Murder Inc. Gives Ryan His Strongest Endorsement

They say this like it’s a bad thing:

Just to be clear, I’m foursquare in favor of Ryan’s prolife record. Bully for him.  If I thought that a Romney Administration would make that the centerpiece of its efforts and not simply use it as a tool to sucker prolifers into voting GOP so it could throw them a dubious sop and then ignore them while it devotes its actual energies to Caesaroligarchic accumulation of power and wealth and more  wars of empire, I’d even vote for them.

But surely they are sincere if Planned Parenthood is panicked about them, right?

Why think that?  Planned Parenthood’s job is to panic the Left into voting and donating just as the “Obama is building FEMA concentration camps!!!” fundraisers on the right aim to panic their grass roots into voting and donating.  It’s like the goofy ADL fundraising letters about the imminent outbreak of anti-semitic violence all across the US that have gone out for decades.  People with an interest in ginning up fear are not the best people to consult about the imminence of the danger they perpetually gin up fear about.

Still, I’m always happy to see Murder Inc. filled with fear.  So well done, Mr. Ryan!

  • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

    Yes, the “If Planned Parenthood is worried, we must be doing something right” angle is as political — and dubious — a claim as PP’s own “Send us money or you’ll die in an alley” fundraisers.

    Strictly speaking, PP’s improved fundraising capability following the nomination of some candidate is a bad effect that needs to be outweighed by the good effect of nominating the candidate. (Admittedly, it’s a teeny, tiny bad effect, meaning the good effect can be nearly insignificant.)

  • Chris M

    PP has been running similar scare ads about Romney. I remember the first time I saw it thinking (while laughing at the absurd over the top fearmongering) “you know.. if I thought for a second he actually would DO any of this, I’d actually vote for the guy!”

  • Cinlef

    At the risk of revealing myself as an ignorant foreigner, I’m not sure how the 5th point relates to abortion at all?

    • Irenist

      It doesn’t, except tangentially through the tyrannical HHS contraception/sterilization mandate. More tangentially, I’d say that Obamacare, by guaranteeing insurance for all, might remove one worry from the minds of expectant mothers, and thereby lower the abortion rate, please God.

      • John H.

        Obamacare ensures insurance for all? I’m sure that’s news to the authors of the bill.

        • Irenist

          A fair point. It would be more accurate to say that it ends preexisting condition exclusions and makes coverage available to almost everyone.

          • DTMcCameron

            And the seeking of it mandatory, or am I mistaken?

            • Irenist

              Mandatory in the sense that you either get insurance or pay a tax penalty.

  • Irenist

    It is immensely encouraging that even Premeditated Pogrom doesn’t think that Ryan’s opposition to the tyrannical HHS contraception mandate is enough of a winner for them to put it on their poster. Huzzah!

  • Peggy R

    I find it tiresome this blaming of the federal Congress for not overturning RvW. We need state laws outlawing abortion to percolate up through the courts to overturn RvW. Pay some attention to your local and state office holders. Yes, the Congress should undo PP funding and pass national laws affecting the right to life in the US that are constitutional. There are the foreign policy issues and the appointment of federal judges. But the primary game is played at the state legislature. Quit expecting unreasonable actions from federal officials.

    • John H.

      Actually, we need congress to pass an amendment, or the SCOTUS to overturn Roe V Wade. State laws do not supersede Roe V Wade. So, it is the case that the Republican controlled congress under Bush refused to pass a personhood amendment, which they could have worked for. Instead they focused their efforts on growing big brother, policing the world, and waging a never-ending war on “terrorism.”

      • Peggy R

        I do agree that W et al should have done something on the social front when they had power. They squandered it badly.

      • Ted Seeber

        The reason for it is if you read the actual Roe V. Wade decision, the Supreme Court basically asked for Congress to overturn it, and gave them step by step instructions on how to do it.

        Those step by step instructions haven’t been acted upon in 39 years, because Congress is too cowardly to pass a simple resolution defining the legal term “person”.

