Sunday, January 31, 2010
John R. Houk
© January 31, 2010
The war against Christianity is more than Leftist, Secular Humanist, atheist and homosexual activists attempting to impose there vision of a “Living Constitution” that interprets the First Amendment law that keeps the government from enfranchising a Christian Church as a State Church. Corporate America that takes the same position of the Left leaning activist blocs is also obstructing the foundational faith of America.
Now I realize that Corporate America may view an interaction with Christianity as detractions from their capitalist bottom line of profit and that corporations in general should have the freedom to manage what happens on their property. However corporations must follow the rule of law as much as any individual. This means a corporation cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion or creed (i.e. a creed not harmful to the rule of law). Again this means corporation owe the same deference to Christians as they due to races. This means if a person shares the Good News of Jesus Christ in an open market mall, they have as much right to do so a corporation would allow a homosexual activist event or marketing tool to be found in their mall.
The pure Libertarian might say the Christian can exercise their right to shop somewhere else if the mall is to an individual’s disliking. Fortunately America has not become the Libertarian Utopia in which the main of rule of law is founded on harm no one. Take note the kind of “harm” spoken of is aggression. “Harm” does not refer to hurting someone’s feelings or forbidding entrance based on a proprietor’s preference. If the foundation of the rule of law was do no harm to anyone then a whole slew of discriminations could evolve in which the class in a Libertarian Utopia can discriminate against another class in the Libertarian Utopia based on ability to pay. Although I doubt monetary inequality is the design of a Libertarian Utopia, which is exactly what would evolve if Christian moral principles are deleted as the rule of law. Christian morality calls the same rule of law for all is based on the ubiquitous Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
I just read a WorldNetDaily (WND) article in which a Christian Youth Pastor was beat up by mall private security for engaging in a conversation about Christianity with a couple passers by. The private security evidently wanted the Youth Pastor to leave for sharing his faith in the mail they were contracted to keep secure. Actually, this understandable to me if it is a distraction from the transactions of the various mall store businesses. For I am sure Fredericks of Hollywood would not look too kindly if a group of people were quietly sharing the Gospel in the vicinity of their store. It might slow business.
Is this a reason for security to smash the Youth Pastor against a wall and place hand cuffs on so tightly that his wrist bled?
One might answer in the affirmative if the group of people or in this case person violently proclaimed he would not desist in sharing the Gospel. Guess what? The Youth Pastor willing told the security personnel he would leave the mall. According to what I gleaned from WND, the Youth Pastor assurances to leave did not deter mall security from smashing against the wall and violently hand cuffing him. Then the Youth Pastor was the one charged with assault. Sounds like discrimination against Christians to me.
As atheist activists, homosexual activists and Separation of Church and State activists scream to exercise their right to be excluded from the moral foundation of Christianity; should not Christians also have rights in which they are not discriminated against for their faith? After all the part of the First Amendment that proclaims the government shall not establish a State Church (specifically a State Religion) also says the government will prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Astonishingly President Barack Hussein Obama did not address the rising public anger at Gitmo terrorists being housed on American soil, Gitmo terrorists being tried in our American communities and Gitmo terrorists being released to other nations only to be repatriated into the Islamic terrorist Jihadis.
The Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) trial being scheduled for NYC is causing enough local anger over the security issues that political leadership in NY is beginning to tell Obama to take the trial somewhere else.
In spite of the glowing picture BHO tried to fool America with in the State of the Union Address, Americans (especially moderate and independent voters) are beginning to wake up that the Obama agenda is not necessarily the American dream of change he promised in campaign 2008.
Check out this anti-KSM post at ProPublica.
John R. Houk
© January 30, 2010
The practice of homosexuality is a vile affront to the will of God.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[b]
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1: 16-32 NKJV)
Now I realize this passage of Scripture is not focusing on homosexuality, BUT it certainly includes homosexuality as the practice of a reprobate mind rebelling against the will of God.
No matter how much a homosexual tries to spin the Bible does not reference homosexuality as wrong, one has to be at a moron level of intelligence to believe a homosexual apologist on this issue. Look at an example of a Christian Apologist writing for Newsweek attempting to spin Scripture in a homosexual slant. The person denies the Bible ever references a negative connotation toward the practice of homosexuality, that the Bible does not emphasize a marriage is between a male and female and that Jesus and Paul the Apostle never condemned homosexuality.
The Newsweek writer’s article is totally bogus! The Word of God does condemn homosexuality in the Old and New Testament. Even though many Old Testament Patriarchs practiced polygamy and polygamy was not denounced in the New Testament (except for Ministerial Offices), marriage was still between male and female. I challenge any homosexual apologist to find where polygamy is between one male and multiple males or between one female and multiple females. If any place close to homosexual matrimony it is in cases which God’s wrath destroyed areas or peoples who practiced homosexuality – Sodom and Gomorrah for example.
Although Jesus never publicly condemned homosexuality, neither did he really publicly condemn other sins. Rather the mission of Jesus born of the flesh was to bring humanity to a place of deliverance from the bondage of sin that separates humanity from God Almighty. HELLO! Homosexuality is one of those sin bondages that separate a human from God. Lambert Dolphin in a huge essay demonstrates that Jesus indeed was NOT a supporter of homosexuality.
As for the insinuation that Paul never condemned homosexuality, the Scripture quoted above (Romans 1: 16-32) was written by Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul indeed includes homosexual as a vile sin.
Our own President uses the political correct concept of multiculturalism and diversity to place the homosexual agenda on his agenda. The President has taken the anti-Christian and Anti-Biblical stand that speaking out against homosexuality is hate speech. Leftists in general are under the delusion that speaking out against homosexuality is similar to the racism that is expressed toward minorities. The voting bloc of note is equating African-American bigotry with anti-homosexual writings and speech. The Movie Media and Network TV have done their utmost to propagandize Americans that homosexuality is normal contrary to Biblical Scripture. The pounding of Mainstream Media (MSM) for Americans to accept homosexual normalcy is the biggest reason national acceptance has increased. It is significant that a majority of States in the Union have passed laws (mostly initiated by citizens) to declare Marriage is between a male and female. This is a rebuff to the practice of homosexuality. An Activist Judiciary has done its best to over turn any law (mostly citizen Initiatives) concerning anti-homosexual marriage. Some State Judiciaries have enacted laws legalizing homosexual marriage which is beyond the scope of the Judiciary. Making laws on a State level is the purview of Legislators and Citizen Initiatives. The Judiciary role is to interpret law rather than create law.
