»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Friday, July 03, 2015 ::

The Supreme Court Gaieties 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 11:11 PM

Once upon a time gays wanted to be like Greta Garbo. Decades before YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon Video on Demand, they would flock to a revival house theater for a week-long Garbo retrospective. Perhaps any given audience would be almost evenly divided between gays and heterosexuals. But male heterosexuals, if they weren’t with members of the opposite sex, were regarded as “fresh meat” to be propositioned by gays. I speak from experience.

Today, they idolize the likes of Bruce Jenner, a fool who, because he “felt” he was a woman, and convinced himself that he was one, has undergone an expensive and elaborate physical make-over to the applause of a promiscuous MSM, but still isn’t a woman. And never will be. Now he’s just a dolled up eunuch, a papier-mâché pinup for gays and bisexuals everywhere.

I can just hear again the swoons of gays in the audience when John Gilbert, the Spanish ambassador in Queen Christina, discovers that the man he was planning to share a room with in a snow-bound Swedish inn is actually a woman. Or perhaps they were groans of disappointment that Gilbert was ecstatic that Garbo wasn’t a man.

Now, the Supreme Court has never been a Pantheon of reason and rationality. It has a checkered history of semi-rational decisions, outright and belabored judicial flummery, and being the compliant object of political legerdemain and manipulation. What it certainly isn’t is an exclusive philosophical debating club whose opinions and dissensions are based on individual rights. Preserving individual rights has, as a rule, been an incidental and parenthetical concern of the Court. Its decisions contra-positions are based on the received wisdom of the time, which it either defends or turns on its head or marries to a glib argument for collectivism (see Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.).

It innovates only in oft-times skewed interpretations of the Constitution and the law. Very, very rarely has it ever upheld individual and property rights. Remember Kelo vs. City of New London, and John Roberts’ first rescue of ObamaCare because it was a tax, and then it wasn’t, and maybe it was? The thinking model for virtually any Supreme Court ruling on key issues is a pretzel embedded in unbaked sourdough.

This column would love to dive into the second pro-ObamaCare decision now under the Court’s belt, decided on by a couple of male morons; a superannuated, senile-looking statist (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who once said that the perfect model for a new U.S. Constitution was South Africa’s); a “wise Latina lady” (Sonia Sotomayor, an Hispanic activist and a La Raza associate from way back); and Elena Kagan, a sexless butch dyke who has always advocated “gay rights.” To parse the Obamacare decision is to get lost in a maze of rationalizations about state insurance exchanges vs. federal insurance exchanges and interpreting the letters of the immoral law, or the Affordable Care Act. But the main issue here is gay “marriage.”

However, it was “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts who saved Obamacare the first time in 2012; it was “conservative” associate justice Anthony Kennedy who saved it the second time. Conservatives cannot be relied on to uphold any freedom. Their premises and conclusions are such a mare’s nest of fallacies and illogic that their decisions resemble faulty power steering in a car or perilous gear shifts in an automatic transmission. They are more likely to drive one into a wall or over a cliff than straight ahead.

This is the problem one should recognize with most conservatives who express outrage over either the second Obamacare rescue or the gay marriage issue. More often than not, conservatives excoriate socialized medicine or gay marriage for completely irrelevant reasons: it’s a departure from or attack on “traditional” American values; it’s a defiant action against “God’s plan” or some other Biblical reason; it won’t work for a variety of economic or social reasons, ergo, it isn’t “practical.” Can’t we reach a pragmatic rapprochement?

It matters not which conservative blog site one reads: Brietbart, The Blaze, Clash, and so on: they’re all religion-based or religion-biased, and religionists are not strong supporters of individual rights. A man doesn’t own his own life; God does. See this Breitbart article on an Oregon couple being served a gag order to not criticize gay marriage (for its pro-Christian tone), and virtually any other conservative website. One can only agree with these sites on an ad hoc basis. Then there is that $135,000 fine for refusing to serve a lesbian couple.

That being said, the left/liberal New York Times practically whooped with joy when the Court found for gay marriage. Adam Liptak broke the news in his Times article of June 26th, “Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide.”

Even the headline is misleading. The Supreme Court can’t “make” rights out of thin air. “Nationwide”? This is a redundant term even if one conceded that the Court possessed the powers of wand-waving Harry Potter.

