Security Council Blames Syria for Attack - WSJ.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303674004577429774239724182.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

...”The council said in a press statement issued after an emergency meeting Sunday afternoon that it also "condemned the killing of civilians by shooting at close range and by severe physical abuse" in Houla. It did not say who was responsible for the close-range attacks. The U.N. says at least 108 people, including 49 children and 34 women, died in Friday's attacks in Houla.

The council statement says the "outrageous use of force" against civilians violated international law and Syrian government commitments under Security Council resolutions to cease violence, including the use of heavy weapons in populated areas.

The 12-hour artillery barrage that began on a string of villages northwest of Homs on Friday afternoon—which Syria's government denied any role in on Sunday—also drew international condemnation and effectively upended a cease -fire most international powers had banked on as the best way out of Syria's crisis.

Western officials said they were still committed to seeing through the peace plan brokered by Kofi Annan, a joint envoy of the U.N. and Arab League, underscoring the limited scope of viable international action on Syria, even as the violence in the country appeared to spiral again.”

Yemen: Sharia Supporters Behead 'Sorceress' :: Raymond Ibrahim

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2012/04/yemen-sharia-supporters-behead-sorceress

”According to the Arabic website Al Shorfa, an al-Qaeda affiliated group in Yemen, called Ansar al-Sharia (or the "Supporters of Sharia Law") beheaded a woman on April 11 for "practicing magic and sorcery." Members of the group broke into the home of Sharifa Amr—a local healer who used natural herbs to treat sick people—"beheaded her, and then hung her severed head in front of the home of another popular healer in the region, as a warning that he might share her fate."

The remainder of the report notes how several Yemeni officials condemned the attack—not because it is absurd to murder herbalists -deemed -sorcerers, but because the "Supporters of Sharia" ironically contradicted Sharia, at least somewhat.

According to Sheik Jabri Ibrahim, general director of Yemen's Ministry of Endowments and Guidance, punishing "sorcerers and magicians" can only be performed after "first summoning the magicians to a council with the ulema [Sharia scholars], who are obligated to advise and persuade him, showing him evidence from Sharia that Islam forbids the practice of sorcery and magic."

Google Translate Original source Al Shorfa

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.al-shorfa.com%2Fcocoon%2Fmeii%2Fxhtml%2Far%2Ffeatures%2Fmeii%2Ffeatures%2Fmain%2F2012%2F04%2F17%2Ffeature-01

FYI:
New Mexico Republican Senator Heather Wilson is member of RINO group in favor of keeping the ”good parts” of Obamacare.She herself favors ”repealing & replacing the bill” but does not explain what Obamacare would be replaced with.She has supported Kyoto-like environmental regs,& TARP & boasts of her bi-partisanship so there is reason to be concerned.

The American Spectator : Greg Sowards Battles Queen RINO

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/24/greg-sowards-battles-queen-rin/1

”In an ominous development that may affect conservative support for a second spot on a Romney ticket, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has joined with Murkowski in opposing conservative Sowards. In Christie's case, the endorsement came at a $2,500 a head Wilson fundraiser in New York's primo 21 Club. Christie has been making forays around the country, recently for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia and a Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner. New Jersey media believe his actions are designed to help Romney -- and possibly help Christie onto the Romney ticket.

Which makes Christie's fundraising for Wilson over her conservative opponent a curious approach.

Perhaps the most glaring indication of the "Queen RINO" tag was Wilson's membership in a group called the "Republican Main Street Partnership."

A visit to the group's website shows that it is not devoted to conservatism but rather its chief objective is "to further a centrist, pragmatic Republican agenda." ....

”A startling example of the latter -- the passive acceptance of big government and a watered down leftist agenda -- is the group's opposition to repealing Obamacare.

Says this Republican group:

"We believe that the provisions of Obamacare that are not working should be repealed, that those provisions that are working should be retained…."