It is apparent that President Obama’s Leftist czar system of extra-legal government is dominated by a Left agenda to transform America. The radical czar in relation to this post is Obama’s Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings. Jennings is a homosexual activist which Leftists and homosexual activists claim is being smeared by America’s Slanted Right. If one Googles “Kevin Jennings” and associate the search with Gay, homosexual or homosexual agenda; one will find a huge amount of support from Left and homosexual websites and blogs. You see Jennings is a homosexual activist himself. All the Leftist and homosexual praise stems from education awards, denials of association with NAMBLA and a denial of Jennings’ hate of all things Christian. The apologist praise for Jennings is just as slippery as the Leftist and homosexual activist twisting of Biblical Scripture.
The MSM, homosexual activists, Secular Humanists and Obama’s Administration all have an agenda to validate homosexuality as normal. It is time for the majority of Americans that have not been affected by pro-homosexual propaganda to shed off political correct fears and confront the homosexual agenda straight-on. One way to do this is to support former Navy Chaplin James Klingenschmitt’s Pray in Jesus Name Project. The Pray in Jesus Name Project is usually more concerned with religious freedom (Klingenschmitt received the Navy boot for praying “in Jesus’ Name”); however Klingenschmitt has a petition out pertaining to homosexuality because of President Obama’s agenda to make homosexuality normal and protected within the Military. Hence the Clinton compromise of the ‘90’s of “Don’t ask don’t tell” will be jettisoned by the Obama Administration. Klingenschmitt is taking a stand by circulating and Internet petition. You can read and respond to the petition HERE.
JRH 1/30/10 (Hat Tip: Human Events paid advertisement)
Obama: State of the Homosexual Union
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Sent: Jan 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Website: Pray in Jesus Name Project
URGENT NEW PETITION: SELECT HERE TO SIGN AND DEFEND OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, and we will fax your personalized petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen, (saving you hours of labor!)
OBAMA ENDANGERS TROOPS LIVES by REPEALING "DON'T ASK-DON'T TELL"
President Obama pledged in his State of the Union Address to promote open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military, by directly recruiting Congressmen and Senators in 2010 to overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that saves troops lives and already guarantees equality. Ignoring a letter signed by over 1,150 retired military flag and general officers, who asked Obama to enforce the 1993 Clinton-era law that currently prohibits open homosexual aggression in the military, Obama instead sacrificed military readiness, unit cohesion, and safety of all American troops, to prioritize his special relationship with less than 1% of the American population who claimed to be homosexual in the last census.
"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay men and women the right to serve the country they love," Obama boldly misled, repeating the vow he made during a speech Oct. 10th before a gay rights group. (The truth is homosexuals already now have the right to serve, so long as they keep their sexual aggression to themselves.) "If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else," Obama said oxymoronically, defining "equality" and "values" as a sudden endorsement of illegal acts of sodomy long banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Joint Chiefs sat stone-faced silent, aghast at Obama's plan, but powerless to publicly oppose their own Commander-In-Chief. We must be their voice...
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
As a former Navy Chaplain and Air Force Academy graduate, having served during wartime combat operations, in close quarters with Sailors onboard a combat cruiser, and having personally counseled both straight and homosexual service members, I can personally attest the last thing our Sailors need is a lack of trust or suspicion toward their fellow shipmates. Our uniformed service members’ very lives depend daily on their ability to trust each other, without worry about being ogled, made advances upon, or violated by those with whom they share common sleeping quarters and showering facilities, 24/7 both on and off duty. Friends, do you care about protecting our military's trust, unit cohesion, and saving our troops lives? Take action today...
Kevin Nix, spokesman for the pro-homosexual Service members Legal Defense Network, which is spearheading the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal effort, told the Washington Times the House bill now has 182 co-sponsors, just short of a majority. "We're just trying to get to 218 to show that the bill is ready," said Mr. Nix, who added that senators plan to introduce a bill shortly.
"We expect a bill introduction for the first time in 16 years," he said. "We definitely expect a hearing this year. There are still things that need to happen, but we are definitely on the brink of a bill in the Senate. We want repeal done in 2010. Done, to the president's desk for a signature." A spokesman for pro-homosexual Congressman Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA), who is leading the repeal campaign in the House, said he has commitments from 16 members in addition to the 182 co-sponsors, totaling 198 votes, just short of a majority.
In the Pentagon however, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway has emerged in internal deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, according to the Washington Times.
"Most of the senior brass holds deep reservations about President Obama's pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues," the Times reported.
WHY KEEP OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF THE MILITARY?
Four reasons: 1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat. 2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men? This fact alone would hurt recruiting. 3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield. Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered. 4) "Gay promotion quotas" would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged "equal opportunity" complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.
But Marine Commandant General Conway has gone further than others in stating his opposition to a change in policy, according to a former official who was privy to private conversations on the matter. "He feels very strongly that [removing the ban] would be disruptive, and he opposes it," he said. But if Congress changes the law, the General must implement the law.
Obama campaigned during his election to end "don't ask, don't tell," the policy signed into law by President Clinton. The policy ended the practice of asking prospective recruits about their sexuality, allowing homosexuals to freely serve, but prohibited openly gay men and women from talking about their sexual urges while serving. Repeal would allow them to share their sexual urges with their fellow soldiers, creating needless and divisive tension in the ranks.
The House Armed Services Committee will likely hold a hearing on a repeal bill in the spring, meaning the earliest floor vote could come before the middle of 2010, as part of the 2011 Defense Armed Services Authorization or Appropriations spending bill. Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee had planned a hearing in 2009, but none was scheduled. The White House will likely soon submit a repeal bill to the Hill.
The four-star chiefs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army have said little on the topic in public and have not been pressed by Congress to provide their professional opinions. All four declined to answer when asked for their personal opinions on the ban by The Washington Times, except to say they will abide by the law. They've been silenced for fear of upsetting Obama, who would likely force their immediate retirement.
"They are not going to talk until it's time to talk," said a senior officer inside the Pentagon, who added the chiefs will discuss any specific legislative proposal in private with the chain of command - meaning Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the president.
