Footer Pages


Barb Weir Interviews Paul Ryan on Equal Rights and the Personhood of Fertilized Corporations

The U.S. Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, is often portrayed as a person of little compassion. However, he sees himself as expanding equal rights to new classes of persons. Here is how he responded to my questions on these subjects:

BW: Congressman Ryan, you’ve said that human life is precious to you, so why do you insist that even if a pregnancy endangers the life of a woman, she has no right to end it?

PR: As you say, I care very much about bringing life into the world. Once it’s here, government should have nothing to do with sustaining it, other than killing, arresting and intimidating criminals, terrorists and evildoers at home and abroad. The mother’s life is none of our business.

BW: What if the child has no chance of survival due to severe birth defects?

PR: It’s about the right of every person to be born, not about whether the baby or the mother survives. After birth, we have no more responsibility. We don’t want a welfare state, do we?

BW: And whom do you consider to be a person?

PR: Personhood begins with fertilization or incorporation. A fertilized egg is a human being. In other words, the rights of the egg begin when a woman gets screwed, if it’s the right time of the month. After that, it’s her rights that get screwed. It’s the natural order of things.

BW: You said that personhood also begins with incorporation. What do you mean by that?

PR: Surely you know, Barb, that corporations are people, too. Even the Supreme Court has said so. The creation of a corporation is a blessed event, much like fertilization of an ovum.

BW: What are the rights of corporations, as compared to that of people – or perhaps I should say other people.

PR: Thank you for correcting yourself. There’s good news and bad, Barb. On the one hand, the police at home and the military abroad defend the rights of law-abiding US citizens and corporations, and in fact I would say that most police and military actions are for the sake of corporations. That’s the good news. The bad news is that in spite of the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend as much money as they like on elections, they do not yet have the right to vote like other persons. It’s very sad that they have no voice in electing the candidates that they go to such lengths to choose for us.

BW: Congressman, you’ve said that you oppose welfare, but don’t you support subsidies for farmers and bailouts for corporations? How is that not welfare?

PR: We have to distinguish between welfare and free enterprise.  I support free enterprise, which means enabling corporations to do whatever they want.  Subsidies and bailouts are important in preserving the free enterprise system.

BW: Then why not offer subsidies and bailouts to the rest of us?

PR: The American citizen is the rock upon which our free enterprise system is built. Citizens are there to support the system, not be supported by it.  C’mon, Barb, you get to vote for candidates that corporations only select for you.  Isn’t that enough?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

30 Responses to Barb Weir Interviews Paul Ryan on Equal Rights and the Personhood of Fertilized Corporations

  1. Rehmat August 19, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

    Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, etc. are admirer of Israel-Firster Jewish Ayan Rand and share many social and economic concepts with Adolph Hitler!!

    • Deadbeat August 20, 2012 at 8:17 am #

      Where they diverge from Hitler is that he used real currency ending the debt-based central bank fractional reverse system. He ended the linkage of the currency to gold and linked German currency to productivity. Germany was able to recover its economy in two years after the awful condition it suffered under Weimar.

      This was a major threat to Roosevelt as well as the heat he was getting from rival Huey Long’s “Share the Wealth”. That is why Americans eventually got Social Security and Unemployment — programs that existed under National Socialism.

      • etominusipi August 20, 2012 at 11:46 am #

        i’m no historian, but seem to remember that Bismarck, never much of a hero to ‘the left’, introduced social security legislation.

        in England it is a part of the wartime and post-wartime demonization of Germany not to pay much attention to this development. and when it is mentioned it is generally treated, rightly or wrongly, merely as a cynical manouevre to keep German liberals on track with the policy of ‘unification’.

        a quick search turned up the following, make of it what you will. the phrase i have italicized, (more than a tad ambiguous as it stands, but recall the source is an EU agency), would perhaps be a good place to initiate a more detailed study of the politics of Germany half a century before the midpoint between the two ‘world wars’ – an expansive era noted for imperial shenanigans and rapidly developing military technology – and also the period in which the cankered germ of zionazism was beginning to sprout in the moist darkness of addled, megalomanic crania.

