America's Party News - - Committees of Correspondence
  • America's Founding Principles
  •   Home  |  About  |  Platform  |  Affiliate  |  No donations  |  National Committee  |  Be a LeaderSearch  |  Inbox  |  My Settings  |  Log-in  

    'America's Summit  –  Restore the Republic'

    Every Tues. & Thurs. night  –  9 pm EST
    712-432-3566  –  passcode 340794#

    Archive  –  Listen on the web

    Contact Posting Guidelines

    Ayn Rand's Objectivism is the Antithesis of Christianity, American Self-Government, and Liberty
       Independent Media & Educational Projects -> America's Principles in Public Policy

    April 18, 2011

    Tom Hoefling

    With the release this past weekend of Hollywood's version of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged," the country is abuzz with paeans to the the philosophy Rand espoused, even from some people who call themselves "conservative" and "Christian." The book has once again gone to the top of the best-sellers' lists.

    So, this would be a good time to examine just what Ayn Rand believed.

    An old friend was online today urging conservatives to go see the movie, because, and I quote:

    ...the folks behind it are not contributing to the corruption of our culture...

    My reply?

    "Well, besides spreading the godless, materialist, selfish Objectivist ideology...

    The Randian idea that we can have just government, or maintain liberty, without God, without a moral basis for our laws, is one of the leading corruptions in our culture, old friend."

    That's right. To put it bluntly, her Objectivism is godless, self-centered, materialistic, anti-Christian, and anti-American.

    Ayn Rand:
    "I am against God for the reason that I don't want to destroy reason."
    "My morality is based on man's life as the standard of value...that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own habits...that each man must live as an end in himself."

    An anti-Christian doctrine if there ever was one, premised in the original lie of the serpent in the Garden: "Ye shall be as gods."

    To the Christian, God Himself is the standard of value, and man's value is derived from the value God Himself placed on us when He made us in His own image, and then came to earth Himself to redeem us by His supreme sacrificial act. We are not an end in ourselves, but were created to serve God and our fellow man, just as He modeled perfectly for us.

    John 13

     1Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

     2And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

     3Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

     4He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

     5After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

     6Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

     7Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

     8Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

     9Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

     10Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

     11For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

     12So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

     13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

     14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

     15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

     16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

     17If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.


    Rand's philosophy, like Marx's, is anathema to the Christian faith, and hostile to the vital foundations of Western Civilization.

    Anyone who knows anything about Christianity will recognize this in the bolded sections of a summary from of one of her works:

    The Ayn Rand Institute

    The Virtue of Selfishness

    Throughout history, man has been offered the following alternative: be “moral” through a life of sacrifice to others—or be “selfish” through a life of sacrificing others to oneself. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand blasts this as a false alternative, holding that a selfish, non-sacrificial way of life is both possible and necessary for man.

    The Virtue of Selfishness is a collection of essays presenting Ayn Rand’s radical moral code of rational selfishness and its opposition to the prevailing morality of altruism—i.e., to the duty to sacrifice for the sake of others.

    In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Rand gives an outline of her code of rational selfishness, and of her argument establishing it as the only objective, fact-based moral code in human history. In the course of the essay, she raises and answers a fundamental and fascinating question: Why does one even need a morality?

    In essays including “The Ethics of Emergencies,” “The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests,” and “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” she raises common ethical questions, shows how altruism has crippled people’s ability to approach them rationally, and explains how her moral code provides a solution to them. In “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” she applies her ethics to formulate the basic principles of her political philosophy, while rejecting the altruistic doctrines of “rights” to health care, employment, etc.

    The Virtue of Selfishness is indispensable reading for anyone who wants to understand the crucial ethical issues at the root at so many of our cultural debates today—who wants to understand the revolutionary ideas that guide the lives of Ayn Rand’s fictional heroes—who wants to lead an existence that is both moral and practical—who wants to discover why, in the words of one of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, “the purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

    According to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, the firefighters who went up the stairs of the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001 were fools. The men who rushed the cockpit on Flight 93 to stop the plane from being crashed into the Capitol or the White House were idiots. The soldier who gives his life for his buddies or for his country is to be scorned for his ignorance of Ayn Rand's immoral "morality."

