The March to NowhereBy Joan Swirsky —— Bio and Archives January 30, 2017 A day or two before the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump on January 20th, 2017, I watched a reporter interviewing five attractive, intelligent, articulate women from California, who were all making the long cross-country trip to the Women’s March on Washington on January 21st. Amazingly, not one woman was able to express a persuasive or even rational reason for the trip, but instead resorted to time-worn platitudes, bromides, and leftist talking points about “unity” and “solidarity” and “getting the message out.” Um… what message? At the March itself, I was struck by the fact that women who pride themselves on their intelligence resorted to reading their statements, never veering a syllable off the scripts that were clearly written for them—scripts, by the way, that were not only boilerplate and banal, but shockingly blasphemous. Madonna, punctuating her statement with foul-mouthed obscenities, looked down at her script, then lifted her head to speak into the microphone. “I’m angry.” Pause. Again, she looked at her script, then read: “I’m outraged.” (Very difficult lines to memorize, to be sure). Pause. Again, back to the script where she read about her fantasy of “blowing up the White House.” Gloria Steinem read from her script. America Ferrara read from her script. Ashley Judd both read and acted out her script. “We’re here to be respected,” she snarled, oblivious to the irony that her ghastly performance evoked the exact opposite. On and on and on they intoned and screeched and railed, sounding remarkably like barnyard creatures and giving the rest of America the distinct impression that the conceit these women harbor of their superior intellects and evolved moral sensibilities are fantasies borne more of delusions of grandeur than of either objective IQ numbers or developed moral compasses. But to be fair, they had genuine passion that inspired them to spend thousands of dollars to drive, bus or fly across the country, pay for lodging and food, and then travel back to their homes. Just kidding. We all know that leftwing activists are notoriously cheap, believers as they are that either government or other benefactors should pay their way. And sure enough, according to Matthew Vadum’s stunning article, “Soros’s Women’s March of Hate,” billionaire radical George Soros—the same man “who says Communist China’s system of government is superior to our own and that the United States is the number one obstacle to world peace”—was directly involved in funding at least 56 of the March’s ‘partners.’” Vadum listed a good number of the radical-left and anti-American groups attending the March: Planned Parenthood, the National Resource Defense Council, MoveOn, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, Advancement Project; American Constitution Society; America’s Voice; Arab American Association of New York; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Center for Reproductive Rights; Color of Change; Communities United for Police Reform; Demos; Economic Policy Institute; Every Voice; Green for All; League of Women Voters; Make the Road New York; MPower Change; NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America Fund; National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; National Council of Jewish Women; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Network for Arab American Communities; National Council of La Raza; PEN America; Psychologists for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; United We Dream; and Voter Participation Center,” et al.
ENEMIES OF AMERICAVadum and others also reported that Muslim terrorist supporter Linda Sarsour, an advocate of Sharia law in America, was deeply involved in planning the March-related events. Sarsour, Vadum wrote, “has familial ties to HAMAS and works with the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).” If you’re not sure what Sharia mandates, here are just a few of the grisly details, which include:
Also among the motley crew of attendees at the March was featured speaker Donna Hylton, a convicted felon who, along with several others, kidnapped a man and then tortured him to death. Then there was Angela Davis, former Black Panther, former fugitive from U.S. justice, former VP candidate for the U.S. on the Communist Party platform, and famous for her speeches praising American traitors, terrorists, and cop killers. Also making appearances were Obama cronies, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn. On hand, as well, were members of the radical—but ultimately discredited and ineffectual—groups Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. Not to forget that most if not all of the women at the March who vehemently objected to then-candidate Trump’s interview with Access Hollywood’s host Billy Bush—in which Mr. Trump talked about the easy access rich and handsome guys like him had to women and how easy it was to grab them by the crotch—were thunderously silent when Bill Clinton was not only abusing and embarrassing and spitting in his wife’s face for decades on end, and also being routinely “serviced” in the Oval Office by one Monica Lewinsky. Funny how their moral outrage is always reserved for Republicans. But enough about leftist hypocrisy and the piles of debris they left for others to clean up after the March, not quite as bad as the gross mess Barack Obama’s fans left after both of his inauguration ceremonies. What is it about Democrats and cleanliness? So there they all were—the hysterical harridans of Hollywood and the music industry and the hate-America-firsters—along with ordinary women and their children, all of whom when interviewed also didn’t quite know why they were there but appeared to be perfectly okay with all those “F” words and women dressed up as the female sex organ. Yuk. Writer Vadum goes on to quote Asra Q. Nomani—a former Georgetown journalism professor and Wall Street Journalreporter who described herself as “a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president.” Nomani wrote that “the march really isn’t a ‘women’s march.’ It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.” Nomani was right, but she didn’t zero in on the animating cause of their rage.
