Stanek Sunday funnies: “Biden, chains of fool” edition
Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week on Joe Biden’s incredibly degrading gaffe (and why is no one in the media questioning this man’s ability to be president?)…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at GoComics.com…
by (liberal) Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
And I close this segment with a fitting trip down memory lane. I give you Aretha…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StScwYJiImQ[/youtube]
Aug.19, 2012 10:41 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
ROFL – LOVE IT Jill! hahaha
So you want a cult member who changes his mind every other day and an Ayn Rand worshiper?
Can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
And who do you want, Caroline? The president who authorized the extrajudicial assassinations of three U.S. citizens in violation of the 5th Amendment and his oath of office?
A cult member? An Ayn Rand worshiper? My, my, my. Our troll friend, Caroline, must rely on the Daily Kos and MoveOn for her news. Sad. Meanwhile those of us connected to reality will try to save the country for both ourselves and misguided trolls.
Biden 2016! When you look back at president elect Obama’s choice to be number 2 (running mate) in 2007 it speaks volumes about Obama’s ability to lead.
Looks like ol’ Caroline is a one of those in a long line of chained fools! Bahahaha!
Obama picked Biden because he needed somebody with a lower IQ and worse college transcripts that could make Obama appear to be intelligent.
‘Stupid Human Tricks’ and ‘Top Ten’ come to mind when I see video clips of ole black Joe Biden extinguishing himself.
One of america’s dirtiest jobs: The United States Presidential Secret Service Security Detail.
It’s helps to explain why members of the Secret Service would turn to hookers and booze as a diversion.
truthseeker says: August 19, 2012 at 11:47 am “When you look back at president elect Obama’s choice to be number 2 (running mate) in 2007 it speaks volumes about Obama’s ability to lead.”
It speaks even more about the obamateurs lack of judgement.
Cant help thinkin of some of our more enfatuated obama psychophants when I read these lyrics.
Deadicating this song to EX-RINO, the one who keeps the ‘sin’ in Wiscon.
For five long years
I thought you were my man
But I found out
I’m just a rube in your scam
You got me where you want me
I ain’t nothin’ but your fool
Ya treated me mean
Oh you treated me cruel
One of these mornings
The chain is gonna break
But up until the day
I’m gonna take all I can take, oh hey
Chain, chain, chain
(Chain, chain, chain)
Chain of fools
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am “…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote Democrat…”
“To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.”George Orwell, 1945
Good grief, another troll fixated on Ayn Rand?
Now what would Caroline, in her great enligtenment, refer to me as if I made snide reference to candidate’s race, Muslim faith, or ethnicity?
How insulting has it been to hear the pundits try to explain away this gaffe? Trying to say it was just a continuation on the theme of “unchained Wall Street?” That makes no sense. Just like trying to dilute the “you didn’t build that” line with the rest of Obama’s speech. Again, didn’t work.
Biden was at that dangerous point after an applause line (trouble was, it wasn’t much of an applause line). He tried to put the cherry on top with an off-the-cuff, “He gunna put y’all back in chains!”
Now what could that possibly mean? Does de-regulating Wall Street investors regulate / chain others? No, it was an obvious reference to a mindless stereotype that any conservative in office would just as soon see blacks back in slavery. Up until now we might have thought only the crazy Left thought this. But it appears to be ingrained in mediocre bureaucrats like Biden too.
“(2:23) But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand”
–Paul Ryan
http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again
It’s just a novel. Right, Mary?
Meanwhile, I’m hoping that Mr. Romney will release his tax returns to the American people, just as Mr. Ryan had to do in order to be considered a running mate by Mr. Romney.
If Biden was selected to make Obama look intelligent, he’s certainly got his work cut out for him. It really gets good around mid video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8&feature=related
mp,
Paul Ryan was a fan of Ayn Rand’s novels, not a disciple. I’m a fan of Jules Verne novels, but I’m not going to be constructing a Nautilus any time soon.
See beginning at 18:00:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/1785458730001
mp,
No sooner do I say “Ayn Rand fixation” then who should appear?!!