    And, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on a Roman cross to selflessly, vicariously, pay the price for the sins of humanity is the scandal of all scandals.


    Ayn Rand was a virulent promoter of abortion.

    Ayn Rand:

    “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

    “Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

    (SOURCE: “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand pp. 58–59)

    Ayn Rand on Pro-Lifers:

    “I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”

    “By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

    (SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, Ayn Rand, June 1981, 3.)

    “Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a ‘right to life.’ A piece of protoplasm has no rights -— and no life in the human sense of the term.”

    “An Embryo is not alive.”

    Earlier I was wandering around one of the sites devoted to her, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Unsurprisingly, her wicked views towards killing certain individuals, innocent babies, continue to bear evil fruit today.

    Here's one of the items I found there:

    Abortion: An Absolute Right

    "If Roe v. Wade is reconsidered, the Supreme Court should affirm abortion as a right that cannot be invaded or compromised."

    Ayn Rand rejected the One the founders of our country called "Nature's God." She did away with what they called self-evident Truth. She repudiated the Natural Law He instituted. She arrogantly scoffed at our nation's first premise, that all of us are equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, starting with the right to live. She, and those who continue to follow her, remind me of those that the Apostle Paul described in Romans Chapter One:

     18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

     19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

     20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

     21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

     22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

     23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

     24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

     25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

     26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

     27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

     28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

     29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

     30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

     31Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

     32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    With the growing popularity of her views, why would we wonder that our country is being destroyed? Erode the foundations, and the house will eventually fall down.


    Today another Ayn Rand follower said to me:

    Rand may not have believed in God, but she darn sure believed in freedom.

    But this is not possible. There is no true freedom without God, or any means to defend it.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

    -- The Declaration of Independence

    Without the acknowledgment of God, there is no equality. There is no protection for innocent human life. There is no liberty. There is no private property. There are no rights. There is no self-government. There is no America.

    For only "where the Spirit of the LORD is, THERE is Liberty." 

    All you're left with are the arbitrary whims of men, and "might makes right."


    There are three great internal existential threats to America, our form of government, our liberty, and our posterity:

    • The communism of the Democrat Left.
    • The fake, false flag pseudo-conservatism of the Republican "Right."
    • The godless, selfish, hedonistic, materialistic, anti-Christian, anti-American Objectivism of Ayn Rand/Ron Paul Libertarianism.

    If you love God, if you love your country, if you love self-government in liberty, if you care about your posterity, fight them all, with all your might.

    John Adams:

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

    Margaret Thatcher:

    "Without a moral basis, [a free] society would not long endure."

    Don't fall into the destructive trap of mistaking Ayn Rand's licentious views for true liberty. It's a lie.



    Posted 2011-04-18 1:37 AM (#52145) By: EternalVigilance

    Posted 2011-04-18 1:54 AM (#52146 - in reply to #52145) By: EternalVigilance

    Thanks, Tom. There's a lot here that can help folks put objectivism into perspective. But I think it's wrong to lump Ayn Rand with the hedonists. She saw hedonism as an evil, calling it sub-human.

    One of the key things she got wrong was her understanding of faith. She sees faith as an arbitrary choice. That's true enough for the innumerable universe of false faiths, but the Bible describes a true faith, a gift. Without that gift, we'd all be as described in Romans 3 -- none that seeketh after God.
    Posted 2011-04-18 6:22 AM (#52148 - in reply to #52146) By: SteveSchulin

    Ayn Rand, in the Part 1 video, at 3:32:

    [Man’s] highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness.

    It's not quite hedonism (man's highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own pleasure), but the results are pretty much identical.

    Posted 2011-04-18 9:18 AM (#52152 - in reply to #52148) By: Philomena

    Tom, the only thing I question in your excellent piece is that the Atlas Shrugged film is from Hollywood.  It was independently produced because Communist-loving Hollywood wouldn't touch it.
    Posted 2011-04-18 9:40 AM (#52153 - in reply to #52145) By: Philomena

    Many responses to this essay posted HERE since I published it in the early morning hours.

    Another excellent case study, at least for those with eyes to see.