- Relegation of women to a status inferior to men.
- Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man.
- Muslim men are given permission to beat their wives and commit marital rape, and rape is not considered a felony.
- Women who are raped are accused of adultery.
- A woman is not allowed to travel outside the home without the permission of a male.
- A Muslim woman who divorces and remarries loses custody of children from a prior marriage.
- ‘Honor’ killing: a Muslim parent faces no legal penalty under Islamic law for killing his child or grandchild.
- Female genital mutilation, while not required by Islam, is the norm in parts many parts of the world, including the Middle East.
THE REAL REASON BEHIND THE RALLY: ABORTIONThe Holy Grail of the left is abortion. There is not one subject—including ISIS beheadings, inferior public-school education, unaffordable healthcare, even child pornography—that is more important to leftwing women than unwanted pregnancies, i.e., ending the lives of inconvenient embryos. But now that science and technology have evolved past the point when feminists like Steinem pronounced embryos “blobs of tissue,” and everyone who views a sonogram can see the vital, heart-beating, active life of the developing baby, let’s reviewwhat abortion destroys forever:
- At two-to-four weeks of pregnancy, the blueprint for an entire human being is established.
- By four weeks, the ball of cells in the womb is already forming into three layers that will later become your baby’s organs and tissues:
At six weeks, a baby’s nose, mouth, and ears begin to take shape.At seven weeks, the baby’s hands and feet are formed.At eight weeks, the baby is moving.At 10 weeks, the organs are in place.At 11 weeks, the baby’s hands can open and close into fists, and tiny tooth buds appear.At 12 weeks, the heart is beating, urine is being produced, and the baby’s unique fingerprints are being developed.All of this is miraculous and awe-inspiring. Still, leftwing women—and their cowed and sissified partners—insist that literally killing the baby they’re carrying is more important than every other issue on earth. That is why they ostracized—literally banned—any pro-life woman from their March, even feminists who agreed with them on this or that social or foreign policy issue. Bottom line, if the pro-life women didn’t believe in killing babies in the womb, the “inclusive,” tolerant abortionistas were psychologically unable to either include or tolerate them. Did I fail to mention how inherently racist abortion is? An overwhelming 76.5 percent of aborted babies are either black or Hispanic, according to Californian Stephen Frank, a political activist and commentator.
- In the top layer, the neural tube begins to form, where your baby’s brain, backbone, spinal cord, and nerves will develop. Skin, hair and nails will also develop from this layer.
- The middle layer is where the skeleton and muscles grow, and where the heart and circulatory system will form.
- The third layer houses the beginnings of what will become the lungs, the intestines and the urinary system.