OK mp, I’ll humor you, its not just a book its a Koch Brothers plot and my anonymous source told me you are secretly in service to the Koch Bros. and their plan for world conquest, via Rand’s book “Atlas Shrugged”. Maybe its the same anonymous source who informed Reid about Romney’s taxes.
So when you prove my anonymous source wrong, I will expect that Romney also prove Reid’s anonymous source wrong.
Does de-regulating Wall Street investors regulate / chain others?
We know how the Wall Street thing worked out.
So when you prove my anonymous source wrong, I will expect that Romney also prove Reid’s anonymous source wrong.
Well, you see, I don’t have to because it’s already costing Romney and the polls prove it. In fact, it might cost him the election.
I eagerly await the release–or not–of Mr. Romney’s tax returns!
mp,
The polls are a statistical dead heat, +3.4 for Obama.
Paul Ryan was a fan of Ayn Rand’s novels, not a disciple.
Come again, Hans?
You obviously didn’t listen to Mr. Ryan’s extremely informative speech.
You know, the one he disavowed after he learned he was under consideration to be Mr. Romney’s running mate.
Caroline: “Ayn Rand worshiper”
LOL
Right.
And because I used to get stoned while reading Dune, I want to fold space and tell reverend mothers where to get off.
You too, mp. Seriously. The attempt to tar Ryan with the brush of all things Rand merely because the Galt strike struck him as true to reality, is idiocy.
Do you NOT think John Galt’s name is rightly an appropriate description of economic phenomena? Why has so, so much business capital been sitting on the sidelines the last few years, mp?
Here’s the funny thing. Progressives intent on impugning Ryan dishonestly (“he must be an atheists too, since Rand was! You Christer rightards ought to take note of that! Because we can compell pro-lifer Catholics to vote for Obama if we’re histrionic enough about Ryan!”) — such progressives, I say — are so quick to saddle him with ALL of Rand’s baggage, that they forget that her narrative offers important insights.
What’s weird about this, though, is that such progressives don’t imagine that they are, themseles, obliged to swallow everything their own progressive icons espouse. Imagining themselves ideologically eclectic and slaves to no one, they deem themselves free to pick and choose without adopting any person’s entire suite of policy recommendations, ideas — whatever.
But the moment Ryan indicates that an influential book helped him see the importance of public service, suddenly he cannot possibly be a person who fails be simply be Ayn Rand incarnate.
mp, don’t you get tired of the silliness on progressive sites? Almost all I’ve seen on this issue cite the basic Ryan quote, then spend the remainder of their verbosity yammering about Rand herself — followed by some concluding “so that’s Ryan in a nutshell” idiocy.
It’s irrational. It’s stupid. It’s shallow, transparent propaganda.
It’s irrational. It’s stupid. It’s shallow, transparent propaganda.
Rasqual, you amaze me. I expected more.
You have previously stated here, within these holy pages, that Obama is a corporatist and I agreed with you.
Yet, you refuse to see the obvious. Messrs. Romney and Ryan are also corporatists.
mp, Paul Ryan’s plan to fix the economy and deficits is his own. He had many influences in his life. He is a devout Christian and Ayn Rand was against Christianity and religion so your use of the word ‘disciple’ is disingenuous at best and complete BS unworthy of substantive dialogue. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste.
truthseeker, you need to learn how to read.
I never used the word “disciple.”
mp: “You have previously stated here, within these holy pages, that Obama is a corporatist and I agreed with you. Yet, you refuse to see the obvious. Messrs. Romney and Ryan are also corporatists.”
What you may not remember is that my election philosophy this year is a more radical one than in 2008. Then, it was “anyone but Obama — even if they have daily sex with dead weasels.” This year, I’ve extended that to include stoats and ferrets. I draw the line with possums, but what the hell.
LOL
Seriously, mp. Is this supposed to convince me to vote for Obama, or to stay home? “Hmm. Both the candidates seem alike in respects h, s and y, out of an entire alphabet of positions. Hah! The only possibly conclusion to draw is that I should be discouraged from voting for Romney. I guess Obama’s De Man!“
mp: “the one he disavowed”
Quote the original content, and its disavowal.