    Posted 2011-04-18 1:11 PM (#52158 - in reply to #52145) By: EternalVigilance

    Another important subset of this vital debate can be found HERE.
    Posted 2011-04-18 1:13 PM (#52159 - in reply to #52158) By: EternalVigilance


    April 13, 2011

    Rejecting the Cult of Ayn Rand

    by Leon H. Wolf (Profile


    ...While Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy had many useful things to say about liberalism, when applied as a positive philosophy to life, it leads to results just as monstrous as communism. No one who, as a mature adult, espouses it without reservation should be taken seriously or considered a leader of conservative thought. And, although I am admittedly not plugged in to the Tea Pary movement, I would wager that a vast majority of its rank and file members would be surprised to learn that the movement is supposedly animated by an atheistic and rabidly pro-choice materialist.

    The first and most obvious objection to coopting conservatism in the name of Rand’s objectivism is that Rand herself rejected conservatism. She hated religion and all founding traditions. Anything that stood in the way of the accumulation of wealth and pleasure (for the few in this world who are fortunate enough to be beautiful and talented) is to be rejected. As Whittaker Chambers noted long ago in what is still the definitive repudiation of Rand, in this Rand was in fact not meaningfully different from the Marxism she sought to repudiate:

    So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book’s last line, that a character traces in the air, “over the desolate earth,” the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the “mysticism of mind” and the “mysticism of muscle”).

    That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rand’s ideas that the good life is one which “has resolved personal worth into exchange value,” “has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash-payment.’” The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript: “And I mean it.” But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired “naked self-interest” (in its time and place), and for much the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment.

    As Chambers pointed out, this sort of inspired naked atheistic matieralism that brooks no dissent and seeks to level the entire world before it inevitably leads to disaster, whether animated by Marx or Rand:

    Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.

    Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?

    Something of this implication is fixed in the book’s dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

    In truth, Rand’s philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, was so monstrous that she was unable to live it personally even though she boldly and often claimed that she did. As Charles Murray (who is a Rand fan) notes, there is much to admire (for some people) in her works and novels; however, her philosophy is simply not something that can be consistently lived, and to try is to invite a life of misery and madness.

    I would certainly not begrudge anyone who enjoyed Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. I myself read them as a teenager and enjoyed both, and to this day they are two of the books which most encapsulate what is wrong with liberalism today. The concern I have - and the concern which it seems to me many rank and file Tea Party members should have - is that many of the self-appointed leading lights of the Tea Party movement have apparently undertaken to uncritically appoint Rand’s philosophy as a guiding principle of the Tea Party movement. Rand’s philosophy undoubtedly contains some wheat, but the vast majority of it is inedible chaff, and a prescription for the death of the traditions and institutions that make America great. One need look no farther than Rand’s open disdain for Reagan as a puppet of the “religious right” to understand that she does not speak for almost any self-identified conservative in this country. One wonders, then, why so many self-appointed “conservative” leaders seem determined to let her speak for them.


    Posted 2011-04-18 1:45 PM (#52160 - in reply to #52159) By: EternalVigilance

    John L. Work was kind enough to write and publish this on his site today:

    AIP’s Tom Hoefling Analyzes Ayn Rand’s Cult Of Objectivism

    Ayn Rand

    Over the past few months I’ve developed a long-distance friendship with Tom Hoefling, who is the founder and chairman of America’s Independent Party, and the editor of  He has kindly re-published several of my posts.

     Today Tom posted his excellent must-read essay and analysis on the resurgence of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, which was just released as a movie, and her philosophy of Objectivism.  Included within his column are two embedded videos of an interview that former CBS correspondent Mike Wallace conducted with Rand, in 1959.  I must confess to beginning to read the book about forty or so years ago, and I did not finish it.  I just couldn’t hang in there with it.  Tom presents a very compelling case against Rand’s views.

