RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/why-are-gun-ownership-numbers-in-us-highest-since-1993

The push to disarm Americans has been around a long time. An estimated ninety million Americans own guns legally and in states that permit concealed carry the crime rate drops precipitously by comparison with others that do everything they can to make the purchase and carry of firearms difficult.

Gun ownership in America is the highest since 1993 with estimates of 300 million guns owned by citizens. Ownership crosses political party lines and other demographic cohorts. From its earliest days as a nation, the Founding Fathers were united in the need for an armed citizenry as a response to the potential tyranny of a government that might seek to impose its will on Americans through force.

The notion that one can keep criminals from acquiring firearms is idiotic. In cities like Chicago with laws that all but deny gun ownership, the murder rate is off the charts. By June, 228 residents of Chicago had been killed, compared to 44 troops in Afghanistan’s combat zones.

There’s a reason gun sales in America soared after the election of Barack Obama. Nobody except his brainwashed minions trust him. Over the past three and a half years he has issued more than 900 Executive Orders, many of which grant him and the federal government extraordinary control over all aspects of life for Americans. The hallmark of every totalitarian regime is gun control, the disarming of citizens.

This is, after all, a President who disparaged Americans who he said, “cling to their religion and their guns.”

As columnist, Chuck Baldwin wrote in 2007, “One thing the national news media will always ignore is the practice of lawful self-defense. For example, most people are probably not aware of the fact that American citizens use a firearm to defend themselves more than 2.4 million times every year. That is more than 6,500 times every day.”

“This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Furthermore, of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault. And in less than eight percent of those occasions is a shot actually fired. The vast majority of the time (92%), the mere presence of a firearm helps to avert a major crime from occurring.”

Why then is the Obama administration in the process of purchasing millions of bullets for agencies, some of whom have nothing to do with national defense?

In May I wrote about an Ashville, North Carolina citizen who wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency inquiring about the address of an employee who gained overnight fame when it was reported he wanted to “crucify” oil companies. Two EPA agents, fully armed, showed up without notice at his front door.

Why does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to purchase ammunition? NOAA is devoted to studying the weather and providing notice of events such as hurricanes. Why would meteorologists need to be armed?

Why does the Social Security Administration need to purchase ammunition? A spokesman for the SSA compared its investigators to state or local police officers who are armed while on “official duty.”

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/stephenbrown/hospital-terror-in-denmark/

It is a very dark, but little known, underside to the multicultural nightmare that western European societies are fast becoming. Hospitals, among the most respected institutions in Western societies due to their compassion and care of the sick and vulnerable, are turning more and more into places of immigrant violence.

The latest incident of such inexcusable savagery within the walls of a European public medical facility occurred last week in Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark. Danish newspapers report that about 70 men, some armed with “cudgels,” invaded the Odense University Hospital emergency ward, looking to further harm, even possibly kill, a man who had just been admitted in critical condition with a gunshot wound. Luckily, no hospital staff member was injured, and it was most likely the heroics of the police officers present that prevented the intruders from reaching the injured patient.

“There were pictures torn down from the walls. There were vases knocked into pieces. It was quite intimidating to both staff and police there, and several officers had to fire their guns to get them to disappear,” said one Danish police official in describing the chaos.

Another police official stated: “They poured in with clubs into the emergency room…The staff at the hospital had to jump for their lives, and several police officers had to pull their service weapons to force the group out…”

Frustrated at being unable to reach their target, the vandals then took their anger out on ambulances and police vehicles. In all, the Copenhagen Post reported that “one ambulance and four police cars were destroyed in the night’s events.”

The trouble apparently began earlier that evening between rival immigrant groups when two members of one group drove up to the other’s Eid al-Fitr celebration that was being held in a shopping center parking lot. After being identified as an enemy, one report states the 26-year-old victim wound up being shot at least twice in one leg and stabbed several times in the other, but several shots were fired at the car the two were in. It is also at the crime scene that two of the four police cars may have been destroyed, while an ambulance summoned for the injured man was also reportedly attacked.