In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

“Something greater than they once were”? Which is…what?  More on the guaranteeing of rights later, but the “liberty” to be “married” has never been denied. Frowned upon at times, but never denied. Tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been living in a state of non-matrimonial cohabitation in this country for a very long time. As well as heterosexual couples.

The key term here is marry. In my June 24th Rule of Reason review of Ron Pisaturo’s ground-breaking of study of the nature of the sexes and the meaning of marriage, Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty, I devote some space to the definition of that term.

My own take on the definition of marriage is this: From an etymological standpoint, to “marry” two or more entities presumes that the entities are unlike but “marriageable” to form a new entity. Thus marriage means the union of a man and woman; it does not mean the “marriage” of a man and a man or of a woman and a woman, or the “marriage of likes. If the entities weren’t unlike, there would be no purpose in trying to “marry” them and the term would not be applicable. Other terms suggested by the OED [Oxford English Dictionary] for a “civil union” of gays or lesbians come to mind: union, alliance, fusion, amalgamation, combination, affiliation, association, connection, coupling, merger, unification, all listed by the OED as synonyms.

One can “marry” Dvořák’s “From the New World” symphony to a ballet; one can “marry” zinc and copper to produce our worthless pennies; one can install a Chevy V-8 engine in a Volkswagen Beetle and call it a hot rod. But the other OED terms just aren’t sexy enough. What the LGBT brigade wants is to appropriate or steal the meaning of marriage for their own collectivist and nefarious ends.

The New York Times article continues:

Marriage is a “keystone of our social order,” Justice Kennedy said, adding that the plaintiffs in the case were seeking “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

The decision, which was the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, set off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country, the first same-sex marriages in several states, and resistance — or at least stalling — in others. It came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of the unions.

I don’t recall the Founders adding to the Bill of Rights a guarantee of anyone’s “dignity,” equal or not. How would it have read? “Congress shall make no law that disparages, diminishes, or injures the dignity or feelings of persons because of their sexual orientation or lifestyle.”

Liptak also insinuates that American public opinion now approves of gay marriage. Show me the money, Adam. Or are you just engaging in Progressive psych-war? (“See, you dumb clucks, everyone else is for gay marriage, so you’d better get on board or be left behind.”) In any event, it is not the mandate of the Court to promote any kind of “social order,” but to uphold individual rights. The concept of a “social order” that must be preserved or advanced is one shared by conservatives and the Left alike, and for the same collectivist reasons.

Even were it true that American “public opinion” has swung to approval of gay marriage, are polls the proper gauge of the Court’s cogitations? As Ayn Rand once noted, “Fifty million Frenchmen can be as wrong as right.” Head-counting does not determine reality or the truth of anything. But, that’s the Marxist “social construction” fallacy and apparently the term “fallacy” is now a “white privilege” term or a bourgeoisie tool of oppression.

The Court can uphold certain moral principles, but can't "originate" them as SCOTUS has done across the board in this decision. Among its other follies, SCOTUS has arrogantly acted as an amateur lexicographer when it has no business fiddling with definitions.

Someday, someday…dream the Islamic “civil rights” organizations in this country….the U.S. Supreme Court will sanction Sharia Law in the name of “religious freedom.” That’s how philosophically and morally rudderless these fools are. We can get away with it.

So, someone might ask, what’s wrong with commanding a change in the definition of marriage? As I noted to one correspondent on the issue of definitions:

Changing and broadening definitions are the history of the English language. But if there are going to be any changes or broadenings, they should not be ordered, mandated, censored, or overseen by the government (SCOTUS), the EPA, the SEC, etc., or by destruction-for-the- sake-of destruction nihilists, which is what we're witnessing today. The only government I know of that has put the government in charge of preserving the language is the French. All other nations have let their languages "evolve" or grow without the expedient of a decree or  exercising fiat power. The English language has grown from Samuel Johnson's pioneering dictionary to the OED to the various American dictionaries.

I’ve read more intelligent and incisive commentary on the whole gay marriage issue, and also on the nature of homosexuality, than I have in the MSM or any conservative blog site. And as another correspondent noted:

1.  It is not the right decision for the Court to redefine the plain, straightforward meanings of English words. Nor is it the right decision for the Courts to order a state legislature to draft its statutes using a language/dialect that the majority of its citizens do not speak.

2. Language does evolve – but court orders enforced by the guns of federal marshals do not constitute an "evolution" of language.

3. There were real rights violations for same-sex couples. These rights violations were wholly remedied by civil unions. The law is about correcting rights violations, not making people feel good.