Adm. Mullen, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the president's top military adviser, has expressed concern about carrying out the president's wish. "I think it's important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn't disrupt the force at a time where it's under a lot of stress," Adm. Mullen told the Military Times in May. "And that, to me, means in a measured, deliberate way, over some time -- to be determined. And I don't know what that would be." (I know how and when....never risk our troops lives.)
The Times reports Gay rights groups cite recent polls that show the public now supports repealing the ban, unlike in 1993, when polls showed the opposite. That year, Congress stopped Mr. Clinton's bid to change what was then only a regulation. He ended up signing the ban into law. The Pentagon discharged 633 men and women under the ban in fiscal year 2008.
Gallup reported to the Washington Times in June that 58 percent of the conservatives it polled favored allowing openly gay men and women to serve. Overall, 69 percent of adults support ending the ban, Gallup said. (That's a good reason to forward this email widely, to begin educating our friends on why the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law must remain.)
Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and argues in favor of the ban, pointed a reporter toward a recent article she wrote for the American Thinker.
"Consistently small numbers and percentages of people discharged due to homosexuality contradict any claim that a national security emergency justifies repeal of the law," she wrote. "And it is not convincing to hold up the small, dissimilar militaries of foreign nations, none of which have adopted the extreme agenda being proposed for our military, as role models for America's forces. Nor does it help to ignore the stated opinions of more than 1,150 retired flag and general officers and current military personnel." Our military is not a ground for new and radical social experimentation, especially ones that endanger lives.
SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
God Bless you, in Jesus' name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Confront the Homosexual Apologist with Truth
John R. Houk
© January 30, 2010
Obama: State of the Homosexual Union
P.S. Prefer to sponsor us by direct mail? Please mail postal donations to: The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO 80970. Please don't wait. Our troops lives, trust, and cohesion depend on our voice. Please take action, sign our petition today, and we'll automatically deliver your message!
Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying "in Jesus name" in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views, not the views of any political party, government, or organization.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Mark Alexander has a scathing article relating to President Barack Hussein Obama’s January 27, 2010 State of the Union Address (SOTU).
State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution
By Mark Alexander
Thursday, January 28, 2010
"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story
In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama's first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do "this" instead of "that."
Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.
Obama's SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated "living constitution" as amended by judicial diktat.
Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government "incentives," a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.
In 7,400 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton -- two narcissists who just can't hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for "we," the American people, more than 100 times.
On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.
First, in his opening remarks Obama said, "Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union."
Second, he asserted, "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..."
FAIL! That "notion" was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged expert on "Constitutional Law" would know better.
Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.
To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.
Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama's SOTU:
1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.
2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.
Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by "Wall Street," and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government "investment," a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.
To correctly interpret Obama's SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the (sic) his administration's charge is the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America."
That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, "If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy."
It's likely that you've never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.
In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.
Creamer is a member of Obama's Chicago mob, a fellow "community organizer" and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama's Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today's age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama's slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.
With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, "How Progressives Can Win," which, along with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," serves as the template for Obama's campaign to "fundamentally transform" America.
Obama didn't use the word "transform" in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must "lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth," under the pretense of "reform," in order to "give our people the government they deserve."
"I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy ... and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy."
And well, it should.
Though Obama's efforts to nationalize the nation's health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of "economic crisis." As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: "We can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
This is subterfuge.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: "We will lead in the observance of ... the rule of law. ... Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
This is deception.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, "I will restore America's moral standing." On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, "The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."
This is farce.
Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.
If Republicans really want to defeat Obama's Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.
And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response to Obama's SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: "We don't offend the Constitution as bad as they do."
Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.
Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
To that end, Obama declared, "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it."
True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.
P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them, or invite them to the White House for a beer.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the "inalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2010 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. posted an update about AfPak happenings at his Red County spot. The post is actually an excerpt from Gary’s AfPak Gazette which reads almost like the crib notes for an excellent spy/war thriller. In reality it is non-fiction rather than fiction. For a mere $2 bucks an issue one can read updates of the AfPak area that one would otherwise have to Google multiple sources or pay the big bucks to online journals.
Take a gander at Gary’s excerpt.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
John R. Houk
© January 28, 2010
I received an email from ACT! For America to contact Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) relating to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) pressuring the Senator to back-off from his Homeland Security comments about airports and military bases.
ACT’s email is aimed at Oklahoma voters and citizens; however I believe CAIR needs a national confrontation. I encourage all American citizens to send encouragement to Senator Inhofe.
I am going to post the email which will be followed by a few short words from me of affirmation with ACT then followed by ACT’s letter text. You can follow ACT’s directions. You can use my minuscule preamble; however I encourage you to write a few short personal words.
This note is going out to all Oklahoma members. Greetings from ACT! for America headquarters!
Oklahoma Senator Inhofe has recently spoken out in favor of taking tougher security measures in our airports and military bases. He is exhibiting a rare ability to cut through all the political correctness so rampant today in Washington, DC, and we appreciate him for taking this principled stand!
Now CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is trying to pressure Senator Inhofe to meet with them to “discuss” his statements! We are asking that all our ACT! for America Oklahoma Members show their support for Senator Inhofe’s position and encourage him not to be pressured by this organization.
We have drafted a letter to Senator Inhofe and have included it here. Please sign the letter and send it to the Senator’s office at:
Oklahoma City, OK Office:
1900 NW Expressway St
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Main: (405) 608-4381
Or you can copy and paste the letter into Senator Inhofe’s email box. Here’s the link:
If you have not signed our petition regarding a Congressional investigation against CAIR please take the time to sign:
Through this petition we seek to open a full Congressional investigation into CAIR’s business activities and their status as a 501c3 non-profit organization. It is time that CAIR answer for its deceptions, but we need your continued help in order to make this happen. Thank you for all of your hard work!
National Field Director
Dear Senator Inhofe,
First off I need to inform you that I have voted for since your days as Mayor of Tulsa. Hence when I received a notification from ACT! For America to compliment your political incorrect stand on tougher security in “airports” and “military bases” I was more than happy to join the band wagon.
ACT reports that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is attempting to pressure your about these security comments. I join with ACT to say resist being political correct now and stay the course for America.
Below is the ACT version of the letter which I whole hearted pray that you take to heart from your supporters.
John R. Houk
Broken Arrow, OK
Dear Senator Inhofe,
As one of your constituents, I applaud you for speaking out about the connection between radical Islam and terrorism at last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Ft. Hood Shootings.