The hospital invasion was so barbarous and disturbing to the Danish public that a “shocked” Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt was compelled to comment on it, calling it “serious criminal behavior” at a news conference. But noticeably, although the Eid al-Fitr is a Muslim celebration that marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, it does not appear she nor any police official, politician or newspaper identified the culprits as such. They limited their identification vocabulary simply to the word “immigrant.”

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/fjordman/monitoring-islam-critics-in-norway/

LO, the influential Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, has intimate – some say organic – connections to the ruling Labor Party. Together, the two organizations have arguably made up the country’s most important network of power for generations. Sections of LO will from 2012 on donate half a million kroner every year to the Norwegian Centre against Racism to combat right-wing extremism. “To be against the Multicultural society, as Breivik says, is nothing other than what Hitler espoused,” says Leif Sande, who represents one of LO’s subgroups.

Kari Helene Partapuoli, leader of the Centre, which already receives millions in direct state support annually, says the money will partly be spent on mapping international networks opposed to multiculturalism. Partapuoli earlier warned against the dangers of “subconscious” racism, stating that there is a racist in all of us. She didn’t explain what kind of mental exorcism will be required to drive out our racist inner demons, however. Shoaib Sultan, the former General Secretary at the Islamic Council of Norway, currently works for them as an advisor on how to deal with extremists who oppose the colonization of their country through mass immigration.

In late 2011 there was a demonstration against racism at Youngstorget in Oslo arranged by LO. Its powerful national leader, Roar Flåthen, promised that the labor unions will fight relentlessly against racism and intolerance throughout society and in the workplace. “We want a Multicultural society. This is enriching,” he told the crowd. Flåthen is also a politician for the Labor Party and sits on the board of A-pressen, a large national media company partially controlled by LO that is the whole or partial owner of dozens of local or regional newspapers.

The leaders of LO have been known to consult with – or, as critics claim, instruct – the Prime Minister on how to deal with certain sensitive political matters, especially when the PM comes from the Labor Party. Although a few critical comments can be heard about this, by and large this state of affairs is considered acceptable in Norway.

Post-Breivik, writer Øyvind Strømmen has been hailed as one of the country’s “leading experts” on the counterjihad movement, which triggers roars of laughter from those of us who actually know it well. He has even lectured for the police plus Minister of Justice Grete Faremo from the Labor Party on how to increase surveillance on the Internet of alleged extremists who are critical of the Labor Party’s immigration policies.

Sadly, they won’t face too much opposition to these policies from other political parties, either. Erna Solberg, leader of the Conservative Party of Norway, also wants stronger action to combat “hate.” She has called for coordinated actions in all segments of society, from the schools to the police, in order to stamp out “racism and extremism” in any way, shape or form. It is implied here that “racism” means opposition to mass immigration.

Solberg has for years encouraged continued or increased mass immigration and praised the wonderful “diversity” this supposedly brings to the country. Moreover, she has called for establishing a sharia council so that local Muslims can use Islamic law in family affairs with state approval, and has warned that Muslims in the Western world are now being harassed in a manner similar to the way Jews were treated during the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. This was said not by a Socialist, but by the leader of the so-called conservative opposition party in Norway.

Øyvind Strømmen advocates having more regular police patrols on the Internet to monitor nasty websites that are critical of Islam or mass immigration. He lectured the important July 22nd commission on the alleged dangers of Islamophobic right-wing extremists. In the daily Vårt Land, he warned against giving dangerous fascist extremists who are critical of Islam, multiculturalism or mass immigration too much access to the mass media.

The state-sponsored Centre against Racism in a May 2012 report explicitly defined “Islamophobia” as one of the main branches of contemporary right-wing extremism, along with anti-immigration sentiments/xenophobia and neo-Nazism, claiming that “Most right-wing extremists hate Islam” and attributing this to fear of the unknown.