     Here is the link to his essay and to the video interview, which you will find toward the bottom of the AIP column:

     Following are a few of Rand’s verbatim quotes I’ve culled from the broadcast interview, regarding her self-based philosophy of Objectivism:

     “…First, my philosophy is based on the concept that reality exists as an objective absolute – that man’s mind, reason, is his means of perceiving it, and that man needs a rational morality.  I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality which has so far been believed impossible – namely, a morality not based on faith, not on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edict, mystical or social, but on reason.  A morality which can be proved by means of logic.  Which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary…”

     A new code of morality.  Sounds a little egotistically cultish to me, but let’s go ahead and see what’s next.  Rand moves on to define her concept of that new morality:

     “…My morality is based on man’s life as a standard of value.  And since man’s mind is his basic means of survival, I hold that if man wants to live on Earth, and to live as a human being, he has to hold reason as an absolute, by which I mean that he has to hold reason as his only guide to action, and that he must live by the independent judgment of his own mind, that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness.  And that he must not force other people, nor accept their right to force him.  Each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own self-interest…”

     Sounds like it could get a little anarchistic to me, but…oh, gosh… let’s go on again, shall we?

     Responding to contemporary criticisms, which accused Rand of “scorning” traditional institutions, God, Judeo-Christian beliefs; and of wanting to destroy regulated capitalism and rule by will of the majority, she had this to say:

     “…Yes.  I agree with the facts, if not the estimate of this criticism.  Namely, if I am challenging the base of all these institutions, I am challenging the moral code of altruism, the precept that man’s moral duty is to live for others, that man must sacrifice himself to others, which is the present day morality…Self sacrifice is the precept that man needs to serve others in order to justify his existence, that his moral duty is to serve others.  That is what most people believe today…”

     And that’s bad?  Next, here’s Rand’s belief on mixing politics and economics:

     “…I am opposed to all forms of control.  I am for an absolute, laissez faire, free, unregulated economy.  Let me put it briefly.  I am for the separation of state and economics, just as we had separation of state and church…If you separate the government from economics, if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among men…”

     Balderdash.  There has to be some regulation to prevent abuses.  My maternal grandfather, Aaron Lloyd, began to grow up during the late 1800s, while the age of the industrial Robber Barons was still in full swing.  At the age of ten, he was sent to work as a lamp boy deep in the coal mines of eastern Pennsylvania.  He rarely saw the light of day.  The only reason he did not spend his entire life working in darkness was because he ran away and joined the army at age seventeen.  The abuses of child labor, of which my grandfather was truly a victim, were the direct result of unregulated, laissez faire capitalism, the same one which Rand advocated.

     It’s an interesting interview.  Tom Hoefling’s analysis of Rand’s philosophy is well-worth your time.


    Posted 2011-04-18 6:55 PM (#52169 - in reply to #52160) By: EternalVigilance

    Frankly Tom (Okay, you be Tom and I'll be Frank ;-); I don't know which is worse, Ayn Rand Objectivist Epistemology or the blind followers (especially political) as they descent further into the maelstrom. With people like Ron Paul and others being the captian(s) of that ship.

    In short, Rand is a moron and by proxy her followers. She is a dogmatic crypto-facist whose pseudo-religion is on the same level as scientology. But whereas L. Ron Hubbard's pseudo-religion hung its hooks on techno-babble, Rand hangs her pseudo-religion on philoso-babble. The end results are much the same: small groups of highly loyal followers who never bother to seriously question the gaping holes of logic, sense and decency which riddle their movement.

    Read more here; Objectivist Epistemology


    And for the record.

    News from the CESJ Network -

    • Wednesday October 22. 2008 Invited by the newly-formed, D.C.-based Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Norman Kurland attended a presentation at the National Press Club by Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California. The followers of Ayn Rand pose their philosophy as a revolution against socialism based on "selfishness" and "greed" as moral virtues, giving "capitalism" moral superiority over altruistic goals. During the session Norman asked Dr. Brook two questions: "1. Have you ever heard of Louis Kelso's Capitalist Manifesto" (he had not) and 2. "Why aren't you taking into consideration semantics, especially the negative connotations of such words as 'selfishness,' 'greed' and 'capitalism'?" Norman Kurland later asked for a meeting with Dr. Brook the next time he visits Washington, handing him a package, of material consisting of his 1971 exchange with Milton Friedman, the 6/29/79 TIME magazine article on Kelso where Friedman declared Kelso "is Marx turned on his head," the matrix comparing the Just Third Way to Capitalism and Socialism, the book flyer, and Michael Greaney's recent letter to the Washington Post (posted below on this blog as "Why Keynes is Wrong for America — or Anywhere Else"). In the reception following the talk, Norman gave materials to other individuals and had a positive exchange with Fred Smith, president, and Sam Kazman, general counsel, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    • Guy Stevenson is working to introduce Capital Homesteading and the other ideas to Alan Keyes, and America's Independent Party. Guy Stevenson rejects the cult of Ayn Rand - HERE

    Is Ron Paul today's Ayn Rand?