It is time that our elected officials define the enemy – radical Islam – without fear of retribution from groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) or the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Just as our nation voiced its opposition to Nazism and communism, we must do the same about radical Islam – another ideology that threatens our democratic government and the freedoms it affords.
I am aware that CAIR has spoken out against the comments you made during the hearing and is now pressuring you to meet with Muslims living in Oklahoma. I implore you NOT to cave in to these demands. As an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, CAIR clearly does not have the best interests of our nation in mind. They do not speak for the moderate Muslim community in America, they do not speak for the people of Oklahoma and they certainly do NOT speak for the nation’s citizens overall.
A growing number of people across the nation are concerned about CAIR and their perceived influence over our elected officials and our media. As of today, over 39,000 people have signed a petition, circulated by, ACT! for America (www.actforamerica.org), calling for a government investigation into CAIR, including its leadership, affiliates and activities. The petition notes the documented ties CAIR has with the terrorist organization, Hamas, as well as recent reports that CAIR has worked to undermine U.S. law enforcement by tipping off suspected terrorists under investigation. They are not a credible organization – they are a dangerous one. Our elected officials have no place engaging in discourse with them on any matter.
I hope that, as you have had the courage to do, other elected officials will finally stop hiding behind the veil of “political correctness” and begin to speak out against radical Islam’s threat to our nation. The safety of the United States depends upon it.
John R. Houk
In Agreement with ACT! For America
I listened to parts of President Barack Hussein Obama’s speech in last night’s State of the Union Address. Now I realize I listened through my Slanted Right ear filter but I got to tell you, there sure seemed to be some smoking hypocrisy involving reaching a hand out to bi-partisan ship, blaming others for a financial crisis he “inherited” and demanding an end to special interest lobbyists.
Partisanship, obfuscation and brushing shoulders have been an Obama lifestyle prior to his Presidency. Nothing has changed in the present to denote a difference from his past. He will need more than condescending words. He will need to back up his words with action.
Ann Coulter wrote some wit yesterday. Although I am certain it was written prior to the State of the Union, her article seems very prescient.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
John R. Houk
© January 27, 2010
McCain/Feingold was one of the most dubious pieces of legislation coming from our U. S. Congress. Note the first name is a Republican and the second name is a Democrat. I don’t know who voted for it or against this legislation but the authors denote a bi-partisan effort.
Senator John McCain’s name on this legislation is probably one of the most legit reasons Conservative voters looked at the 2008 Presidential candidate with a bit of distrust. McCain/Feingold became an incumbent instrument to stifle free speech by placing time restrictions on media supported for or against communication concerning a political candidate running for Federal Office.
McCain/Feingold was utilized when a movie about then Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was prohibited to be shown. Hillary’s complaint was joined by at the time contender Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Although Hillary and BHO were rivals an intelligent person could understand why he stands with Hillary and FEC on this bit of Free Speech intrusion. BHO had a lot of baggage that if aired in film or documentary effectively, media would have damaged his run of “Yes we can”.
The name of the movie/documentary was (is) “Hillary: The Movie.” The Dem complaints to the FEC resulted in McCain/Feingold enforcement. The producer of the movie Dave Bossie sued rightly complaining of First Amendment Free Speech infringement.
I’ll have to admit I have not followed this case much. Nonetheless, I am delighted it made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS). SCOTUS spanked the FEC for violating the Constitution’s First Amendment. This effectively places McCain/Feingold on shaky ground as a tool to limit Free Speech. I am guessing another case or two will have to hit SCOTUS for the Supreme Justices specifically strike the McCain/Feingold legislation into official oblivion. Ironically President Barack Hussein Obama may hasten that SCOTUS decision be going public by claiming his Administration will do its part to reverse the SCOTUS decision. Now doesn’t that smack of Executive Leftist hubris to publicly make an agenda to reverse a SCOTUS decision? I am thinking if there is such a thing as a centrist Justice, BHO’s public ballyhoo might cause some silent resentment.
Newt Gingrich has written an incredible essay hailing the SCOTUS protection of Free Speech and the chipping away of McCain/Feingold.
A Victory Over the Political Machine
By Newt Gingrich
“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
These are the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a historic Supreme Court decision that began with a man, a movie, and a message that bothered the bureaucratic Washington machine.
In January of 2008, as the Democratic presidential primaries between Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) were raging, filmmaker Dave Bossie set about advertising and distributing his 90-minute documentary “Hillary: The Movie.” (Full disclosure: Callista and I host and produce movies with Dave.)
The film offered a critical look at the New York senator then vying for the presidency. But Bossie was stunned when government officials from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) told him the film couldn’t be aired or even advertised. Their reason? Sen. Clinton was a candidate for federal office, so Bossie’s film was illegal under campaign finance law.
Bossie’s production company, Citizens United, sued, claiming its first amendment right to free speech was being denied by the government. And the Supreme Court decision announced last week was not only a vindication of the free speech rights of all Americans, it was a significant step toward dismantling the incumbent-protecting political machine created by bureaucratic campaign finance “reforms” like McCain-Feingold.
By declaring that government has no business suppressing the political speech of groups like Citizens United, the Supreme Court has begun to make it easier for middle class candidates to take on the rich and the powerful.
The Bureaucratic, Anti-Freedom Model of Campaign Finance Was Wrong
Citizens United v. FEC is one more piece of evidence that the model of bureaucratic campaign finance reform -- of government restricting the freedom of Americans to criticize politicians rather than maximizing our freedom to question our leadership -- was wrong.
The Founders understood the importance of the unfettered right of citizens to complain about their government. They recognized the danger of politicians controlling or censoring the debate about themselves. That’s why they wrote in the First Amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”
These words and this right have been stunningly perverted by laws like McCain-Feingold, which was explicitly a case of Congress making a law abridging our freedom of speech -- of incumbent politicians attempting to censor the people’s discussion of whether they should remain in office.
Government Can’t Limit the Ability of Associations of Citizens to Spend in Campaigns
Citizens United was a great victory for free speech because it declared that government can’t limit the right of corporations and unions -- the “associations of citizens” Justice Kennedy refers to above -- from spending freely to support or oppose candidates in elections.
It struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold law that censored corporate-funded political ads within 60 days of federal elections and within 30 days of primaries.
Although it left in place the prohibition on corporate donations directly to candidates and on the ability of corporations to coordinate their activities with candidates, it reversed an earlier high court ruling that allowed government to prevent corporations, nonprofits and unions from spending money independently to influence the outcome of an election.