In addition to Øyvind Strømmen, one contributor to this report was the PhD Candidate Anders Ravik Jupskås. He wrote about “radical right-wing populists” such as the evil Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the True Finns in Finland or the Swiss People’s Party in Switzerland. Another contributor was Kristian Bjørkelo, a folklorist with an expressed personal interest in political extremism, cannibalism and the history of the vibrator as a sexual tool. It’s unclear how that makes him an expert on issues related to Islam, but he’s very concerned about the counterjihadists and the many alleged dangers they represent to civilized society.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/syria-after-assad/

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Shekoh Abbas, the leader of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria. He has joined with U.S. Syrian Sunni reformer Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser to advance the cause of Syrian democracy via the Syrian Democratic Coalition.

FP: Sherkoh Abbas, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about what might happen in Syria when and if Assad falls.

What do you see as following the overthrow of Assad?

Abbas: Thank you for having me, Jamie.

Basically if Assad goes, for sure it will be civil war, but if we wait too long there will be much more bloodshed or full-scale civil war. It has already started, in my opinion. There has been cleansing and fighting going on between Alawites and Sunni.

Compare the situation to Lebanon. Lebanon used to be a place for proxy war where the regimes would fight each other. However, the quicker we jump into an inclusive way out of what is going on, the better it is for Syrians and the international community. We see federalism in Syria as an inclusive way-out because it will address secular needs of stakeholders from Sunnis, Kurds, Alawites, Christians and other minorities, which will accelerate regime change in an orderly way.

Syria needs to be a workable state that is inclusive of certain stakeholders, not a failed state as it is now. This is an opportunity for the West to do things right, build a successful state, and assure that Syria doesn’t move into full scale civil war. Stakeholders may include Russia maintaining a presence in the coastal area, while the development ensues of an Alawite State, Kurdish State on the north side, and Aleppo and Damascus States for the rest of Syria. This will minimize or prevent proxy wars in our view because stakeholders will not be forced to submit to a strong central government that could oppress them.

The only way to remove support from the regime is to create an Alawite region or state and to separate the Alawites and their supporters as a people from their small presence in the regime. The solution is working with all groups in an inclusive approach and by promoting support for federalism or confederation for the above states/regions. Otherwise, we see there is a full civil war that can only get worse around the corner.

Folks from the U.S. State Department, Turkey, Qatar, and Gulf countries are currently supporting Islamist groups who seek another dictatorship, but this is not an option for Syria. These folks want a strong man and one address to go to for dealing with Syria, but the best thing is to find a way out that and address the interest of the Syrians, Russians, Europeans, the U.S., and regional counties, including Israel. Furthermore, there needs to be the inclusion of the interests of all minorities such as Kurds, Alawaite, Druz and Christians, otherwise it won’t work.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/davidhornik/israel-contemplates-what-if-america-doesnt-come-through/

In Israel’s internal debate for and against attacking Iran’s nuclear program, the basic dividing line is between those who put their trust in the United States/international community to take care of the problem and those who do not.

President Shimon Peres—supposed to be a figurehead who keeps out of politics—recently told Israel’s Channel 2 TV that “it’s clear to us that we can’t do it alone…. It’s clear to us we have to proceed together with America. There are questions about coordination and timing, but as serious as the danger is, this time at least we are not alone.”

But what if America were to shy off from attacking Iran, or decide it was not in its interest? Not to worry, said Peres: “I am convinced this is an American interest. I am convinced [President Obama] recognizes the American interest and he isn’t saying this just to keep us happy. I have no doubt about it, after having had talks with him.”

And former Mossad chief Meir Dagan became an international media hit by saying an Israeli attack would be “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.” A few months ago he and some colleagues, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, went so far as to carefully advise the international community how to use sanctions to put a full stop to Iran’s program.

Although Peres is never quiet, Dagan at least has been quiet lately. Is he having second thoughts? One doesn’t know, but there would be good reasons for him to have them.

On Wednesday AP reported that Iran’s Asian oil-buying markets are keeping it economically afloat—and more—despite the sanctions. “When Iran welcomes world leaders to a world gathering [of the Non-Aligned Movement] next week,” AP notes, “few will get a grander reception than India’s prime minister.” That’s because, while

[o]il purchases by India, China and South Korea—which decided this week to resume Iranian imports—have not covered Tehran’s losses…they have given Iran a critical cushion that brings in tens of millions of dollars in revenue each day and means that Iran has dropped only one ranking, to stand as OPEC’s third-largest producer.