THE BOTTOM LINEIn one of his first acts, President Trump signed an Executive Order to defund the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. He also issued an executive memorandum reinstating the Mexico City policy, which bars federal funding for overseas groups that provide access to or counseling about abortions. And he has vowed to appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v Wade, the law that legalized abortion in 1973, effectively returning abortion back to the states, “and then the states will make the determination,” he said. This is what the mass hysteria was all about—the “right” to end the lives of unborn babies. Happily, the vast majority of Americans “got” the entire meaning of the anti-life March, which included:
All this reinforced to the more than 63-million people who voted for Donald J. Trump for president that his pro-life stance was more timely and powerful than ever! “Are so many women so shallow?” asks editor and writer Ruth S. King. “They came, they howled, they carried signs and wore stupid ‘pussyhats’ and they accomplished nothing, nada, zilch other than street theater.” Joan Swirsky is an award winning author and journalist. Her work can be found at joanswirsky.com. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.To unsubscribe from this blog, see below. I will not do that for you.
- The immense hypocrisy of the Left.
- The surprisingly large number of leftist mothers who thought it was perfectly fine to hurl vile F-bomb epithets in front of their young children.
- The intellectual and moral impoverishment of leftists.
- The staggering irrationality of killing in-utero babies instead of waiting a few months and allowing desperate infertile parents to adopt and love them.
This article by Derek Hunter, entitled "Repealing Obamacare Has To Include Consequences," appeared on Sunday at Townhall. It is worth reading to the end, underscoring once again that actions -- in this case failure to act -- have consequences.
Repealing Obamacare is all but a certainty. It’s the "replace" part that has everyone hung up. Democrats hilariously claim if Republicans “break it, they’ve bought it.” That’s like accusing someone of breaking the picture on a jigsaw puzzle.
Still, the matter of replacing this abomination presents Republicans with serious problems, not the least of which is the concept of government interference in health insurance has long been ceded.
Were this a pre-Obamacare world, implementation would be easy to stop – people can’t miss what they never had. But it was implemented, and millions of people are used to what Obamacare has “given” them.
This is particularly true of the millions of people who’ve been put on the Medicaid rolls.
Medicaid was supposed to be a program to help the poor – the real poor, not those who have to postpone the purchase of a new 70-inch TV until they find a better sale price. Since its inception, what qualifies as “poor” for the purposes of Medicaid has been creeping up. Obamacare accelerated that trend.
Republicans now have to figure out what to do with a family of four that makes $80,000 but still suckles the government teat by taking health insurance designed for people who are incapable of obtaining it for themselves. What do you tell them?
Calling them losers won’t win any votes, but anyone firmly in the middle class who is comfortable with leeching off taxpayers so they don’t have to address their personal responsibility is unlikely to vote Republican anyway.
Whatever Republicans eventually coalesce around will arm Democrats with people who have no qualms leaching off the government and are more than happy to be trotted out as examples of people “suffering” under the cruel GOP action. So what?
Republicans have to focus on getting the policy right, or as right as they can on an issue with which government never should have gotten involved.
Getting it right means getting the government out of it as much as possible. Republicans can’t concern themselves with who “wins” or “loses,” or if there will be “pain.” Frankly, there has to be pain. Pain should be a cornerstone of what is proposed as a replacement.
The solution to replacing Obamacare isn’t to cobble together a different big government solution, it’s to empower individuals to make the best choices for themselves and get the hell out of the way of everything else.
Among the many changes, there likely will be competition across state lines for health insurance, which will be good and drive competition. And tax credits to buy it. All well and good. But there has to be consequences for choosing not to do so.
The individual mandate must be repealed. The federal government has no business forcing the Americans people to purchase something they don’t want. But there should be serious consequences for not at least buying some catastrophic coverage.
It’s usually young people who don’t buy health insurance. They are least likely to need it and end up essentially subsidizing wealthier older people anyway. They should be free to opt out of that pyramid scheme.
But if, God forbid, someone 37 years old get sick after they’d chosen not to buy insurance, they should not be absolved of the ramifications of that choice.
I’m not saying they should die on the streets. They should get treatment. But they should have to pay for it. Maybe not all of it, but a significant portion. If they own a house, they should have to sell it. Their wages should be garnisheed until a significant but fair portion of their tab is satisfied.