Issues | Heather Wilson

http://heatherwilson.com/issues/

HEALTHCARE

”I am running for the Senate because I trust people more than I trust government to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. But that is not what we have today with Obamacare. Obamacare does nothing to control the spiraling cost of care. It raises taxes, cuts Medicare, costs more, and gives people less control over their health care decisions.

For the first time in American history, every citizen will be required to purchase a government approved product. If Washington can mandate how people must spend their money, there is no limit to government power. The law is unconstitutional and if it is not thrown out by the Supreme Court, I will fight to make sure it is repealed and replaced.”

Our Shameful Afghanistan Legacy « Commentary Magazine

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/23/our-shameful-afghanistan-legacy/

”More than 120 schoolgirls and three teachers have been poisoned in the second attack in as many months blamed on conservative radicals in the country’s north, Afghan police and education officials said on Wednesday….

Afghanistan’s intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), says the Taliban appear intent on closing schools ahead of a 2014 withdrawal by foreign combat forces”...

RRD:I do not believe that we should stay in Afghanistan solely for the sake of Womens Rights,I believe that we should stay in Afghanistan to prevent innocent American men,women & children from being butchered.While there we should give protection to any seeking refuge from misogynists there.Our purpose there is not to fix the countries ills,but neither can we hand over girls fleeing persecution to their killers.

However I must ask,in the midst of some leftist's ”defeat dances”,whether any of those who demand that we intervene militarily in Libya,Syria etal,(ala ”the duty to protect” types ),if any of them feel any qualms at all about leaving girls to be murdered & poisoned,in a country which we occupied?

And if so,do they intend to urge Obama to give these girls asylum?

And what if the ”first female/feminist” President does not feel like doing so,for fear that the Taliban will ”perceive” him as being ”imperialistic”?
And since it would anger the Taliban for us to interfere with their ”nationalistic” campaign of restoring their ”sisters” to their ”clothes of dignity”--with the result that they may decide to make our surrender of the country to them more difficult.

Contrary to Conservative stereotypes I do know of quite a number of Liberal Feminists(of both genders) who are genuinely concerned with the rights of women & girls in Islamic countries.

But I also know of a number who
are simply concerned with having people THINK that they are good,humane liberals,and when the dilettanti say ”be concerned with the well being of people in country X where OUR PRESIDENT wants us to intervene”,then they will be concerned--for as long as it is faddish to do so-- and then when it is fashionable to say ”It's interesting when people die....”,then they will say that.(Assuming that they even acknowledge the reality of what is going on the world)

And yes Conservatives,there are comparable individuals on the right whose concern for certain issues seems to change depending upon the letter after the Presidents name.

Barack Obama Will Not Defeat The Taliban | RedState

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/05/21/barack-obama-will-not-defeat-the-taliban/

...”The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it.

“Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.

A year later, when the president and a half-dozen White House aides began to plan for the withdrawal, the generals were cut out entirely. There was no debate, and there were no leaks”

”“I think he hated the idea from the beginning,” one of his advisers said of the surge. “He understood why we needed to try, to knock back the Taliban. But the military was ‘all in,’ as they say, and Obama wasn’t.”

…”By early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exit from Afghanistan. This time there would be no announced national security meetings, no debates with the generals. Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were left out until the final six weeks.

The key decisions had essentially been made already when Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his last months as commander in Afghanistan, arrived in Washington with a set of options for the president that called for a slow withdrawal of surge troops. He wanted to keep as many troops as possible in Afghanistan through the next fighting season, with a steep drop to follow. Mr. Obama concluded that the Pentagon had not internalized that the goal was not to defeat the Taliban.”

”Asked to actually set a meaningful new direction or expend scarce political capital even on an ongoing shooting war, his instinct is to first procrastinate, then kick the can down the road for a while, and ultimately throw in the towel. Rousing the nation to take controversial actions is above his pay grade.

The choices before us are indeed difficult. But we have abandoned Afghanistan before, and lived to regret it. Let us hope that we do not again.”