        What is known as Bismarck’s social security legislation dates back to the Imperial Message of November 17, 1881 to the Reichstag (National Parliament), in which the conviction was expressed “that the healing of social wrongs must be sought not solely through the repression of social democratic excesses but just as much by positively advancing the well-being of the workers”. In the era that followed, regulations were passed on the three most common areas of risk:

        1. The Law concerning Health Insurance for Workers (Gesetz betreffend die Krankenversicherung der Arbeiter) of June 15, 1883 provided for the introduction of national compulsory insurance for most manual and white-collar workers in industry up to an annual earnings level of 2,000 Reichsmarks. This insurance was subsequently extended to the transport sector and to workers in agriculture and forestry. On April 10, 1892 the entire set of provisions was promulgated afresh in the form of the Health Insurance Act (Krankenversicherungsgesetz).

        2. On July 6, 1884 there followed the Accident Insurance Act (Unfallsversicherungsgesetz) for workers in particularly dangerous establishments. Later, the construction industry and agriculture and forestry were included. On July 13, 1887 accident insurance was decreed for the shipping sector.

        3. The provisions were completed on June 22, 1889 by the Law on Invalidity and Old Age Insurance for Workers, Journeymen and Apprentices (Gesetz über Invaliditäts- und Alterssicherung für Arbeiter, Gehilfen und Lehrlinge), irrespective of wage level.

        In introducing a social security policy Bismarck’s laws anticipated, in its main features, the present system of social security.

        • Barb Weir September 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

          Bismarck was just a commie wannabe. Much too progressive for the U.S. Republican Party.

  2. pgg804 August 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Another funny article Barb. He looks like he could be Eisenhower’s running mate or the father in the “Leave it to Beaver” sitcom.

    • Barb Weir August 20, 2012 at 9:03 am #

      I think he would consider Eisenhower a socialist. Under E’s administration, the upper tax bracket was more than 90%, almost three times what it is now.

  3. who_me August 19, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Republicans, Get In My Vagina!

    Kate Beckinsale, Judy Greer and Andrea Savage “spread” the message that the one thing women really want in their vagina is the government.”

  4. Eileen Fleming August 19, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    If I can’t laugh it’s not my revolution, so thanks for this piece;

    But seriously, “There are only two feelings. Love and Fear. There are only two activities. Love and Fear. There are only two motives, two procedures, two frameworks, two results. Love and Fear. Love and Fear. Love and Fear” and if there is NO Compassion within a Christian-it is the Antichrist [meaning against Christ] that rules their hearts.

    • Barb Weir September 2, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

      This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours. They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away. The prince who depends entirely on their words perishes when he finds he has not taken any other precautions. This is because friendships purchased with money and not by greatness and nobility of spirit are paid for, but not collected, and when you need them they cannot be used. Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.

      — The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli (translation Stephen J. Milner)

      • who_me September 3, 2012 at 12:16 am #

        “The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli”

        sounds like machy was your typical jewish ny middle-aged+, overweight, gay dress designer with a glandular problem, who has to pay for his “male” escort to the weekly, posh (always posh) yuppy brownnose event. 😀

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 3, 2012 at 1:09 am #

          Some homosexuals did you wrong at some point, didn’t they?

          • who_me September 3, 2012 at 1:17 am #

            “Some homosexuals did you wrong at some point, didn’t they?”

            actually, no.

            why are you so sensitive about them? do you consider them something “special”. 😀

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 3, 2012 at 2:10 am #

            It’s because I don’t consider them special that I don’t obsess about them. I accept the unfair odds that the opinions I disagree with cannot all belong to those who are jewish and gay. So I don’t see Machiavelii as “typical jewish gay”…

          • who_me September 3, 2012 at 2:56 am #

            “It’s because I don’t consider them special that I don’t obsess about them. I accept the unfair odds that the opinions I disagree with cannot all belong to those who are jewish and gay. So I don’t see Machiavelii as “typical jewish gay”…”