They would have made a bet and lost, and they shouldn’t get to walk away from a bet just because they lost.
Significant pain, or potential for it, would encourage people to do the right thing while affording them the option not to. Family, friends, communities could take up collections and help people who gambled and lost settle their debts, but not taxpayers as a whole. We need to restore the concept of responsibility as we restore liberty. Replacing one big government program with another does neither.
In modern America, the idea of consequences is almost as dead as Latin. The importance of returning them to all areas of life is crucial, particularly in health care. Americans should be free to gamble, to roll the dice. But if it comes up snake eyes, well, the house needs to be paid. If someone wants to risk it to save on premiums for something they don’t think they’ll need, knock yourself out. Just don’t come running to taxpayers if you do get knocked out.
Trophy Hunter Killed In Fall While Stalking Innocent Animals
This heartless murderer, who killed innocent animals in order to cut off their heads and display them in his home would proudly announce that he was a big game hunter, as if that were a status symbol. This made him feel like a man and a conqueror. This coward was neither........
by Rev. Austin Miles
On July 17, 2014 I posted the following blog (www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com) concerning the third Atlas Shrugged alleged motion picture. The title was “The Final Desecration of “Atlas Shrugged.”
I am aware that among the hundreds of people who receive this blog not everyone is devoted to Ayn Rand’s ideas, or believes that her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged is a masterwork. Thus, what follows will probably be of no interest to them.
However, for those who revere Rand’s 1957 novel as a superb example of romantic realism—let alone brilliantly predictive—the recently announced third motion picture installment of Atlas Shrugged must be considered the final desecration.
Of the many points I could make, here are only two of the major ones.
The feature filmrights to Atlas Shrugged should never been sold (let alone several times over) because the scope, characters, plot, and ideas of Atlas are inherently impossible to dramatize in two hours.
I say this because of two personal experiences.
One is because in 1968 Erika Holzer and I found the missing Italian film of We the Living, a much shorter and easier story to tell than Atlas. In its original form, WTLwas three-plus hours long. Only due to Rand’s personally suggested edits, a bit of her restructuring, and some 4,000 subtitles written by Erika Holzer and Duncan Scott, did the film become the international motion picture success it deserved to be.
The second is because toward the end of Rand’s life she worked with a TV producer and writer to create a network miniseries which would have been at least seven hours long. The writer was Oscar-winner Stirling Silliphant, whose writing achievements included the TV series Route 66 and the feature film In the Heat of the Night. At dinner one night in Los Angeles Stirling told the Holzers that there was no way Atlas Shrugged could, with any fealty to the novel, be done as a typical two-hour feature film.
As further proof that it was folly to try, I submit that the eventual producers themselves realized that a standard feature was impossible. So they made three, somewhat connected, but still standard feature films.
I repeat, the feature film rights should never have been sold, and when it was clear the current producers intended to dissect Atlas into three standard feature films, they should have been stopped.
Instead, the producers’ “solution” to the unsolvable length and complexity problems—driven also by the need to begin principal photography before their rights-option expired—was to quickly make one-third of Rand’s magnum opus, with the other two-thirds to come along in two later installments.
As to Atlas I and II (and doubtless the forthcoming Atlas Shrugged III), not a single nationally or internationally household name was associated with the project. This failure was most egregious regarding the script. While it would have been too much to expect that the producers would hire a journeyman writer like William Goldman (All the President’s Men, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), there were some well-credentialed Hollywood writers who understood Rand’s novel and could have created a faithfully powerful script. I know one of them.
Worse than all this, by far, is that the well-intentioned producers apparently believed that even though they were making an “entertainment” not a documentary, it was incumbent on them to provide “philosophical oversight.” So they hired the equivalent of a philosophical commissar, to keep the production on the Objectivist straight-and-narrow.