    When you hear Ron Paul say that he stands for the Philosophy of Liberty, this video is what he means.

    The philosophy of liberty is based on self-ownership [A critic says; Oh Really?]. This simple but elegant and hard-hitting animation will explain exactly what that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty, and the property we create - and our responsibility to think, speak and act.

    Oh is it?

    And where is God in this philosophy of liberty?

    Edited by gcsteven 2011-04-21 10:35 AM
    Posted 2011-04-20 12:00 PM (#52254 - in reply to #52169) By: gcsteven

    This may sound off-the-wall, so to speak, but
    from what little I've heard of Ayn Rand's premise
    that acting in one's own self interest is good, I'm
    not sure that I disagree.  The caveat is God and
    eternity must be acknowledged
    and factored into
    calculations of self interest.

    Apparently, atheism was one of Ms. Rand's crucial 
    miscalculations that led her to lead life in willfull
    disregard of God and her own eternal state,
    resulting in a life devoid of preserving true

    You see, perspective must include the seen AND
    the unseen ... this life AND the life to come ... earthly
    incentives AND eternal rewards or punishment, etc.

    Ms. Rand evaluated Christ ONLY from an earthly perspective --
    she missed the greatest part:  the heavenly perspective. 

    Apparently, Ayn Rand thought perfect Christ foolish for
    sacrificing himself for imperfect mankind.  She believed
    Christ failed to act in self-interest as He obeyed the Father
    ... even to death.  But WHY did He choose to sacrifice himself?

    Hebrews 12:2 (... just after the great FAITH chaper)

    ... Looking unto Jesus the
    author and finisher of [our] faith; who

    for the joy that was set before him
    endured the cross,

    despising the shame, and is
    set down at the right hand of the
    throne of God.

    Ayn Rand saw ONLY the temporal ... Christ, the eternal.

    I'll leave it to the theologians to say whether Christ acted
    in self-interest in his painful death on the cross.  I'm just
    gratefully thankful HE DID!  I'm thankful He so loved us
    as to endure great sorrow to reconcile mankind to God.
    And that the Father so loved us, that He would sacrifice
    His Only Son to bring us into relationship with Himself.

    How can so highly valuing us, as evidenced by such
    great sacrifice not invoke praise & worship?

    So, I think Ayn Rand's tragic flaw ... was denying God.

    (AIP note:  Another example of the importance of foundations.
    Ayn Rand built her philosophy on the fallacy: NOT God -- leading
    to disasterous conclusions.)


    Posted 2011-04-20 2:28 PM (#52260 - in reply to #52254) By: Savvy -- "Ayn Rand & GOP vs. Jesus" (1 min 22 sec)

    I can't seem to get this YouTube video to embed, even using "old" style embed code
    Posted 2011-06-05 11:19 PM (#54275 - in reply to #52260) By: SteveSchulin

    Posted 2011-06-05 11:37 PM (#54279 - in reply to #54275) By: EternalVigilance

    You are permanently Suspended

    from Tea Party Nation 


    Those who embrace Ayn Rand's Godless libertarianism are not only welcomed. They are quietly encouraged and given financial support as vehicles for corrupting and betraying people who sincerely long for the restoration of American freedom.

    What was my first glue you ask?

    Trying to post this; 

     Who follows God-focused logic of America's founding?

    Now I have another badge of honor.