Making it Easier for Middle Class Candidates to Take on Incumbents
The near-hysterical reaction of proponents of bureaucratic campaign finance laws such as big money fund raiser and incumbent Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) that the decision is “un-American” and “a threat to our democracy” are exactly wrong.
Laws like McCain-Feingold give incumbent politicians in Washington tremendous advantages over middle-class citizen challengers. Incumbents have literally millions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded staff, traveling and mailing privileges.
And thanks to McCain-Feingold imposed limits on what individuals can contribute to candidates, rich politicians who can spend unlimited amounts of their own money and don’t have to worry about raising money in small amounts have a tremendous advantage.
Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) used his personal fortune from Goldman Sachs to first buy a Senate seat and then the governorship. And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg would have been defeated by a virtual unknown last November if he hadn’t been able to spend his millions.
Citizens United v. FEC doesn’t threaten our democracy. It strengthens it by making it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.
Real Reform Would Be Unlimited Donations Posted on the Internet
But as significant as it was, the Court’s decision wasn’t real campaign finance reform.
Real reform under our Constitution will only come when Americans and associations of Americans are allowed to give unlimited amounts of after-tax money to the candidates and campaigns of their choice.
Donors should be given this freedom and required to post on the Internet every night what they’re spending and how they’re spending. That way, voters would know who is funding whom, and how much. Armed with that knowledge, Americans can be trusted to make an informed, truly democratic choice.
Predictably, just the prospect of voters making such a free and informed choice has the Washington establishment machine up in arms.
Can We Trust the American People Mr. President? Yes, We Can.
In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, President Obama used his weekly radio address last week to pledge to work with Congress to reverse the decision and declared: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections” (emphasis added).
This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people.
This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers’ pie.
But even more glaring than the hypocrisy is the obvious contempt that supporters of bureaucratic campaign finance have for the American people.
Ultimately, the question comes down to one of trust. Can we trust the people, and not the government, to determine our political future? The answer, Mr. President, is a familiar one:
“Yes we can.”
SCOTUS Stands up for Free Speech
John R. Houk
© January 27, 2010
A Victory Over the Political Machine
Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works" and "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
Copyright © 2010 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
John R. Houk
© January 26, 2009
Here is Thomas Wells on “Philosopher Kings and the Political Spectrum.”
Comment by: Thomas Wells
Sent: Jan 26, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Plato banned poets from his republic, Oh me, oh my how myopic. What ever flaver (sic), to such kings I tell, you can take a flying leap into...
If I am to re-edit the rhyme it would most likely go: “... to such kings I tell, you can take a flying leap into hell.”
Indeed Plato would give poets the boot from his Philosopher-King ruled Republic. So the question that I found interesting when I became curious about Wells’ comment is this: What did Plato mean by poetry?
In my really quite unsophisticated reading at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it seems Plato was not so much referring to poets of the heart or inner muse. Rather Plato equated poetry with Rhetoric and the dramatic art of persuasive recitation such as lawyers, persuasive politicians and anti-philosophical satire against the person of a philosopher.
So the next question might be: How would Plato’s thoughts on poets equate to the 21st century?
I am guessing I am stepping out on a subjective limb here. So let me slowly squeak out that limb and hope I don’t snap it.
In the Conservative side of the political spectrum the poets might be politicians: legislators and executives on the right that use word to persuade listeners and voters to the slanted right agenda. One would include preachers that touch Slanted Right issues just enough to keep the separation of Church and State witchhunters at bay.
On the Leftist side it would be the persuasive polemicist convincing listeners of a utopian life that would extend an unequaled quality of life of harmonious egalitarianism such as the world has never known. (And never will know because of the nature of man without the divine standard of the Creator.)
So who are the 21st century poets that would produce the illusion of wisdom for the greater good but in reality be devoid of wisdom? O boy! I think I hear the limb breaking if I mention some of my Conservative and Christian Right heroes. I really don’t care if I mention the Slanted Left morons; however out of fairness to not mentioning the Slanted Right I also will avoid mentioning the Marxist ... err ... I mean Slanted Left poets.
I will let the readers determine who the 21st century poets are. As to today’s Philosopher-Kings, I will let my readers think on that also. Yeah I know, it’s a gutless decision.
Thanks for being the muse Thomas Wells.
I read an AP story that Chemical Ali had just received his fourth death sentence on January 17. Not being a fan of the butchery of the former Hussein regime I posited a dark joke: “One has to wonder if they will execute Chemical Ali four times”. On January 25, 2010 the New York Times reports that Chemical Ali has been executed at the age of 68.
Apparently I was off a few death sentences. Ali Hasan al-Majid had EIGHT death sentences. He was hanged with the execution photos shown on Iraqi TV. Well Chemical Ali, the first execution probably had the most pain. You probably won’t feel the next seven executions. On the other hand you old butcher, you probably will feel the torments of hell for eternity.
John R. Houk
© January 26, 2010
I have no idea how Iranian born Maryam Namazie found the particular email I use for research. The title of her email almost had me send it to the old spam box. I did a quick scan of the subject and my first perusal only saw “Liberation of Women.”
Okay so I am a tiny bit of a chauvinist or so my oldest daughter would tell me. My thoughts were on Leftist feminism which includes pro-abortion and a denigration of Christianity. Anyway just before I began to click the spam button I also noticed the words “in Iran.” So I thought, “Hmm … Maybe I should give this email another glance.”
The email title is “Support the Manifesto of Liberation of Women in Iran”. The email is actually a re-statement of Namazie’s Manifesto found on an Iran women’s equal rights website. The actual Manifesto is entitled, “Manifesto of Liberation of Women in Iran.”
Actually I have little idea where Namazie’s ethics and ideology except her biography claims she has a prominent atheistic blog and that is associated with some organization that is simultaneously anti-US militarism and anti-Islamic Terrorism. These terms seems to indicate a bit of a Leftist anti-American sentiment, BUT with an anti-Islamic-Terrorist Iranian regime sentiment as well.
Because of the latter I am going to post her Manifesto as delivered in the email. Anything that is publicly anti-Iranian regime and anti-radical Islamic is worth the pitch (for the moment). I am guessing Maryam Namazie is on an increasing hit list aimed at Muslim apostates. That makes her brave in the politically correct West which fears to name the obvious for fear of insulting Islam.