(There’s more. For example: difficulties with distribution, changing actors from one of the parts to the others, miscasting, the impossibility of showing Atlas Shrugged I, II, and III together in a movie theater or even on television.)
The noise you hear is Ayn Rand spinning in her grave. The feature film rights should never have been sold.
In the days of the Italian version of We the Living (1940-1941) it was possible for the film’s negatives and prints to vanish, as nearly happened because of Nazi hostility to Rand’s story about the impact of the Bolshevik Revolution on a fiercely independent woman and the two men who loved her.
Unfortunately, in today’s world of the Internet, cloud storage, digital recorders, and DVDs, there is no way Atlas Shrugged I, II, and III, unlike We the Living, will ever be lost.
I was wrong.
Apparently those of us who admire Rand’s work have not yet seen the end of desecration of the much-admired author and her writing.
Today, I (and doubtless many others) received a pitch for money in an email offering an Atlas Shrugged comic book and an Ayn Rand cozy fleece winter blanket. See below.
For these moral obscenities, and perhaps even violations of law, we have to thank The Atlas Society’s new CEO’s “outreach” to the younger [and cold] generation.
Jennifer, this desecration is shameful squared. You are cheapening Ayn Rand’s name and insulting her work.
TAS founder, board member, and “Chief Intellectual Officer” David Kelley should be doubly ashamed.
And the other four board members, well, they should resign.
If this happened years ago when I was Ayn Rand’s lawyer, on her behalf I would have sued all of them.
Atlas Society Weekly Newsletter
Scene from Atlas Shrugged
Graphic novels are all the rage...so why not one of Atlas Shrugged? That was the dream of artist Agniezka Pilat when she created these panels from Ayn Rand's magnus opus many years ago. We've set a few to music...and narration! You can watch the magic by clicking below.
CEO Jennifer Grossman
on WSJ Op-ed
In this interview with Mark Michael Lewis, Grossman responds to attacks by Yaron Brook & Onkar Ghate on her Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Can You Love God & Ayn Rand." What she says may surprise you. "To lead with vinegar is to be irrational." Agree?
One Cheer for Legalization,
Three Boos for Pot
This week, as recreational use of marijuana became legal in four states -- to cheering from many libertarians -- we remember the words of Ayn Rand: "I would fight for your legal right to use marijuana; I would fight you to the death that you morally should not do it, because it destroys the mind." Writing for TAS, libertarian Jeffrey Tucker echoes her view in his piece, "Pot is Gross."
Why Do New Year's Resolutions Often Fail?
The philosophical roots of failed resolutions. Bradley Doucet's classic piece on why evasion of reality, a disorganized hierarchy of values and placing "duty" before "desires," leads to disappointments. David Kelley also weighs in.
"Speaking the language of values instead of the language of duty, ‘want-to’ instead of ‘have-to,’ is a daily reminder that we live by choice, with both the freedom and the responsibility that that entails."
The Atlas Society would like to welcome Nicole as our Director of Student Programs!
She started her career in the Liberty movement after she read Atlas Shrugged. She then enrolled at Blinn College in Brenham, Texas and started a Young Americans for Liberty(YAL) chapter in February of 2015.
Nicole soon became disenfranchised when she learned of unconstitutional speech codes and a free speech area at her college. With the help of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), she placed a first amendment lawsuit against Blinn College and won the lawsuit in March on 2016. READ MORE
Ayn Rand Fleece Blanket
Baby it's cold out there! So why not cuddle up in your very own Ayn Rand fleece blanket this winter?
At the last moment of Wednesday's Fox news program "Special Report," host Shannon Bream mentioned panelist Steve Hays' brother's documentary Honor Flight.
Dan Hays' film tells the story of how a small community in Wisconsin came together to take hundred's of the state's aged World War II veterans for a visit to their Washington, DC, memorial. The documentary features a cross-section of the community's citizens and, most important, four of the dwindling numbers of veterans who bought with their blood the title of The Greatest Generation