From the Washington Post:

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706.html

.."Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation -building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."[RRD:Odd,I thought that's what he claimed to be doing here in the U.S.?] Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ....

RRD:I do not think any of the three thousand Americans who were slaughtered on September 11 are "stronger" for having been killed.
Nor do I feel strengthened by their destruction.
But ”Obama did not mean that”?
What did he mean?
”He meant,well,you see it's sorta like Nietzsche...you see..that which kills some of our civilians makes us stronger as a nation!”

As for ”absorbing” a terrorist attack,if Obama,himself,wishes to personally "absorb a terrorist attack" that is his concern.

If he wishes innocent civilians to do so,that is treason.

The role of a government is not to treat its innocent men,women and children as bloody sponges and pulverized human sacrifices who exist to ”absorb” attacks.

Oh,you're misquoting Obama,After all,Obama also said that
"We'll do everything we can to prevent it...”

Lip service.

"I'm not doing 10 years," .... "I'm not doing long-term nation -building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."

..." Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ....

So Obama was told by our Generals that they needed more troops,& he overrode them,he told them that ”HE” was "not doing 10yrs",and then when he was "barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. " he ignored those warnings,and said:

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ....

Perhaps it has not dawned on Obama that one is not,in fact, ”doing everything” to prevent a terrorist attack by following the demonstrably disastrous Clinton policy of permitting the enemy establish a safe-haven while you respond to attacks by occasionally flinging cruise missiles at the enemy.
But given Woodward's account of Obama being ”barraged” with warnings about the dangers of such a course, I don't believe for one second that Obama is that ignorant.

The Obama/Biden ”strategy” of leaving our enemies in power,while flinging missiles at them,
is quite in line with the Clinton "strategy" that permitted Al-qaeda to murder our troops in Khobar & to butcher our citizens in the first World Trade Center attack.It is the ”strategy” which permitted Al-Qaeda to bomb our embassys in Kenya and Tanzania with impunity;killing 12 Americans,& 200 Kenyans & 11 Tanzanians,it is the ”strategy” which permitted Al-Qaeda to try to massacre civilians at LAX,and to succeed in butchering our sailors who were "safe" and "at peace" on the USS Cole.

This suicidal course climaxed in the mass-slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans,in a attack on the Pentagon--our military command structure,and in a attempt,by "cave dwelling barbarians” who ”cannot really threaten us,with their box cutters” ,to decapitate the government of the most powerful nation on earth;by crashing a jetliner into the White House.

This is what Obama refers to when he says that we can ”absorb” another attack,&,when he says that 9/11 made ”us” stronger.

Ask yourself again,is this the language of someone who is committed to doing whatever is necessary & just to defend the United States?Or is it someone willing to doing "whatever is necessary" except for what is actually necessary:Wiping out our enemies overseas because a defensive war is doomed to defeat.

But you say:
”Robert many conservatives also believe that we should not engage in nation building,are they also anti-american?”

Many do,and most of those that I know of who take that position advocate "unleashing hell",and "letting our soldiers fight"(which they are not permitted to do under the suicidal ROE:Rules of Engagement).What they don't do is to speak of the mass slaughter of innocents as making us "stronger" or as something "we" can absorb.

Nor do they have Obama's background as a Alinskite,with "spiritual advisors" like his pet hate-mongers the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ("damn America" ),and Father Pfleger "how dare you insult Farrakhan”....& ”America has done the rape,& America has got to pay the price”(both of these men were initially--officially--part of Obama's political campaign as members of his religious advisory board. fn1)

And does anyone else remember the obscene spectacle of Obama giving ”shout-outs” to his supporters,while the rest of us waited--for 3 minutes--for Obama to get around to addressing the Fort Hood massacre?