        • Richard Johnson

          There’s also the notion that if the GOP actually follows through on somehow overturning Roe or rendering it irrelevant (via Constitutional Amendment) there will no longer be any red meat to throw in front of the base. Think about how little excitement there would be for Romney on this board if abortion were illegal and/or the Democrats were pro-life.

          No, the GOP needs the dead bodies of unborn children as much as the Democrats need them. If they didn’t they would have passed the Human Life Amendment back in the 90s when they controlled both houses of Congress. They didn’t even bring it out of sub-committee. That speaks volumes about their commitment to the unborn.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Thomas McDonald had a great piece about the Romney/Ryan vote, and he’s probably close to where I am about the vote in general, and Ryan in particular. Not that other information discovered might not change my mind, but as of now, it’s about as close to my thinking as I’ve found.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/08/ryan-rand-and-the-catholic-angle/#more-2734

    • Ted Seeber

      Thank you for posting that article. You just relieved my last objection to voting for the guy.

  • John

    Wait, wait….so….FEMA is not building concentration camps to house right-wingers in? Halleluijiah!

    • dpt

      No…they are re-purposing the ones Bush/Ashcroft built, which turn out to be the someones that Clinton erected in the 1990s.

      Ahh…the circle of strife.

  • Observer

    Repubs need to defend the people from widening powers which have been leading – for some time – to the outcome as O has abused authority through the Pat.

    Act. More and most interestingly, I’m still trying to find out how is it O had been downcasted and portrayed in mockery of being a god-king? And yet, the opposing group – which authored the Pat. Act – had no qualms of it’s own course of perverting justice? Does that opposing group consider itself incapable and quite god-like (as though they had a pure conscience) of never doing wrong (and never failing and commiting error)? From what I could tell, the whole reason for the Pat. Act was something like..”if it’s in our hands were going to do good for the country and have an infallible ability to go after those crooked men who bring about terrorizing people with violence.”

    I’m trying to see why the so called god-like identity of the so-called GrandOldParty shouldn’t be questioned after producing the PatAct and later opposing O for making very much the same claim under his own dogmatic authority?

    O has held the power as a god-king as it was served on a platter through the act authored by so-called well-governed-never-going-to-do-you-wrong minded men (who want us to believe they are our friends and wont make a mistake.) Perhaps what is missing is the belief one can be a conserv and never (neither commit) any moral wrong.

    It’s one thing altogether to say he isn’t our god-king, and absolutely another thing to say he isn’t the right sort of god-king to administer such authority layed out in the act. How is anyone supposed to decipher the sacred holding to a bill – which has been a dogmatic ringer for the men who wrote it – from the god-king which they oppose? Isn’t it quite complimentary that O is in office for the preceding powers widely obtained in a bill? Shouldn’t the whole opposition really be celebrating?

    No. Because, like an incestuous relation, the outcome of the birth of a child resembles much the two parents in a disordered way. Namely, O resembles what’s wrong with the so-called conserv party. And they don’t like the resemblence and outcome of that relationship.

    Sorry. The difference betweeen O who thinks he’s a savior versus the man who doesn’t even believe he needs one is quite a peculiar spectacle and I won’t be brought into the crooked view and fancy which they delight. Since were Pro-L.i.f.e., I’m hoping O wins and the crooks who want him to lose as an unwanted child.

    • Ted Seeber

      This is the most confusing comment I’ve seen yet. I have no idea what your philosophical bent is, but I think you shouldn’t drink and post.

      • Chris M

        I think I got part of it.. but it gave me a headache translating it. So.. basically.. he wants Obama to win out of spite because Bush and the GOP are evil-er.. but are pretending they aren’t and blaming their evilness on Obama.. even though they were the first ones to do the evil thing that the GOP is now blaming Obama for.. or something. I have to go take some Aleve and lie down now.

      • ED

        [...I think you shouldn't drink and post.]

        Oh Ted… you’re such a Killjoy!

  • Will

    We need to provide medical help for those in need.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X