            “For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours. They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away.”

            if that line isn’t that of a disappointed homosexual, what is it? 😀

            i used to date an actress years ago who had many gay friends. the sort of complaints machivelli was expressing was like going back in time and listening to a conversation between those gays.

            btw, i’ve long considered machy a gay, from other “manly” shit he’s written. 😀

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 3, 2012 at 3:10 am #

            You’re reading without any consideration/understanding not only of the times and the entire context but also already brainwashed by the feminist idea that “man” cannot possibly mean “person.”
            Indeed to you “The proper measure of mankind is man” would be a homosexual statement.
            There was a time–and not that long ago, when Man, in most contexts meant human being as opposed to other species, not as opposed to woman. That was before PC
            That aside it is true that there were no women in politics in Machiavelli’s time. Nothing he wrote had anything to do or was even remotely informed by the homosexuality you suspect him of.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 3, 2012 at 3:13 am #

            PS I have no idea what “manly shit” he wrote, but in all fairness I think neither do you. The thing of it is that when you veer into this left field you don’t do yourself any justice and maculate your record of excellent and highly informative posts and that’s what I react to.

          • who_me September 3, 2012 at 3:31 am #

            Ariadna Theokopoulos

            i didn’t know you were a fan of machy the macho wonder? 😮

            btw, he probably was gay. 😀

            I aint the only one who thinks macho machy was a flamin’ fruit:


            “The question of Machiavelli’s sexuality sometimes arises. The short answer, I think, is that he was, like many Florentine figures of the time, bisexual. Sometimes his “womanizing” is mentioned to exclude any homosexuality. That is an absurd either-or. Machiavelli wrote at least one explicit gay poem, and was known to frequent the shop of his friend Donato, who kept it staffed by a changing cast of attractive youths.”

            if one reads the passage from machy above that quote, it’s pretty obvious he’s very much an image primping queen.

          • etominusipi September 3, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

            i agree with Ariadna’s gentle advice. no-one can question the value of many of who_me’s incisive contributions, including some excellent links. but a good poster can become less effective by giving way to the temptation to sling online mud at his personal demons. no doubt many of us lapse at times, i’m sure i do – especially after drink has been taken – but it is not something we should wish to encourage. there are things it is natural and wholesome for good-natured people to feel anger about, but raw anger is a very blunt instrument, akin, say, to a power bulldozer. a surgeon’s scalpel is less impressively energetic, yet is much superior in subtlety and flexible application. the bulldozer, in fact, is a fitting symbol of zionism.

            however… far be it from me to wish to dictate what or how anyone should write. i would merely ask some contributors to study the prose style of a great writer of fiction, Khalid Amarayeh, whom we had for a while the good fortune of entertaining on deLiberation. his words presented us, and our readers – including the ‘silent’ ones who do not post, amongst them, no doubt, a few of the nimbler-minded amongst the rabid frequenters of Ari’s Plaice – with a supreme example of the successful channeling of anger. he always makes his points concisely and sharply, never for a moment slipping into dull-witted invective or boring diatribes.

          • who_me September 3, 2012 at 4:37 am #

            “So I don’t see Machiavelii as “typical jewish gay”…

            when i wrote that description at “September 3, 2012 at 12:16 am” i was padding the material for humour effect. i had never thought of machy as a jewish ny gay type, but it’s a familiar stereotype to most. gay? probably. flamboyant? definitely. jewish? never really thought about it before.

            which got me curious, since you mentioned it. did a search and found this near the top:


            apparently some jews hope he was jewish. perhaps he was. interesting read, even though the author is something one accidentally steps in on the side walk if they are not paying enough attention (or it’s dark and it’s just not their day).

          • Jonathon Blakeley September 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

            What is all the G-d bit? Did I miss a memo, when did the Name of the Almighty become hyphenated and why?