Obama gives a shout-out before addressing tragedy - YouTube

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting | NBC Chicago

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

Obama is a leftist,of the hypocritical breed that loathes the religion of the ”bitter clingers” while ignoring or downplaying the misogyny,& totalitarianism of the Islamists.Hardly surprising,since he has,among his advisors,someone who believes that:"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.”(fn2)

(What world?Did you travel to our world from a alternate universe,much like the characters in the TV show Sliders would journey to other worlds?
What's it like?Do rivers of lemonade run uphill?Are their Round-Squares?Do people age backwards like Benjamin Button?)

Footnotes:

fn1.

Archived Blog: Obama's Other Pastor Problem

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_other_pastor_problem.html

Obama Says Controversial Pastor Gone From Campaign; Church Fires Back - ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4452990&page=1#.T7vfU-XCsUk

”Rev.Wright was part of the Obama campaign, as a member of the candidate's religious advisory board.

But, as reported by ABC News' Sunlen Miller, during an interview Friday with MSNBC's Keith Olberman, Sen. Obama confirmed that Rev. Wright is no longer on the Obama campaign spiritual advisory committee.”

fn2

Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood - Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html

”Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man -made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".

They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

RRD:
”Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women”

Unequal to women?
Poppycock!
The laws favoring the murder of adulterers are somewhat unequal ,but both end up good & dead just the same!
The law is quite fair as regards the murder of apostates.Both are,again,equally dead.

But why don't you take it up with the Islamists who were sitting next to you Ms.Mogahed?
Or with the Islamists who are stoning,beheading and beating women throughout the
Medievalist Muslim World?
Why don't you explain to the ”misunderstanders” of the Feminist religion of Islam that adulterers should not be beheaded,that Gays should not be murdered,that apostates should not killed?

You could make it a joint tour with Karen ”Mohammed is a prophet for our times” Armstrong.

There are women--like Irshad Manji & Asra Noumani--who consider themselves Muslims,but who believe in a non-literalist interpretation of the Quran.They are willing to confront the Islamists & condemn them,& to acknowledge the reality of what is going on in the Muslim World.
But they must endure death threats as a result.
No it is much safer to attack the American”racists” who will respect your free-speech rights,rights which are denounced by your co-panelists while you remain silent.

Oh,and yes many Muslims DO support murdering adulterers & apostates:

Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Islamists Threaten Insurgency Should Secularists Win Egypt Election « Commentary Magazine

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/20/islamists-threaten-insurgency-if-secularists-win-egypt-election/

”The victory of former prime minister Ahmad Shafiq or former Arab League chief Amr Musa in the coming presidential elections would lead some Islamic and non-Islamic groups to respond with “armed action.” “Thus, the fate of any of them who reaches the presidency will be like that of former President Anwar al-Sadat, who was assassinated,” Qasim said.”

RRD:Maybe the fascist witch thinks it's also illegal to vote against Obama?

NC Teacher Screams at Student: It’s Criminal to Criticize Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/20/NC-teacher-screams-student-Obama

”One student says, “Didn’t Obama bully someone though?” The teacher says: “Not to my knowledge.” The student then cites the fact that Obama, in Dreams from My Father, admits to shoving a little girl. “Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” screams the teacher. Romney is “running for president. Obama is the president.”

The student responds that both are “just men.”

The teacher yells -- literally yells -- that Obama is “due the respect that every other president is due … Listen,” she continues, “let me tell you something, you will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” She yells over the student repeatedly, and yells at him that it's disrespect for him to even debate about Romney and Obama.

The student says that he can say what he wants.

“Not about him, you won’t,” says the teacher.

The teacher : “Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush? Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president ?”

The student says that it would violate First Amendment rights to jail someone for such sentiments. “You would have to say some pretty f’d up crap about him to be arrested,” says the student. “They cannot take away your right to have your opinion … They can’t take that away unless you threaten the president.”

Clearly, the student should be teaching the class, and the teacher should be reading the Constitution more often.”

RRD:”Now Robert don't make too much of this,these crackpots crop up & they're suspended or fired....”

No she has not been fired,or suspended,the school board says this is ”a learning experience”.(fn1)

Indeed it is;though not quite in the way that the school means.

