Last updated on August 19th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Photo courtesy of Washington Post
The party of Flip-Flops AKA Republican Party seems to be getting their wires crossed. Especially when Paul Ryan said, “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it,” he said. “Well… I try to make my interns read it.” Ryan said that Ayn Rand is his influence and he got into politics because of her.
Yet Ryan, according to the Washington Post:
[Ryan] has 100 percent “pro-life” rankings from AUL and the National Right to Life Committee. His NARAL Pro-Choice America ranking, meanwhile, is zero.
The problem? Rand was pro-choice. As a matter of fact, unlike many lefties, she was pro-abortion.
Rand said in her 1968 book the Objectivist: “Of Living Death”
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?”
In other words abortion should be the right of the individual, and government should not dictate its collective powers to hinder a woman to choose. Even on the issue of homosexuality and LGBTQ rights, Ryan’s voting records show that he is anti LGBTQ:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
And I’m sure that he gladly accepted GAY money from the Log Cabin, but what did his god Ms. Rand had to say?
Answer: While Ayn Rand did consider homosexuality to be immoral, this was only her personal view. The morality of homosexuality is not a philosophical issue per se, but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality of homosexuality in any given situation. The essence of the Objectivist position is this: Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent that it is a matter of choice. Scientific evidence shows that, in many cases, people don’t choose their sexual orientations—it is in their natures to prefer sexual relations with members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. On the other hand, people can choose whether to act in accordance with their natures, and since sex is essential to man’s life and happiness, this is a moral issue. It is morally right for people to act in accordance with their natures, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in-between.
This goes against everything Ryan stands for. Unlike Rand, Ryan is lying to his constituents, libertarians and evangelicals by dredging deep into the bowels of both groups in order to become vice president. Still as a good Catholic, I find it ironic he goes against his dogma, especially from his proverbial good book, the bible. Let’s see what the bible says of his deeds:
Exodus 20:16 – Do not lie, even against your neighbor – (Yes even Libertarians are your neighbors)
Ezekiel 16:49-50 – 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (I thought it was about being homosexual?)
Yet lies and more lies. If Sodom and Gomorrah was an evil city of gays, why were there children? But still, is this the belief the Governor Willard RMoney and Ryan ticket will give us if the libertarians, Christians and so on vote for the two? Remember, Ryan said that he was inspired by Rand to become a public servant, and he is an anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, pro-life Christian? What would Rand have to say about that? You know, the Jewish woman from Russia?
Is Objectivism atheistic? What is the Objectivist attitude toward religion?
From a 1964 interview in Playboy magazine:
- Playboy:
-
Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
- Rand:
-
Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.
She was a pro-abortion atheist. So is Ryan too? No. He’s just lying.
- Even In California, Voter Intimidation By Law Enforcement - Sat, Jun 11th, 2016
- Gun Owners Need Roe Vs. Wade - Sat, Feb 20th, 2016
- Porter Ranch California Disaster Darkens Holiday…What About Watts? - Sat, Dec 26th, 2015