The Manifesto of Liberation of Women selling point is centered on the Iranian authorities’ murder, brutality and torture of Iranian citizens protesting the election victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The face of the Iranian brutality was a murdered woman - Neda Agha Soltan.
Support the Manifesto of Liberation of Women in Iran
Sent: January 25, 2010 1:16:51 PM
The very existence of the Islamic regime of Iran is incompatible with freedom of women. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a misogynist state, architect of gender apartheid and perpetrator of three decades of the most odious forms of abuse, discrimination and violence against women in Iran. A society cannot be free if women are not free. Without the overthrow of the misogynist Islamic regime, women in Iran will not achieve their rights. The Islamic Republic must go! This is the message of Neda Agha Soltan, the symbol of the ongoing revolution in Iran; it is the decree of the brave women who at the front lines of people’s protest have been challenging the entire Islamic state for the past seven months.
Thirty years ago on March 8th, 1979 in Iran, we freedom-loving women and men stood up to the reactionaries who had just come to power, with shouts of No to compulsory veil! Today, with the painful and bloody experience of three decades of gender apartheid, gender slavery and nonstop suppression of women behind us, we state even more clearly and forcefully, along with the young and progressive generation of today, that the Islamic Republic, as a misogynist state, as a regime of gender apartheid must be overthrown. We say that the leaders of the Islamic Republic must be arrested and put on trial for systematic crimes against millions of women, for crimes against humanity. This is the decree of the revolution in Iran. With the overthrow of the Islamic Republic we will lend a helping hand to millions of women in Islam-stricken countries who are prisoners of terrorist Islamic states and gangs and honour-worshiping, male-chauvinistic Islamic traditions.
Today, support for the ongoing revolution in Iran can and should become a vast international movement. March 8th is International Women’s Day, which this year bears the mark of solidarity with women and people in Iran in the struggle to topple the Islamic regime. We call on women’s rights activists and organisations to express their solidarity with the women’s movement in Iran, while remembering Neda Agha Soltan as the symbol of the revolutionary movement against the Islamic Republic. March 8th this year is the day of solidarity with the movement of the people of Iran for freedom!
We issue the following Manifesto of the Liberation of Women in Iran, and call on all women’s rights’ activists and secular and progressive forces to support this Manifesto and join up in solidarity with the people of Iran in the struggle to overthrow the Islamic regime of gender apartheid:
1- Prosecution of the leaders and officials of the Islamic Republic for crimes against humanity, including for thirty years of the vilest abuse, discrimination and violence against women in Iran
2- Abolition of all misogynist Islamic laws and all laws that discriminate against women; complete equality of women and men in all economic, political, cultural, social and family spheres
3- Complete separation of religion from the state, the educational system and all laws
4- Abolition of segregation of the sexes and gender apartheid
5- Prohibition of sighe (Islamic ‘rent-a-wife’) and polygamy; unconditional right of separation (divorce) for women and men; abolition of all laws which make women’s civil rights (such as the right to travel, social intercourse, participation in social activities, etc.) conditional on obtaining the permission of the husband, father or other male members of the family; complete equality of women’s and men’s rights and duties in the custody and care of children following separation
6- Abolition of compulsory veil (hejab) for women; prohibition of hejab for children; full freedom of dress
7- Abolition of all the barbaric laws of stoning, execution, retribution (qesas) and other Islamic punishments
8- Unconditional freedom of expression, protest, strike, assembly, organisation and forming parties
9- Immediate release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience
10- Freedom of religion and atheism and freedom to criticise religion.
22 January 2010
To sign up to the manifesto, please go to: http://equal-rights-now.com/IntWD/IntWD649.php?nr=63719093&lang=en
To see Maryam Namazie’s call to show solidarity with the people of Iran, click here:
To see how you can support the people of Iran, click here:
Maryam Namazie: Women’s Liberation in Iran
John R. Houk
© January 26, 2010
Support the Manifesto of Liberation of Women in Iran
For more information on the manifesto or March 8 events, email email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org; call 0049-1775692413 or 0044-7719166731 or visit http://equalrightsnow-iran.com/ or http://iransolidarity.org.uk/.
You can also contact us with any questions or concerns regarding your privacy at:
NedaMail BM Box 6754 London WC1N 3XX England
(c) 2009-2010 NedaMail. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, January 25, 2010
John R. Houk
© January 25, 2010
Let’s be clear: a majority of Joe (and Jane) Americans that are enfranchised voters really have little clue of the affect of public policy on their day to day lives. It is also a good guess that Joe American has little concern of how a political ideology (Left, Right, Moderate, Christian (Right and Catholic), Islamic or Humanistic) affects his/her day to day life.
As a Conservative (actually largely Neoconservative) it is easy to be critical of President Barack Hussein Obama imposition of his political agenda on the American public. Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) has termed this political imposition reminiscent of Plato’s advocating of “Philosopher Kings” to govern political society. Plato felt that a class of Philosopher Kings would be trained in such wisdom that their oligarchy rule would best benefit majority. Plato believed all classes apart from Philosopher Kings were incapable of governing themselves to a harmonious society. Hence Plato also believed if information did not benefit the well being of the other classes it was okay to lie to them to avoid the rabble rising affect. Trust me this is a simplistic explanation that leaves much out but I believe you get the gist of it.
It is time to be honest. There are many Conservatives that also wittingly or unwittingly would subscribe to the Philosopher King model. The Conservative Philosopher Kings would not emphasize the Leftist Collective model. Rather the Conservative Philosopher King would focus on less government intrusion in an individual citizen’s life and would utilize more security to enable the protection of a thrifty entrepreneurial society. Neoconservatives (more or less) would extend this protection by promoting alliances with like-minded (as possible) nations or nation-building of nations that threaten our thrifty entrepreneurial society.
Libertarians would definitely look upon the Philosopher King model with aghast because their core of governing strategy is the contractual agreement of an autonomous-individual class with security based on mutual agreement rather than supreme State oversight. One who considers himself an absolute Paleoconservative (SA Gottfried) might ephemerally denounce the Philosopher King model. And yet the Philosopher King model is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind in establishing the propertied class as people of wisdom and thus with the enfranchisement of voting.
So getting back to VDH (who I admire incidentally), who has criticism of President Barack Hussein Obama’s image of a Philosopher King. I am of the belief the VDH criticism is valid only as such that the Obama agenda is apparently a collective-Socialism (some might even say Marxism).