The school--North Rowan High School in Spencer North Carolina--needs to be sued.Students sue over being told that they must say the pledge,they sue over prayer,they sue over Creationism,they should sue over this.

And the School System Administration?It should be wiped out at the ballot box(If at all possible.I don't know the political makeup of Spencer North Carolina,it may be liberal)
But suppose they're Republicans?
RINOS you mean?
Replace them with people with some grasp of the Constitution of the United States.

And if there are any Progressives reading this and brushing it off,reread the exchange and replace the words Obama with Bush and Romney with Kerry and ask yourself whether or not you would respond by brushing off such behavior by a Republican teacher.

I would respond the same way--on principle--to both;would you?

(Note:my purpose in posting the photo is not to equate Obama with the murderous thugs of 1984,or to imply that he was behind this,but to illustrate the Orwellian character of the teacher's worldview)

Footnotes

fn1.

Video stirs debate on teacher's actions in North class Salisbury, NC - Salisbury Post

http://www.salisburypost.com/News/051912-North-teacher-on-video-qcd

”After reviewing a video in which a North Rowan High School teacher tells a student he can be arrested for speaking ill of President Barack Obama, the Rowan -Salisbury School System said it can be a learning experience.”

”Although two students provided the name of the teacher, the Post is not publishing it because officials within the school system would not confirm her identity and she could not be reached for comment”

With a few exceptions,all are roughly from the period of 1300-1500 a.d.They are illustrations of scenes from the Quran(possibly the Hadith also).They come from countries as diverse as Uzbekistan,Persia & Afghanistan & Turkey.

How to Lose Readers (Without Even Trying) : Sam Harris

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/

”It is difficult to ignore the responsibility that Ayn Rand bears for all of this. I often get emails from people who insist that Rand was a genius—and one who has been unfairly neglected by writers like myself. I also get emails from people who have been “washed in the blood of the Lamb,” or otherwise saved by the “living Christ,” who have decided to pray for my soul. It is hard for me to say which of these sentiments I find less compelling.

As someone who has written and spoken at length about how we might develop a truly “objective” morality, I am often told by followers of Rand that their beloved guru accomplished this task long ago. The result was Objectivism—a view that makes a religious fetish of selfishness and disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws. If nothing else, this approach to ethics was a triumph of marketing, as Objectivism is basically autism rebranded. And Rand’s attempt to make literature out of this awful philosophy produced some commensurately terrible writing. Even in high school, I found that my copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged simply would not open.

And I say this as someone who considers himself, in large part, a “libertarian”—and who has, therefore, embraced more or less everything that was serviceable in Rand’s politics. The problem with pure libertarianism, however, has long been obvious: We are not ready for it. Judging from my recent correspondence, I feel this more strongly than ever. There is simply no question that an obsession with limited government produces impressive failures of wisdom and compassion in otherwise intelligent people.

Why do we have laws in the first place ? To prevent adults from behaving like dangerous children. All laws are coercive and take the following form: do this, and don’t do that, or else. Or else what? Or else men with guns will arrive at your door and take you away to prison. Yes, it would be wonderful if we did not need to be corralled and threatened in this way. And many uses of State power are both silly and harmful (the “war on drugs” being, perhaps, the ultimate instance). But the moment certain strictures are relaxed, people reliably go berserk. And we seem unable to motivate ourselves to make the kinds of investments we should make to create a future worth living in. Even the best of us tend to ignore some of the more obvious threats to our long term security.

..”Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong.

Given the current condition of the human mind, we seem to need a State to set and enforce certain priorities. I share everyone’s concern that our political process is broken, that it can select for precisely the sorts of people one wouldn’t want in charge, and that fantastic sums of money get squandered. But no one has profited more from our current system, with all its flaws, than the ultra rich. They should be the last to take their money off the table. And they should be the first to realize when more resources are necessary to secure the common good.”