The report goes on to say that “The U.S. has pressed hard for Iran’s top customers—China, India, Japan and South Korea—to scale back on crude imports, with some success…. But Washington cannot push its key Asian trading partners too fast or too aggressively and risk economic rifts.”

It then quotes an expert who says: “Despite Western sanctions…China and Japan will remain major importers of Iranian crude oil and so will India.”

So much for sanctions? At least, it seems clear that Israel shouldn’t be putting its life on the line out of a totally unwarranted assumption that they’ll work.

Meanwhile the International Atomic Energy Agency—which is supposed to make sure rogue states don’t develop nuclear weapons—is resuming talks with Iran on Friday. The ostensible goal is to gain access to Parchin, the site 20 miles southeast of Tehran where—according to Western assessments—Iran has been carrying out explosives tests relevant to nuclear weapons.

The problem is that since last November, when the IAEA fingered Parchin as a problematic site, Iran has never granted the agency access to it.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/j-christian-adams/fact-or-fiction-1001-muslim-inventions-comes-to-washington-d-c/

National Geographic Explorer’s Hall in Washington D.C. has hosted some of the most prestigious exhibits in America. Previous exhibits have included the Chinese terracotta warriors, as well as the James Caird, the lifeboat Sir Ernest Shackleton miraculously sailed from Antarctica to South Georgia Island in 1916. Currently it is hosting a curious exhibit through February 2013 entitled “1001 Inventions: Discover the Golden Age of Muslim Civilization.” This high tech, slickly produced exhibit explicitly seeks to debunk the “myth” that the dark ages were dark.

The exhibit purports to provide examples of innovations from Muslim civilization, and some of the claims may come as a surprise to those familiar with the Wright Brothers or Yuri Gagarin.

I recently visited “1001 Inventions” which was housed on the same floor as a fantastic Titanic exhibit. I purchased entry to the museum at a ticket booth staffed by Rebecca Head, a National Geographic employee. Perhaps assuming I was heading to see the Titanic exhibit, Head pushed attendance at 1001 Inventions – “There is a really great exhibit on Muslim inventions you should see.”

The exhibit begins with star power – a short movie starring Academy Award-winner Ben Kingsley. Kingsley plays a librarian who faces a trio of young uniformed (presumably British) students seeking information about “the dark ages.”

Kingsley’s character bristles at the children’s characterization, critical of those “filling your head with such nonsense and ripping down the good of former civilizations.”

But “everyone knows the Greeks and Romans invented everything!” one child replies.

Kingsley’s librarian doesn’t equivocate – “some of the most important discoveries” were made by “Muslim civilizations.”

Harry Potter-style magic takes over, and Kingsley is transformed with beautiful flourish from an English librarian into the exotic turban wearing historical figure of Al-Jazari. The children are enthralled, both on the screen, and in the audience.

Al-Jazari informs the three children that a grand civilization “that stretched from Spain to China” was responsible “for some of the most important discoveries” in the world. These include, according to Kingsley’s transformed Al-Jazari, devices such as the camera.

And herein lies the most fascinating characteristic of the entire exhibit – the slipperiness of its language. Indeed, language throughout the exhibit, as we shall see, becomes a way to trick attendees. Cleverly chosen words nudge readers toward unsupported conclusions. Myth mingles with science. Rumor becomes history.

Consider the “invention” of the camera. Al-Jazari, portrayed masterfully and magically on screen by Kingsley, says “he” was responsible for explaining “how our eyes work” and developed camera obscura. Even if it is historically accurate that Al-Jazari pioneered camera obscura, the slithery language of the screenplay generates an inference that Al-Jazari is somehow legitimately involved in the chain of inventions culminating in my Nikon 35mm.

I was reminded of George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language when he wrote: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Kingsley’s Al-Jazari fulfills Orwell’s warning in the film when he introduces another Muslim inventor, Abbas Ibn Firnas, who “dared to dream man could fly 1000 years before the Wright Brothers.”