What say ye?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
John R. Houk
© January 24, 2010
Ayn Rand’s demise had come and gone before her writings became part of my transformation from a lackadaisical Liberal to a Christian Right Conservative (indeed an evolving NeoConservative).
Now I say “lackadaisical Liberal” for I was never really virulent in spreading slanted Left Liberalism. What I felt was a combination of my parents and grandparents love of the Democratic Party due to action that appeared to end The Great Depression and a slight rebellious Baby Boomer affinity for anything anti-establishment. Clearly though I was never a radical believer of Leftist Liberalism. I guess I can compare my political affiliation to a great majority of Muslims that are devoted to Islam but are either ignorant or refuse to follow the violent tenets that are central to the Islamic Quran, Hadith and Sira. Those that the West would call or term “radical” Muslims are the ones that embrace the entire core of the Islamic Theo-Political ideology whether it is peaceful or violent depending of the need to spread Islam to a willing or unwilling people.
Jimmy Carter began my wake-up call concerning the Democrats and hence via progression Leftist Liberalism. In 1980 I was not completely sold on the Conservative Republican Ronald Reagan because of my background in anti-establishment Baby Boomerism. Hence my political votes were more of a protest against Democrats and Republicans. I voted Libertarian Party in the great State of Washington. In my mind in 1980 President Reagan was a nuke button pushing enthusiast willing to blow up the world to stop Communism. Take note that the craziness of Islam had not yet entered my mind even though American Embassy workers had been interned under the brutal conditions of the threat of death by Islamic Shi’ite Iranian Revolutionaries that for all intents and purposes gained control of Iran because of President Carter’s abandonment of American ally Shah Reza Pahlavi.
In my state of political flux, all things Libertarian in those days placed Ayn Rand on a pedestal. After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead I became a devoted fan of Rand. Rand’s Individualism and Objectivist philosophy (ARI explanation) ringed in my mind like a revelatory epiphany. It was like: “Eureka” I have found the gold to sustain me in this life.
The thing is Rand did me a favor by allowing my mind to examine myself introspectively. This introspectiveness led me to the true epiphany of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the dark world to bring all who believe into the Light of His Glorious Kingdom. First in the inner man followed by full redemption (spirit, soul and body) when the Christ Returns to establish His Kingdom on Earth. This will be the moment that a new Earth and a new Heaven will become one as Christ is one with all who believe and as Christ is One in the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The thing also is Rand’s philosophy is totally antagonistic toward religious faith. Randian Objectivism is Humanistic at its core. Hence I admire Randian philosophy especially in individualism yet I definitely do not embrace the Objectivist anti-faith portions. It is one reason today’s Libertarians can be fiscally Conservative yet socially and morally Leftist.
The inspiration for this walk down memory lane comes from Michael Huemer writing for CATO Unbound. Huemer posits both admiration and philosophical criticism for Ayn Rand’s thoughts which are totally different from my criticism. The one thing that caught my eye with Huemer’s essay is the observation that Ayn Rand’s writings seem to have a continuing cyclical peek of interest. I surmise the reason for this is that young people begin to have a political awakening about the political environment they coexist in. The emerging political mind which hopes to influence and to make a mark on that environment is drawn to Ayn Rand. This experience if political disaffection is what drew me to Rand.
Huemer believes people are continually drawn to Rand because she is remarkably readable as compare to other writers that espouse similar political philosophical thoughts in writing.
Regardless if you are a fan, critic or a bit of both of Ayn Rand, Michael Huemer’s essay will be of interest to you.
Why Ayn Rand? Some Alternate Answers
By Michael Huemer
January 22nd, 2010
What accounts for the continuing and increasing interest in the work of Ayn Rand? Clearly, the attraction of her ideas has much to do with it. This is true despite the fact that most people, even in America, are probably hostile to most of her philosophy. In a capitalist society, one need not please a majority in order to be successful; one need only find a market niche. There are enough individualists and libertarians in America to provide a strong market for Rand’s message.
Recent political developments have clearly contributed to interest in her political philosophy. But recent events do not change the actual relevance of Rand’s ideas, political or otherwise. The election of Barack Obama, for instance, changes little. There have been left-wing democrats for a long time, and there have been calls to socialize medicine for decades. The principles of individual rights are exactly as true as they have been throughout human history, and the nature of the opposition to those principles has changed little in the past few decades.
Contrary to the impression one might get from listening to “tea party” enthusiasts, things are probably getting better, from an individualist’s standpoint, in the medium to long term (on the scale of decades and centuries). A few centuries ago, “the divine right of kings” was taken seriously as a theory of political authority, and slavery was widely practiced. A century ago, half of the adult population of the United States could not vote. Half a century ago, that same half of the population was effectively barred, by collectivist cultural biases, from most professions, while individuals of African ancestry were segregated, both by law and by custom, from the white population. Ayn Rand characterized racism as “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” This crudest form of collectivism was not long ago embraced, explicitly and shamelessly, throughout American society. Of course, it is hardly gone today (new forms have arisen lately, such as that of ascribing collective guilt to light-skinned individuals), but who could deny that racism has passed its peak? And just a quarter century ago, the human race was still threatened by the Soviet Union, which sought to spread Marxist communism across the globe. Like racism, communism has not disappeared from the Earth entirely, but it has certainly had its time. All of this suggests to me that the perennial interest in Ayn Rand’s work has more to do with a trend toward individualism than with a reaction to collectivist trends.
This does not answer the question, which Professor Rasmussen has raised, of why Rand attracts more attention than other defenders of liberty, such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, or Frederic Bastiat. Here I must differ with Rasmussen. I don’t believe Bastiat, or any other of the well-known defenders of liberty, is nearly as accessible to a modern reader as Rand. Rand, I believe, is the most compelling writer of the group. More importantly, Rand was not only a philosopher, but a compelling novelist.
Some followers of Rand may scoff at this explanation. “No, it is all down to her philosophical ideas,” they may say. “Rand’s works outsell those of von Mises because she has a coherent, comprehensive philosophy!” I think Rasmussen’s suggestion is somewhere in this region as well—that Rand’s greater popularity is due to her connecting libertarian political philosophy with comprehensive ethical and meta-ethical theories. Let us consider the evidence. Atlas Shrugged outsells Human Action by a wide margin. As of this writing, the Amazon sales ranks are 101 and 16,331, respectively. (Admittedly a limited measure, but still interesting.) But Atlas also outsells Rand’s own non-fiction books, by similarly wide margins. The Virtue of Selfishness trails at 11,993, with Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology all the way down at 120,117. If the greater market success of Rand as compared with von Mises were due to Rand’s broader philosophy, wouldn’t we see this reflected in sales of Rand’s non-fiction works, in which she explicitly develops that philosophy?