Sam Harris Couldn’t Help But Smear Ayn Rand

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/sam-harris-couldnt-help-but-smear-ayn-rand/

Ari Armstrong:

”Rand did not treat “selfishness” as a fetish; rather, she saw it as a factual, life-serving necessity. She advocated rational self-interest, recognizing that one’s interests entail thinking long range about the requirements of one’s life and happiness, and acting in accordance with principles formed on the basis of such thinking. The principles she recognized as necessary to human life include (among many others) respecting people’s rights, developing loving romantic relationships, and building meaningful friendships.

Rand did not confuse altruism with being friendly or helpful;rather, she saw it as a creed of self -sacrifice, a morality that demands that one sacrifice the values on which one’s life and happiness depend for the alleged benefit of others. Consequently, she rejected altruism because it holds “that man has no right to exist for his own sake.”

Nor did Rand reject compassion; rather, she viewed it from the perspective of justice : She endorsed compassion “toward those who are innocent, but not toward those who are morally guilty.”

RRD:Harris also makes other non- sequitur's

Speaking of the--legitimate--need of the government to fight nuclear terrorism Harris says:

”If private citizens cannot be motivated to allocate the necessary funds to mitigate such problems—as it seems we cannot—the State must do it. The State, however, is broke.”

Objectivism holds that the state has a legitimate role in protecting its citizens from foreign & domestic murderers,& in enforcing contracts & operating the Courts,prisons,the Justice system AND NOTHING ELSE.

Why are we broke Mr.Harris?

We are broke because of the efforts of those who wished to "impose wisdom or compassion" from the top down.

But of course they didn't have the right people running the show.

Harris then adds that people are not ”self-made” because certain things are outside their control:e.g. where they are born,whether they have a crippling injury etc.

It is true that there are those who will oversimplify and say things like:"whether you succeed or fail is entirely up to you".

But a reading of Rand's work as a whole,would show that she does understand and address the question of the nature of success.
In fact Rand frequently makes the point that people owe a moral debt (not a financial debt) to the creators:whether industrialists or inventors or doctors or pro-freedom statesmen etc.But the fact that some things are outside of your control,does NOT make you responsible for the illnesses of others.The fact that Edison was not responsible for his not being retarded,does not make him responsible for his neighbors retardation.He may choose to help his neighbor,but it is not a moral obligation in Objectivism,and he certainly may not be forced to do so.

Nor can one dismiss human achievements with the word "luck".
Luck did not make Edison a hard-working genuis.Nor did Edison's intelligence alone make him a success.
Intelligence was a necessary--but not sufficient--condition of Edison's success.
There are countless examples of people who are intelligent,but irrational and self-destructive.This is not due to their being "unlucky"(excluding the cases of those with actual mental illnesses),but due to their embrace of irrational ideas.
Nor can "luck" explain the difference between a Neville Chamberlain and a Winston Churchill,or a Lincoln and a Calhoun,or a Wilberforce and a Thomas Carlyle.

To paraphrase someone who once wrote a letter to Ayn Rand:
One can be born with a crippling disability,but one cannot be "born as a Galileo",that is,as someone who devotes years of rigorous work to a endeavor.

You are not responsible for things outside your control,but you are responsible for everything that is in your power to control.

It is true that in a free-market some do gain their wealth through luck(or pandering),and that some undeservedly languish and suffer despite their work and inventiveness.
But to prevent that by force would be to compel people to serve others against their own judgement,and in violation of their rights.
Success is never guaranteed in any society,a statist society merely imposes the dictates of a bureaucrat--"enlightened" or not--upon others by state sanctioned
force.
In a fully,free society this is not the case.
Criminals do exist in such societies but if they are in the government,they are not permitted to use their offices to commit their crimes with impunity.
Even if there was a particular bureaucrat who was correct on a given issue regarding the value of a particular product or art work,it would be immoral,and a violation of individual rights for him to impose his view upon other innocent people by force and--in the long term--a system that permits that would be destructive.