Outside the theater, Firnas is featured in a flight exhibit. Firnas is “said to be the first person who tried to fly. His first attempt which has passed into legend took place when he leapt from the minaret of the Great Mosque in Cordoba. Equipped with a glider with wooden struts, he managed to fly and landed more or less unharmed. [His] next flight was more ambitious. From the top of a nearby hill, he launched himself and his flying machine, apparently gliding for some distance before falling, a problem blamed on the lack of a tail.”

Notice all of the tricks of language. He was the first “who tried to fly,” and “passed into legend,” “more or less unharmed,” the “flying machine,” (implying moving parts), and “apparently gliding for some distance.” Naturally he also diagnosed that that cause of his failure was the want of a tail. The exhibit neglects to inform us about whether he applied this fix to his “machine.”

The exhibit also features an interactive game for children where they can help Firnas fly by flapping their arms.

This all might seem harmless, but consider the argument I had with my 8-year-old after leaving the exhibit. She was convinced that the Wright Brothers were not the first to fly, and instead it was Firnas launched from the mosque at Cordoba a millennium ago. This would not be the only instance when thought corrupted the language of the exhibit, which in turn corrupted thought, at least among the more impressionable.

The short introductory film with Kingsley playing Al-Jazari goes on to tell the three on-screen students (and the many children in the theatre) that the 1001 inventions include medical devices, ideas or unspecified things which somehow led to the compass and GPS satellite navigation and the very Industrial Revolution itself.

Al-Jazari hands the children a book called “1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World” and urges them plainly to “spread the word.”

Nietzsche was not only a fierce critic of European anti-Semitism, but his quest to create the Übermensch was the inspiration behind the Zionist project to mold the New Jew.
Nietzsche blamed the Jews for giving birth to Christianity, whose morality praising weakness he opposed. But he wrote that the Jews themselves have a history of great passions, virtues, decisions, struggles and victories that flow into great men and deeds.

On August 25, 1900, the man who famously declared the death of God died. As the body of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was laid into its grave three days later, one of the mourners declared that one day the world would consider Nietzsche’s name sacred. He spoke more from bereavement than wisdom: Nietzsche himself had written that he was afraid people might one day make him holy.
When I asked Israel Eldad to sign his translation of one of the philosopher’s books, Eldad, the extremely ideological former commander of Lehi, surprisingly quoted from Nietzsche: “If you want to follow me, be loyal to yourselves.”
Vladimir Jabotinsky, supreme commander of the Irgun in the 1930s, urged his followers to carry but “one flag” – that of Zionism. Yet he wrote that he himself refused to be branded or categorized but preferred to think freely as a Nietzschean “superman” would.
Conferences have been held in Jerusalem devoted to Nietzsche’s metaphysics, epistemology, science, and theory of this or of that. But arguably, Nietzsche’s greatest influence was his character.

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/314851

Good news for Senator Harry Reid: If he’s a little bored while waiting for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns, there are plenty of other elected officials — in his own party, to boot! — who merit the same eyebrow-raising he’s directed at the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. The Senate majority leader has expressed consternation about the fact that Romney has some money in offshore accounts, which probably reduces his tax burden. According to the Huffington Post, Reid quipped, “Most Americans don’t have the benefit of Swiss bank accounts or tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.” And Gawker just published more than 950 pages of Bain documents related to Romney’s offshore holdings, saying they detail his use of “exotic tax-avoidance schemes available only to the preposterously wealthy.”

Some of the “preposterously wealthy” Americans who do use such “schemes” include Senators Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and John Kerry (D., Mass.). That should be music to Reid’s ears, since his transparency crusade might be a little easier to pull off within his own party.

He could start with Feinstein. OpenSecrets.org lists her as the seventh-wealthiest senator, with a net worth between $44 million and $94 million, according to her latest disclosure forms. And, just like Romney, she keeps a portion of it in offshore accounts. Her most recent reports say she has an unspecified amount (at least $1 million) “held independently by the spouse or independent child” in Coral Growth Investments, Ltd., in St. Peter Port, Guernsey. Guernsey, a tax haven, is a small island in the English Channel that early this year drew the ire of a British Labour-party leader for helping wealthy Brits dodge taxes. The California senator also has between $500,000 and $1 million in a fund called Cevian Capital II L.L.C. in Jersey, another of the Channel Islands. According to her latest forms, that holding generated between $15,000 and $50,000 in capital gains, interest, and dividends. Feinstein has another $1,000 to $15,000 in Mauritius, an island nation in the Indian Ocean off Madagascar that is an up-and-coming tax haven.

Like Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also like Feinstein, he has funds sheltered from taxes — $15,000 to $50,000 in a hedge fund in the Cayman Islands, to be exact. That might not sound like a huge number, but his most recent disclosure forms say he made $50,000 to $100,000 from the fund in capital gains, dividends, and interest.

Lautenberg appears to be in the same boat. The New Jerseyan is the fifth-wealthiest senator, with a net worth that, in 2006, was six times the Senate’s average. His most recent forms show that his wife’s family has between $500,000 and $1 million in Port Louis, Mauritius. The money is in a real-estate private-equity fund that does its actual investing in India, and the earnings it generates are subject to taxes, as one of his representatives told National Review Online.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314858/virtues-premium-support-deroy-murdock

‘Governor Romney now owns the Republican, Ryan budget that puts millionaires ahead of Medicare and the middle class,” House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California recently snapped.

“By picking Representative Paul Ryan, Governor Romney has doubled down on his commitment to gut Social Security and end Medicare as we know it,” Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada snarled.

Pelosi and Reid know better. The Medicare-reform proposal of presumptive GOP running-mate Paul Ryan is precisely as extreme as the health plan available today to every member of Congress. Ryan envisions average seniors’ being able to enjoy Capitol Hill–style medical options. This itself, however, would be a choice. Seniors who oppose choice in health coverage will be 100 percent welcome to remain within traditional Medicare.

Ryan’s “far-Right” Medicare reform is co-sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon liberal Democrat (2010 Americans for Democratic Action rating: 100 percent). Unlike most Democrats, Wyden understands that if Medicare continues to traverse today’s path, by 2024 it will tumble into a canyon.

“Paul Ryan shares my belief that we don’t hold election certificates to sit on the sidelines, and that the only way to tackle some of the big challenges facing our nation is to work together on big solutions,” Wyden said as he and Ryan (2010 ADA rating: 0 percent) unveiled their legislation last December. “Paul has also long shared my view that the best way to hold down health costs is to give all Americans the ability to hire and fire their insurance company.”

Wyden-Ryan would do just that, although no time soon.

“Americans currently over the age of 55 would see no changes to the structure of their benefits,” their bill summary states. “Starting in 2022, Medicare would begin offering seniors a choice among Medicare-approved private plans competing alongside a traditional Medicare plan.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444443504577599120307000312.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion

Dr. Coburn, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, served on the “Bowles-Simpson” National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He is the author of “The Debt Bomb” (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

Coburn: The Truth About Ryan and His Critics
First Obama rejected the ‘grand bargain’ of his own Bowles-Simpson commission. Then he turned around and ridiculed the Wisconsin congressman’s comprehensive alternative.

The more voters learn about Congressman Paul Ryan’s leadership style and his thoughtful and creative approach to solving problems, the more they will decide that the Romney-Ryan ticket looks presidential and electable. That’s why there has been a coordinated effort in recent days to ramp up not just the “Mediscare” rhetoric against Mr. Ryan, but to depict him as a partisan ideologue who was instrumental in derailing a grand bargain on the deficit. This line of attack is cynical and, most of all, false.

First, Paul Ryan didn’t force President Obama to abandon the budget recommendations of his own 2010 deficit commission, known as Bowles-Simpson. Mr. Obama’s decision to punt on deficit reduction—and then to ridicule Mr. Ryan’s plan to address the deficit—offended and disappointed Republicans and Democrats alike.