    Thanks Alan 

    Posted 2011-06-17 3:55 PM (#54594 - in reply to #54279) By: gcsteven

    BTTT - For good measure.
    Posted 2012-01-31 12:18 PM (#60335 - in reply to #54594) By: gcsteven

    Back to the top after a discussion on this subject with friends on Facebook...
    Posted 2012-11-12 10:31 AM (#63711 - in reply to #60335) By: EternalVigilance

    Search this forum
    Printer friendly version
    E-mail a link to this thread

    Latest Posts From All Affiliates
    John Kerry -- long-time enemy of America - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Resist tyranny -- it CAN be done! - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Once Upon a Town - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    God's words to His people who are called by His name in Israel and in America - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    An insightful column by Evan Sayet - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Prodigal Nation - Part 1 [Peter Marshall] - gcsteven (6 replies)

    Well... they ASKED for it - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    The Sower knows, "The SEED of LIFE." - gcsteven (5 replies)

    It is simply not enough for Christians to change the laws; people’s hearts must be changed. - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Understanding Involves Responsibility - DAVID JEFFERS - gcsteven (1 replies)

    Whose responsibility is the health care of illegal immigrants? - gcsteven (1 replies)

    If you control the language... - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    New Political Party takes stand on social issues! - EternalVigilance (0 replies)

    Same-sex marriage fight is a lie, sez lesbian activist. Real goal: abolish marriage - Philomena (1 replies)

    The 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers - Philomena (1 replies)

    The U.S. Constitution: Original Intent or a Living Document? - Philomena (3 replies)

    A succinct reply to the ISIS leader - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    The *real* problem at the VA is... - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Huckabee's Speech Against Judicial Supremacy - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    A Miracle For Justina - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Jesus, Yours will be the only Name that matters to me - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Franklin Ed Shoemaker, America's Party candidate for Florida House, District 40 - Gregory (1 replies)

    This Nation's greatest Political and Economic 'Deficit'. - gcsteven (17 replies)

    Email to Massachusetts Governor Patrick On Behalf of Justina Pelletier and Her Family - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    The Scientific and Prophetic Accuracy of the Bible - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    History Repeats Itself - God Warned Israel, Now America - Deuteronomy 8 and 32 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Significance Of This Primary Campaign To All Who With Tom Hoefling Love Our Lord Jesus Christ - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Is this a Judge? - forJustice (0 replies)

    Message from Tom Hoefling - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Message to Tom Hoefling and Franklin Ed Shoemaker - 1 John 5:4 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Already Gone - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Expose of Climate Change - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    1854 US Congress And 1892 US Supreme Court Declared Our Nation And Its Founders To Be Christian - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Who DARES to limit God?? - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    What did you ask for on your 16th birthday? Hear what Justina asked for. - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Political Candidates For The Upcoming Elections Consider Your Ways - Proverbs 21 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Uninstall Firefox - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Birth Patrol the New Sentry - Bishop Sheen, 1960 - gcsteven (2 replies)

    Christ Is Enough - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Yes, sadly, you DID read correctly - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Judie Brown: The Problems Created by Pro-Lifers - Philomena (4 replies)

    This Week with True the Vote - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    A Battlecry (Psalm 119) - It is time for You to act, O LORD, for they have regarded Your law as void - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    STOP COMMON CORE IN NY - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    G. K. Chesterton: It’s Not Gay, and It’s Not Marriage - gcsteven (2 replies)

    Marijuana 'edibles' pack a wallop - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    LIVE FEED: Pro-LIFE Witness with Arrests at Notre Dame - Philomena (53 replies)

    South Dakota Gubernatorial Candidate Lora Hubbel's HCR1001 Floor Speech (how SB38 leads to abortion) - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    This Week with True the Vote - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Will a popular TV drama series DESTROY itself by...? - TomK--V-USA (1 replies)

    Supreme Court Upholds Prayer At Government Meetings - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Reminder -- V-USA is on Facebook and Twitter - TomK--V-USA (1 replies)

    UH-OH, is Hillary 'testing the waters' for 2016 run? - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Are We in a “Post Christian” Era? - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Update and National Day Of Prayer Call for Justina - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Legislative Updates & Smart Voting News for April 29, 2014 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    The Bible Is a Textbook of Science - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Justice, just a word? - gcsteven (3 replies)

    No conflict between science and our Creator, Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Aborted babies burned to make electricity - Philomena (1 replies)

    The Right Tool for the Job - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Legislative Updates & Smart Voting News for April 22, 2014 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Let us raise a standard to be strong: Part V, Fulton J. Sheen - gcsteven (3 replies)

    Tom Hoefling at Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner 04.11.2014 - gcsteven (0 replies)

    THE SHORT VERSION -- why America's Party is so much better than the Republican Party - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Legislative Updates & Smart Voting News for April 8, 2014 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)