Should be brief enough to quote exactly, right?
As for amazement or expecting more, let me put it this way: if you support Obama, your capacity for amazement and your expectations are so completely broken that I just can’t really concern myself too much with that. ;-)
Caroline please identify the differences between Ayn Rand and The Barack.
You will find that The Barack has embraced all of Ayn Rand’s revolting ideas while not embracing any of her noble ideas. Paul Ryan on the otherhand has embraced Ms. Rand’s classical liberal theory on economics while rejecting her revolting views on abortion and the like.
It seems to me that you should be complaining about The Barack’s affinity for Randian ideas and not Paul Ryan’s.
Well, I thought Obama praised a “corpseratist”. Oh, maybe that was something else. :)
Here’s Orwell’s quote that Mr. Ken so appropriately posted earlier in this thread:
“To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.”George Orwell, 1945
So, Rasqual, tell me: Who’s exchanging one orthodoxy for another?
Behind Door Number 1, a corporatist.
Behind Door Number 2, a corporatist.
Those are your choices.
So, it isn’t a question of what you’re going to get, the only question is: Who will benefit?
I guarantee that it won’t be you. Or me.
mp,
Since you think Romney should show his tax returns then you probably agree with Rush that Obama should release his college transcripts too?
http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/08/02/limbaugh-obama-got-worst-grades-harvard-history
Since you think Romney should show his tax returns then you probably agree with Rush that Obama should release his college transcripts too?
Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Quote the original content, and its disavowal.
I didn’t quote the original content, I linked to it.
You can listen to his (Ryan’s) speech yourself.
Mark, who would those three be?
mp: If you wish to focus one one particular orthodoxy, sure. Tunnel vision. Romney isn’t the candidate I’d have preferred. We go to elections with the candidates we have. And since he’s not having daily sex with dead weasels, he far exceed my expectations to surpass Obama’s qualifications for the office.
You made a really specific claim about Ryan “disavowing.”
Fine. You’re a liar, because you’re not explaining it and I see now disavowal. You’re able to prove my “liar” claim a slander and earn my sincere mea culpa, merely by showing how Ryan “disavowed” something.
Geez, what’s it take to get people to support their claims in these parts? I have to embrace the potential for being called out as a slanderer just to energize people to defend things they’re enthusiastic about enough to claim but not substantiate?
What’s WITH people nowadays?
mp, I’m aware of the material. I don’t see the “disavowal” you claim. That’s because you’re buying that he’s a total incarnation of Rand based on his superficial remarks, and so when he says no to the propagandist generalizations you’ve apparently come to believe yourself, you take his correction of your lunacy as a disavowal of his charter Rand fan boy status.
George: Quick search found this:
http://rt.com/usa/news/aclu-execution-drone-suit-387/
Fine. You’re a liar, because you’re not explaining it and I see now disavowal. You’re able to prove my “liar” claim a slander and earn my sincere mea culpa, merely by showing how Ryan “disavowed” something.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0814/Paul-Ryan-does-an-about-face-on-Ayn-Rand/(page)/2
You’ll now tell me that The Christian Science Monitor is a “librul” publication, right?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa
And National Review is another “librul” publication, right?
Come on, Rasqual, I expected … better.
And your lame attempts to smear me simply reflect your own ideological bankruptcy.
Sorry.
Rasqual, I hope you enjoy having sex with dead weasels.
As for myself, I’m going to enjoy the day.
What’s left of it.
LOL!!! These cartoons are GREAT!
So what’s the deal, has Joe Biden been a Republican operative working to take the Democrats down from the inside this whole time?
The cartoons are great. But, Biden’s rhetoric was pretty offensive. I shouldn’t laugh so hard given the underlying history.
mp: I borrow a rule from lawyers — I know the answer to questions I ask. And you’re acting out a caricature I’d not thought you would — the whole “librul” snark. Good grief.
My God, did you even read the source material Haq was ostensibly citing? But why would you cite her at all, and then cite the source material? Is her particular interpretation of it so important to preserve the spin you’re putting on this? Is NRO so lacking in this spin that you have to import it from elsewhere? You need to turn “Ryan shrugged” into Ryan “does an about face.” So you can’t explain it from the actual interview, you have to cite Haq for some dumb reason. Geesh.
READ IT. The NRO interview. In no way has he “disavowed” what interested him, in Rand, in economics.
Please answer my question, mp. If John Galt is not an icon for something true (a reason Galt has been verbed) , and if the strike in Atlas Shrugged doesn’t speak to a reality in economics — then why are so many businesses sitting on capital instead of investing it?
Try to answer the question credibly without supporting the entire idea of “going Galt” as Rand presented it. And note: you don’t have to be an objectivist to accept and understand that.
You have no idea how stupid this critique of Ryan comes across.
When Ryan cites Aquinas, he’s not name dropping. I’m afraid progressives who wouldn’t know Aquinas from Aguilera are just incapable of engaging in sane discourse.
Please answer my question, mp. If John Galt is not an icon for something true (a reason Galt has been verbed) , and if the strike in Atlas Shrugged doesn’t speak to a reality in economics — then why are so many businesses sitting on capital instead of investing it?
Rasqual, I pity you, I truly do.
Capitalists, like myself, are “sitting on capital” GLOBALLY and the reason is lack of demand, not some notion of “confidence.”
Are you now going to respond by saying there is some massive CONSPIRACY, to confine capital to the sidelines?
Are you now going say that Obama and his henchmen have intimidated the entire planet’s stock of capital?
Rasqual, you talk about Kool-Aid drinkers! Look in the mirror.
All of you Red Team and Blue Team people are charactures of yourselves.
I’m going to enjoy the day and hope you do as well.
Um, no, I’m not going to say the things you’re putting in my mouth.
Merely because Rand showcased a capitalist conspiracy to sideline production as a type, does not mean that the literary figure’s antitypes in the real world would be “conspirators.”
Individualism, remember? ;-)
edit: I will add this. It’s not paranoia about Obama personally, which is a mere progressive conceit concerning their political adversaries. It’s the result of central management of markets. It hasn’t WORKED. In Europe, it’s utterly failed. In the states, consider the stimulus and its lack of results as predicted by a government that simply doesn’t know what’s even going on, economically.
Hayek is simply right about the Knowledge Problem — and other things.
Hayek is simply right …
My, my, what goes around comes around.
Hayek! The Koch brothers’ favorite economist.
There’s that Kool-Aid, Rasqual.
Drink it up!
Hi Rasqual,
I have to warn you, according to mp, the Koch Bros. are at the center of a conspiracy and their agents are everywhere. Apparently Hayek is the latest addition.
As if invoking the Koch bros. the way you are isn’t conspiratorial. Seriously do you people actually believe your own propaganda? And anything “linked”, of course, to any of your bogeymen, is intrinsically evil.
LOL
What, specifically, about Hayek, do you think is wrong?
What, specifically, do you think is wrong with his analysis of the Knowledge Problem?
Best of luck with that.
Are you voting for the ersatz Keynesian this cycle?
Mary: I don’t know mp very well. But in just the last hour I’ve seen the whole “reaching conclusions by osmosis, not inference” thing more often than I’d have guessed possible. It doesn’t make a very good impression. I expected better. ;-)
Rasqual, I’m weary of your polemic. As I said, I expected better from you, really. Facts are difficult things.
Meanwhile, read it and weep for your intellectual heroes. They’ve actually included an image of Koch’s letter to Hayek. Hypocrisy much?
As to voting, I don’t. Haven’t done for over 40 years. If you’d actually read what I’ve previously written here, you’d know that. You’re just like the rest of them. You hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see. As I said, you’re a caraciture of yourself.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/friedrich-hayek-joins-ayn-rand-as-a-hypocritical-user-of-medicare.html
LOL
Having reflexively invoked the Kochs in conspiratorial fashion, mp is beset with ennui for want of facts. ;-)
Um, “read it and weep?” Something I’m well aware of? Why would I weep? What substantive point do you think this kind of playful stuff makes? Are you a child?
And referring to the Kochs as someone’s “hero” is inferring a bridge too far. I couldn’t care less about the Kochs (ooh, I’m denying they’re my heroes, so I must be in on their libertarian conspiracy!) — I just laugh my ass off whenever some loon invokes their name in bizarre triumphalist rhetoric as if they’ve delivered some kind of master stroke. My God, are you people for real? Seriously…
Meanwhile, mp, what, specifically, do you disagree with concerning Hayek’s analysis of the Knowledge Problem? Do you agree, or disagree? Why?
Those questions intend to probe facts about the world.
And thanks for not voting.
And thanks for not voting.
You’re welcome.
Seriously.
Finally, if I’m to respond to Hayek’s knowledge problem, I would have to know the context. If you’re referring to “central planning” of an economy, I’d agree with him in general.
As to intellectuals heroes, I was not referring to the Kochs. They’re simply pimping Hayek and Rand, two people who’s intellectual virtues you are extolling.
who’s should be whose. Sorry.
So mp, is the key to not being accused of having ignoble folks your “heroes,” to constantly be paranoid about one’s interlocutor branding one with holding them in total esteem, rather than finding some of their ideas salutary? I’d suppose that you wouldn’t want me to brand you a Hayek worshiper, and the grounds of your reasonable expectation might seem to be that you’re guarded in precisely what you are willing to consent is valuable in his insights.
But why the HELL do you tar others with unqualified adoration of whomever, merely because they don’t bracket every bloomin’ remark with “I HATE THOSE BASTARDS BUT THEY MADE GOOD CHEESECAKE” kind of remarks?
Dude.
When someone presents a particular scope of interest, you’re not rationally entitled to guess about whatever fills the white space where nothing’s disclosed. Duh.
So what, PRECISELY, of Rand’s ideas, does Ryan agree with? Tell me. Facts, remember?
But why the HELL do you tar others with unqualified adoration of whomever, merely because they don’t bracket every bloomin’ remark with “I HATE THOSE BASTARDS BUT THEY MADE GOOD CHEESECAKE” kind of remarks?
And here we go, back to the beginning of this exchange.
This isn’t about me, or you, it’s about Ryan.
Did, or did not, Ryan embrace objectivism and did he, or did he not, disavow it?
The facts indicate that he embraced it and later disavowed it.
He didn’t just dabble in it, he bought it.
So did Alan Greenspan. And we know how that turned out.
Rasqual, I admire your effort, but it just isn’t making it.
Joe’s just a little hard of hearing – he thought the message this election was Hope and Chains. ;-)
Actually if you see the video, it’s a little more disconcerting. It appears he has this thought about Wall Street being unchained by Romney – then it’s like a dim-witted flash of brilliance – oh, they like that, and bam – “they gonna put y’all back in chains…”
One heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world.
And Obama’s first executive decision (which I actually think someone else made for him…)
Did anyone see Gibbs’ sad, sorry attempt at defending Biden this morning?
I am SO SICK of being talked down to by whacked out liberals.
Hi Courtnay,
I understand former Democrat Virginia Governor Doug Wilder, who is black, expressed outrage over Biden’s comments about “chains”. He viewed it as the trivializing of the crime of slavery.
mp, Ryan embraces some of Ayn Rand’s ideas, not all. He never embraced all of her ideas. Do you not think it possible for someone to agree, in part, with a person’s ideas?
Most pro-choicers think a women can be ‘partially’ pregnant or that an embryo is part of the Mother so it doesn’t surprise me that you have a difficulty understanding what things can be accepted in part and which cannot. Ideas, for example, unlike human beings, can be accepted in part while human beings, mp, are supposed to be accepted in full from the time of conception.
By the way, the link you provided (http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again) showed how a real VP should sound as opposed to the clown who is currently in office.
This thread is about the silly speeches given by the current VP.
My church bulletin this week has quotes from Ayn Rand and Oscar Wilde. Oh well I guess my church has gone rogue and is atheist now. Because it’s impossible to be a fan of someone’s novels or to like some of their quotes without worshipping them.
Oh and the bulletin also has a quote from Jim Morrison. Darn, not only is my church atheist, it’s also for illicit drug abuse! There’s just NO OTHER EXPLANATION!!!!!
mp: “The facts indicate that he embraced it”
I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence that Ryan embraced objectivism. Which makes your talk about “facts” sound pretty stupid.
Link and quote, mp. You’re starting to sound like steve.
Seriously. You have no idea how stupid this crap comes off.
Here is one difference between the governments Biden and Ryan would help create: Biden’s government wants to issue mandates, while Ryan’s government is requesting a moral mandate.
“He never embraced all of her ideas. Do you not think it possible for someone to agree, in part, with a person’s ideas?”
“Because it’s impossible to be a fan of someone’s novels or to like some of their quotes without worshipping them.”
Rand’s world view wasn’t all that different from Margaret Sanger’s. If a pro-life politician embraced “some” of Sanger’s views, would you folks be as sanguine?
Yeah, that’d be fine, CC. Because this is just tribalism. Right? The personal is the political and it’s all about the will to power? So it’d be just peachy as long as s/he was on for the cause.
:-/
OOOOOOOh, “sanguine” is new! Good one, CC!
Now try using it to make a coherent point.
“Now try using it to make a coherent point.”
You’re asking way more of her than she is capable of.
HAHAHA Caroline, my word. Seriously, Paul Ryan is NOT an Ayn Rand worshipper. He’s not even that Conservative for crying out loud.
Rand’s world view wasn’t all that different from Margaret Sanger’s. If a pro-life politician embraced “some” of Sanger’s views, would you folks be as sanguine?
First of all, as a person Margaret Sanger can be shown mercy and compassion. However, unlike Ayn Rand, Ms. Sanger didn’t have any other ideas that worthwhile or that she was known for. Ms. Sanger got caught up in some very bad ideas. Yet, even still, we can say that Ms. Sanger’s concern for women, though misdirected, was intended to be good for women.
I thought the second cartoon was really funny. Regional accents and speech are very interesting. When I first came to Philly and asked for a “pop” no one knew what I was talking about, as they say “soda” here. I guess “pop” is a Midwestern and western New York thing, and in New England a “milkshake” is a “frappe.” When I lived in Pittsburgh I got tired of people saying “uns” and I couldn’t understand why everyone here named their kids “yo”!
I remember when I was talking to someone from the Upper mMdwest they said “don’tcha know” and I said “don’t I know what? I guess you’re not supposed to answer when someone says that!
Hey, who says there is something inherently wrong with being a ‘corporatist’?
Corporations and the folks who create them provide a lot of really good jobs, goods and servrices at competitive prices for consumers like me. And some corporatists, like Romney donate a significant amount of their own money, to charitable causes.
Unlike progressive/liberal weasels like Biden and b o.
Biden’s propesnsity for stepping in it and then puting both his fecal laden feet in his gaffe prone pie hole does not disqualify him from being president.
Given the choice between the obamateur and biden, it’s a no brainer.
At least Biden has demostrated some afffection for the USA and he is not a card carrying member and shill for the dead babies r us mob. And despite being linguistically challenged, Biden is prabably a more capeable leader than b o.
Biden is the only one of the two who is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president of these united states of america.
Thank GOD I am not forced to choose between ole black Joe Biden and his overseer, mr. bo-jangles.
There is another option available that is clearly better.
Those who attempt to put Ryan into a box do not recognize the most important influence of his thinking: i.e. Catholic social principles, of which solidarity and the principle of subsidiarity are the dominate elements. He has spoken eloquently on this. Ayn Rand is but a vapor in comparison with Aquinas, Augustine, Leo the XIII and John Paul. If you want to understand Ryan it behooves you to read the classics.