The data fit another hypothesis: that the novel is a far more accessible and popular vehicle for communicating ideas than the monograph. The lesson for defenders of freedom seems clear. We need more novelists, screenwriters, and other artists.
But let us leave aside the matter of Rand’s literary success. What is the best way to defend freedom intellectually? Is it, as Rand believed, to connect the philosophy of individual rights to a version of ethical egoism, which in turn derives from the metaethical theory presented by Rand in “The Objectivist Ethics”? I don’t think so. Objectivists seem to find that essay completely convincing. But hardly anyone else finds it at all convincing.
This is not a trivial observation—one often finds that people who do not accept a whole philosophical system nevertheless find certain parts of it plausible. And one often finds that people who are not ultimately persuaded by an argument nevertheless see some plausibility in it. But neither of these things is true of the argument of “The Objectivist Ethics”—hardly anyone finds that argument even slightly plausible, unless they also buy into virtually all of Ayn Rand’s views. This is not true of most of her other views: one would not be surprised to find a non-Objectivist who nevertheless thinks Rand’s political views are reasonable, or her epistemological views, or her aesthetic theories. The explanation is simple: the theory of “The Objectivist Ethics” is simultaneously the most distinctive and the least plausible, worst defended of all of Rand’s major ideas. (Here is a nicer way to say that: all of Rand’s other major theories are more plausible and better defended than that one.) I do not have space to detail the flaws in the article here; they require more lengthy discussion. For now, just take as a sociological observation that few find the theory of that article plausible, even after reading the article.
There are two major reasons why the best hope for political freedom is not to connect it ideologically with Rand’s ethical and metaethical theories. The first is that those theories are utterly unconvincing to almost everyone—even less convincing than libertarianism. Connecting the two together serves only to discredit the cause of freedom and individual rights. It plays into the hands of those who say that the only opposition to socialism derives from greed and selfishness.
The second major reason is that ethical egoism does not support the philosophy of individual rights in the first place. Quite the opposite. Take Rasmussen’s statement of the basic individualist premise: “Each individual human being is an end in him or herself … not merely a means to the ends of others.” This is a very common idea in classical liberal writings. Nearly identical statements appear in Rand, in Nozick, and of course in Kant. It is also, pace Rand, directly and obviously contrary to ethical egoism. For ethical egoism posits that the only thing that ought to matter intrinsically to me is my own welfare—for me, my own welfare or happiness is the only end in itself. It follows from this that I ought not to regard other individuals as ends in themselves; rather, I should see them only as means to my happiness—just as I see everything else in the world. This is a very simple and straightforward implication of the theory. I cannot hold my own well-being as the only end in itself, and simultaneously say that I recognize other persons as ends in themselves too.
One might say that each person is an end in himself only for himself—maybe the statement “Every individual is an end in himself, not a mere means to the ends of others” means only that each person should treat himself (but not anyone else) as an end in himself, and that no one should see himself as a means to the ends of others (but one should see everyone else as a means to one’s own ends). But this bizarre interpretation of the principle not only robs it of any intuitive plausibility; it also renders obscure its use in defending individual rights. The more straightforward interpretation of the individualist premise is that I must recognize other individuals as ends in themselves, not mere means to my ends. The straightforward argument for respecting individual rights is that when one violates another person’s rights, one uses that person without his consent, and one thus treats that person as if he were a mere means to one’s own ends. That argument, of course, could not be advanced by a true egoist, who must hold that it is obligatory to treat other persons (and everything else) as mere means to one’s own welfare.
At this point, most Objectivists fall back on the contention that, luckily, it is impossible for rational people’s interests to conflict. More particularly, that although it would be praiseworthy to use others for one’s own advantage if one should get the chance, opportunities are peculiarly scarce, so much so that there has never (or almost never) been a case in which anyone would have benefited by violating another person’s rights (for instance, by initiating the use of force against another). It would be truly wonderful if this could be proven. But actual arguments for this claim are unsurprisingly hard to come by, and it remains unclear why anyone would accept the claim, apart from a drive to reconcile Rand’s ethics with her politics. This issue has, of course, been discussed at great length among supporters and critics of Rand, and I have nothing especially new to add. I shall simply record my judgment that defenders of liberty are far more likely to convince others of the need to respect individual rights through the straightforward “persons are ends in themselves” argument mentioned above, than through an argument that relies upon (a) first convincing the audience that the right action is always the most selfish action, and (b) then convincing the audience that it is impossible to benefit from violating someone else’s rights.
It should be clear from this what I think remains alive in Rand’s political and moral thought, and what I think must be discarded. Her key insight is the principle of individual rights, that persons exist as ends in themselves, not mere resources for others to use, and that because of this, individuals may not initiate the use of force or fraud against one another. Rand saw clearly that this entails that capitalism is the only just economic system. Where she went wrong was in thinking that these crucial insights rested on an egoistic foundation.
 The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964), paperback ed., p. 126.
2] Source: www.amazon.com, January 14, 2010. Statistics are for the paperback edition of Atlas Shrugged (Plume, 1999), and the paperback edition of Human Action (Liberty Fund, 2010)—the most popular editions of each book. Amazon sales rank statistics vary widely from day to day. Nevertheless, the qualitative points here are fairly stable.
 From www.amazon.com, January 14, 2010. Statistics are for the Signet 1964 paperback edition of Virtue of Selfishness and the Plume 1990 paperback edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (again, the most popular editions of these books).
 pp. 13-35 in The Virtue of Selfishness, op. cit.
 See my “Is Benevolent Egoism Coherent?”, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 3 (2002): 259-88; “Why I Am Not an Objectivist,” especially section 5
 Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, op. cit., p. 27; Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), pp. 30-31; Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals,
Ayn Rand: An Inspiration and a Criticism
John R. Houk
© January 24, 2010
Why Ayn Rand? Some Alternate Answers
Michael Huemer is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado and author of Ethical Intuitionism.
1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. • Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone: (202) 842-0200 • Fax: (202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved, ©2008 (sic) Cato Institute