seat at a speech and then proceed to do what liberals do by nature: castigate, publicly humiliate, and attempt to crush.

Liberals are notorious for corralling the herd, scrambling to the self-erected balcony seat, and standing apart from the ignorant. In the delusional mind of a liberal, self-righteous authority becomes the justification to be an abusive – albeit seemingly empathetic – disciplinarian.

The excuse for targeted abuse? Liberals are charity champions, the self-styled protectors of the downtrodden, self-aggrandizing deliverers of the destitute, and protectors of the neglected.

Think of it – Obama is possessed of a subtle cruelty and displays it on a regular basis.  The Supreme Court justices, Pete Hoekstra and Aaron Schock (R-IL), and most recently deficit whiz kid Paul Ryan (R-WI) were all taken to task by Obama. Like most liberal subjugators, Barack makes no apology for lifting a leg over a situation to mark territory and maintain aggressive control.

As mentioned before,  subjugators aren’t limited to politics; they expand the effort into every venue and toward all the ‘little people,’ regardless of location.  If common folk want a better understanding of Obama’s style, look to the liberals in everyday life and soon the spirit presently governing the nation will be better understood.

Most normal people have experienced the controlling tendency of a liberal.  Always the upbeat friend, initially a liberal will cozy up in a sociable way. Without fail, things quickly devolve and eventually casual banter is peppered with demeaning innuendos, snide remarks, self-exalting commentary, and perfectly placed put-downs. Obama does it from the podium; Uncle Chester does it at the family picnic.

Over the course of any encounter, there’s at least one inappropriate “correction” or hostile outburst to remind the dupes of the superiority of the liberal in charge.  Correction is always coupled with a firm, chiding reminder of who is smarter and more compassionate.  It’s pervasive. It’s endemic to their species. If Liberals aren’t emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and physically dominating, they’re either under the weather or not an authentic liberal.

For our own good, the left dictates how much of our own money we can keep, what doctor to go to, and which causes are worthy of support. Subjugators take it so far that they even have the temerity to define the boundaries of what others say and do. Liberals are deluded into perceiving themselves as the kindest people on the planet.  However, if the uninformed dare step outside the designated boundary of thought, word or deed, a bona fide liberal will find a way to vilify, mock, deride, and publicly rebuke, and then to drive home a point, a la Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, proceed to stomp out of the room.

Another deceptive liberal ploy is to feign personal angst for the less fortunate. To prove caring concern, the left heavily publicizes every act of altruism.  Liberals notoriously seek face time on live-aid telethons, weep the loudest at funerals, march in gay parades, adopt African babies, and volunteer for inner city organizations. It is upon that sanctimonious foundation; those on the left are able to rationalize verbal mistreatment and dictator-like attitudes toward those who choose to keep philanthropic outreach private.

Liberal benevolence is fodder for billboards and former recipients of liberal kindness are beholden to express undying gratitude, because liberals expect to be repaid with lifelong worship expressed through mindless votes at election time.  The loving, compassionate liberal will choose downtrodden victims to support and then proceed to make a public display of personal goodness, because helping the weak is more about liberals being lauded than not letting “the right hand know what the left hand is doing.”

America witnesses it yearly in the balcony of the House chambers at the annual State of Union address.  It’s the “Everybody, please look at me I hug people with HIV/AIDS” syndrome.

But ultimately, it’s really about power. If Michelle Obama didn’t drive home her acute concern for the health of children, then the supreme child authority could not point an authoritative finger in America’s face when instituting policy that prohibits parents from sending their own children to school with a peanut butter and fluff sandwich in a non-recyclable lunch bag.

After awhile, from the White House to the backyard greenhouse it’s impossible to deny that liberals believe they know more about things than certified experts in diverse fields. Regardless of the venue or subject, those on the left believe they are wiser, more knowledgeable, more savvy and, above all, able to see the bigger picture. In the liberal mind they can run any type of business and are convinced, on day one, they should be CEO.  Uneducated liberals believe they can academically manage educational institutions, raise other people’s children, and organize low-income communities, after which the natural progression is to  follow Obama’s example and segue into “saving” the nation and then conquering the world.

It’s a simple formula, applicable on both a micro and a macro level. Liberals establish themselves as the world’s benevolent caretakers, authorities on all subjects, and based on an overwhelming need to subjugate attempt to gain superiority through humiliation and chastisement. Then liberals demand the right to dictate based on a perverted sense of moral supremacy, self-enhanced dominance, and an obsessive need to control everyone and everything.

It doesn’t take much experience to figure out that couched within every demagogic comment uttered from the lips of a liberal contains is an underlying message of  judgmental disdain and mocking dismissal.  The propensity is identifiable from Barack Obama to the lady next door with the Hope and Change sign on her lawn. Liberals are predictable and all the same.

%d bloggers like this: