Look at this opening statement: “The President is refusing
to talk. That's a shame because there doesn't have to be another crisis. It
could be a breakthrough.” Now look at this other opening statement: “President
Obama has led us here by continually thwarting the will of congress and
dismissing its role in our constitutional republic.” Do you discern a
difference in tone and in objective between the two?
The first was written by the Catholic Paul Ryan whose desire
is clearly to avoid another crisis and achieve a breakthrough if at all
possible. As to the second statement, it was written by Eric Cantor who is a
Jew. Like an attack dog – a characteristic that is shared by most Jews – he
displays a desire to put the President on the defensive right at the start
before explaining what the discussion is about.
Those statements came in the first paragraph of articles
written on October 9, 2013 by each of Paul Ryan who published in the Wall
Street Journal, and Eric Cantor who published in the Washington Post. The Ryan
article came under the title: “Here's How We Can End This Stalemate” and the
subtitle: “Both Reagan and Clinton negotiated debt-ceiling deals with their
opponents. We're ready to negotiate.” As to the Cantor article, it came under
the title: “Divided government requires bipartisan negotiation”.
When you read the two articles, you cannot help but get the
feeling that the Catholic is a sincere man whose objective is to reach an
agreement with the President that will serve the interests of the American
people. Thus, talking about a past performance which he uses as example to
guide the present, he writes this: “all we had to do was put prudence ahead of
pride.”
The next thing he does is look for common grounds his party
may have with the President. And so, he goes on to say this: “If Mr. Obama
decides to talk, he'll find that we actually agree on some things.” This point
made, he gives a number of examples when the two parties worked together and
achieved results. He starts this part of the conversation like that: “The two
political parties have worked together on entitlements before.” By now you are
convinced this is the approach of someone that's looking for reconciliation.
This being the case, Ryan tries to entice the President to
come to the negotiating table: “structural reforms produce greater savings over
time.” And he gives examples of that: “Here are a few ideas to get the
conversation started.” And guess what: “The President has embraced these ideas
in budget proposals he submitted to Congress.” What else can they do if and
when they get together? They can do this: “We should also enact pro-growth
reforms that put people to work.” And because they must start somewhere: “right
now, we need to find common ground.”
Thus, reading what Ryan wrote, you feel that he is propelled
by the Christian approach to life. In contrast, you read the Cantor approach,
and you get the sense this is the work of a devil masquerading as human. He
begins by stating what absolute right he believes he has: “The Constitution
gives Congress the power of the purse and the power to borrow.” He then does
something that shows you how Jews begin the process of gathering dirt on
someone to blackmail later.
In this case, Cantor could not find dirt to throw at Obama
but found a quote to embarrass him with: “In 2006, then-Sen. Obama said...” And
so, for Obama to defend himself now, he'll have to drop everything he does and
try to put himself in the same frame of mind he had 7 years ago. What a waste
of time this would be, and what a waste of energy! But that's Jewish for you.
And in the absence of a complete rehashing of what happened
7 years ago at the expense of what is transpiring now, Cantor finds it
opportune to throw this at the President: “That is a much larger failure of
leadership.” It is Jewish dirt of another kind. Also, having stated his legal
right under the constitution, he now accuses Obama of not fully adhering to the
law: “Obama often chose to circumvent the law under the guise of executive
authority.” He goes further: “In some instances, the president attempted to
garner statutory authority.”
And so, with the law as he interprets it on his side, he now
makes a categorical statement to the effect that: “the American people reelected
a divided government – and they will not accept one party simply refusing to
negotiate.” You see, my friend, he now feels he owns the American people.
Nothing can be more Jewish or more devilish than this. God save America from
these characters.