          • who_me September 3, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

            Jonathon Blakeley

            September 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm

            “What is all the G-d bit? Did I miss a memo, when did the Name of the Almighty become hyphenated and why?”

            it’s something neocons do. a revival of the ancient hebrew practice of not being allowed to say god’s name? i don’t know.

          • etominusipi September 3, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

            I accept the unfair odds that the opinions I disagree with cannot all belong to those who are jewish and gay

            this is a clever debating ploy Ariadna. the opinions you or i disagree with are obviously either gay or jewish in origin, but not always both. who_me is merely pointing out that, being both jewish and gay, Niccolo Machiavelli was doomed from the start to have a pernicious influence on the development of political thought. no sane person could disagree with that judgement.

            rather than describing human nature as he saw it (the false view now universally accepted because of Spielberg’s slavishly and shamelessly hagiographic film treatment Niccolo’s Golden Ass), Macchiavelli sought to corrupt human nature with his disgusting literary productions. it is our misfortune in the West that he succeeded.

            it can be no accident that neither rape nor murder, nor any act of political treachery has ever been reported in any authenticated documentary source dated prior to the publication of Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati (1502)

            the Muslim nations, who have not had the misfortune of exposure to the corrosive acid of Macciavelli’s ‘thought’, are still free of these plagues, as can be seen from their wonderful ability to co-operate in the political arena.

            it is, indeed, a strange irony of hate that the brotherhood of man, preached by Jesus, has never been attained in the Christian polity, whereas from the very beginning of Islam this unbreakable bond of brotherhood has been the sole basis not only of relations between nations but also of the regulation of society generally.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 3, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

            Using hackneyed phrases this period in your writing would be called eto’s “Gold period,” but since gold has been definitively tarnished by its pejorative semantic associations (gold digger, Goldman Sachs, Goldie Hawn, etc) I can think of only one standard of excellence and value: deLiberation. So I would say that in time deLib itself would be seen as divide into periods: pre-eto and post-eto.

          • etominusipi September 3, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

            coming to deLiberation i feel like a hapless and footsore wanderer who, against all the odds, finds friendship and shelter amongst a lively group of desert nomads in an unsuspected caravanserai.

          • Jonathon Blakeley September 3, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

            Macchiavelli’s Prince has become a classic – recommended reading for all wanna-be leaders, tyrants and bankers. Fascinating it is no doubt but I think etominusipi makes a good point. It has done a lot of damage in the West.

            It is largely the blueprint by which we are governed. Fear + Unceratinty + Doubt.

            This model must change before it is too late.

          • Barb Weir September 3, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

            I find it difficult to blame the book or even the writer. It is the reader that bears the responsibility, although I know very few writers that don’t read what they write. Would it help if we all stop reading? Somehow I doubt it would improve things.

      • Jonathon Blakeley September 3, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

        A very interesting book “the Prince”, I loved it. Great point Barb.

  5. Ariadna Theokopoulos September 3, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    It’s brillig, who_me, a time when those slithy toves gyring and gimbling around you can do a number on your discretion.
    In all sincerity I would advise you not to carry on until the borogoves get mimsy and you find yourself amid the mome raths outgribing. Let go of Niccolo’s pant leg, you have slain the gay jabberwocky.

    • fool me once... September 3, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

      “Let go of Niccolo’s pant leg,”
      Did you mean;
      Let go of Niccolo’s silk stockinged leg?
      It’s certainly conjures up a funny mental image 😀

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 4, 2012 at 3:47 am #

        They don’t make them anymore; I looked into it a few years ago.
        My mother and her generation used to wear them until the 50s when nylons won.
        I imagine higher ups (cardinal and above) in the Vatican have them made to order for themselves to enjoy the feel of silk sliding on silk when they cross their legs under those swishing robes discreetly redolent of ‘Mon Ami’ — relieves the tedium of long hours of piety (a passage from the Thorn Birds?).
        Yes, make it a silk stockinged leg, fmo, by all means.