But back to "autism".
When I was 16 & discovered Ayn Rand's writings,I knew that she was unpopular among liberals & academics but assumed that at least there were some out there who would write a fair--or at least factually accurate--account of her views.

To date,scattered among the mountains of smears & bald-faced lies that have been hurled at Rand by writers, I can think of maybe a handful of people who actually accorded her the scholarly respect that would be afforded a Peter Singer,a Nietzsche,a Stalinist or Maoist or any number of other people whose views are quite mad.

In fairness to Harris though insulting and condescending,(and wrong)his criticism of her is less slanderous than that directed against her by others:He repeats the assorted assertions that she is indifferent to suffering,men must be forced to be "good",that "no man is a island",but unlike Whitaker Chambers,he does not imply that Ayn Rand would send people to gas chambers.

This is Progress!

Let us go over the key points of the ”autistic” philosophy of Objectivism,(perhaps Harris was playing off on the fact that "autism" and "altruism" sound alike).

She had a basically Neo-Aristotelianism outlook in Metaphysics & Epistemology.
That is,she believes in that Reason,not faith,is man's means of knowing the truth.

She believes in enlightened self-interest:

Selfishness — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

....”Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self -interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.”...

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 133

”Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel,judge or act.These are functions of the self.

Here the basic reversal is most deadly.The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egoism and altruism. Egoism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.

This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.

The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander.This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second -hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.

The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.”

“The Soul of a Collectivist,” For the New Intellectual , 81

"To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness ” that one has to redeem.

The first step is to assert man’ s right to a moral existence —that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life . . . .

”The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.”

”Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has.”

”The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary : it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.”

”The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self -interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.”

”This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims”. . . .

”A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices.

Just as man cannot survive by any random means,but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self -interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.”

”Since selfishness is “concern with one’s own interests,” the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense. It is not a concept that one can surrender to man’s enemies, nor to the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices and fears of the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on “selfishness” is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other.”

“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, ix

Sacrifice — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

"Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.”

”If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is . If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is . If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is .

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is . If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral—a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can’t impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.”

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 139

Altruism — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

”What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self -sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self- sacrifice —which means; self-immolation,self-abnegation, self-denial,self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self -esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes .”

“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61

Rand believes in Individual Rights:

Individual Rights — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind,it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 182

”Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual,since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.”

“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17

"There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 97

Charity — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

Playboy , March 1964

”The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal” . . . .

”To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self -sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”

“The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist , June 1966, 6

Etc. I can go on but her works are readily available for review and criticsm;if one is actually serious about reading and studying her writings,(which generally requires reading something three or four times).

And as for economics,literally tons of books have been written explaining--in granular detail--why it does not matter who is "at the top",in attempts to "impose wisdom or compassion"
because these efforts were and are doomed to failure in the long term,(even leaving aside the question of whether assaulting innocent people and stealing the fruits of their labors can ever be considered wise or compassionate.)

I also find this phrase--"impose wisdom or compassion" --quite bizzare.Neither of these things can be imposed.
You can threaten people with force if they do not comply with your allegedly wise and your allegedly compassionate desires,you can fine them,arrest them or even guillotine them,but you cannot force them to believe that what you are doing is right or just.

I have not read his other writings,and--unlike him--I will abstain from characterizing work which I have not read--but if this is representative of his writings,then his worldview is statist and far removed from my own,and it is difficult to see how it can fairly be called "Libertarian".

Speaking for myself I find it impossible to be enraged by these types of dismissive "arguments" any longer.
I was to be angered by them the past,but my reaction has since become like that of Hank Rearden's reaction to his ex-wife Lillian's final tirade:"Why tell it to me?",i.e. boredom,indifference,and contempt.

As I noted below:When they pop up,briefly respond and move on.

How to deal with anti-#Objectivist & anti-#aynrand smears:a sample form letter - fightingstatism

http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/how-to-deal-with-anti-objectivist-anti-aynran