Or inventing them out of whole cloth for fear of the LGBT crowd throwing rotten tomatoes, bags of fecal matter, or rocks at the Court in an organized campaign of hate similar to the tactics of #BlackLivesMatter. It could have its own hash tag, #QueerLivesMatter.

Another correspondent noted:

I think they [homosexuals] have a love that is not friendship, and they want it to be sexual. To the extent two of the same sex can be sexual, it is.

You've brought up an interesting point I have to chew a little. Yes, it's essentially the differences between sexes that set up the chemistry, the sparks that fly, when one falls in love. And no, homosexuals can't have that. Not really.

I’ve noticed that they often imitate heterosexuality, with one partner more masculine or more feminine. It’s often seemed like an arrested development in sexuality. There is a disinclination to move beyond a fixation [infatuation?]on the ideal in one’s own sex, that often occurs in adolescence or a little before.

A much calmer and objective discussion of the Court’s Obamacare decision can be found on The Motley Fool site, “The Supreme Court Saves Obamacare a Third Time, But Big Challenges Remain.” For a less biased and less enthusiastic report on the Court’s gay marriage decision, see The International Business Times article, “Read Scalia Gay Marriage Dissent; Supreme Court Justice Slams ‘Constitutional Revision’.”

Understanding that the end game is power, not any civil rights or freedom of association or even “gay rights,” many of my correspondents agree with Daniel Greenfield when he wrote in his June 30th column, “No Truce With the Left”:

The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left's favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them….

The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power….

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power. That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues….

The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can't attack you, they'll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges….

 The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress….

It's not about gay marriage. It's not about cakes. It's about power.
More fundamentally it's about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

No, it’s not about wedding cakes and anti-gay photographers or even about gays having a float in the St. Patrick’s Day parade. Utter a single word critical of gays or gay marriage, and you’re declared a non-person and shown the door with a kick in the pants.

And one of the most important human achievements the Left wishes to take over is language. Thus the battle over the term marriage.  The battle was instigated by the Left in the mid-1990s and now the battle had been concluded on the Left’s terms.  And thus the whole politically correct speech movement.  My correspondents noted:

Heterosexual romantic love, AS AN IDEAL, must be destroyed. This is the end game. Never mind that most marriages today are NOT quite as happy or idyllic as one would like.

What they are after is the IDEAL, the idea that one could achieve that type of happiness with one other person, a MAN or a WOMAN, who, per the Left, is the enemy. Or should be the enemy.

Woman are so GOOD (and so trampled upon as victims) and men are so intrinsically BAD (destroyers of nature and builders of capitalism – envy, envy, envy). This union of both simply can no longer be seen as worthwhile or special. We – the Left/Communists – must destroy this special area of individual happiness.

Destroy the values, destroy the idols, take away from men and women what they need to believe in, to strive for, to be rewarded with….Break their spirit, the better to rule over them.

One positive response to the SCOTUS decision that was astonishing in the nature of its agreement is that of Dr. Harry Binswanger, a philosopher of the Objectivist movement, in his July 1st  On the Subject of Marital Freedom, Justice Scalia is a Collectivist” on Real Clear Markets.

Individuals have the inalienable right to make any kind of living arrangements and personal commitments they choose.

Individuals have the inalienable right to use whatever word they wish in describing it, including "marriage," whether or not that term is epistemologically correct or "offensive." By the same token, third parties have the inalienable right to use whatever word they wish to in describing it, including "non-marriage," whether or not that term is epistemologically correct or "offensive." This is a direct application of the right to free speech.

I've read Binswanger's piece twice – nay, three times – trying to understand what about it bothered me the first time around and sent up storm flags. I finally nailed it: His article is what you'd find in a libertarian magazine, something like Reason, that eschews the whole philosophical issue. The metaphysics of sex? -- irrelevant. Epistemology? -- whatever you wish can be whatever you want. Words? – whatever meaning you wish to attach to them. Definitions? – you can chuck your dictionaries, they're irrelevant.

Dr. Binswanger then takes a shovel to the straw men of existing government relationships with marriage, court precedents, etc.  Justice Antonin Scalia? (I'm not a fan of any Supreme Court justice, particularly not conservative ones) – a  collectivist idiot who wouldn't mind establishing a Christian theocracy as opposed to an Islamic one. And what else is new? The SCOTUS decision was flawed in its reasoning but correct in its conclusion, he says. We have six of one and half a dozen of another instances of irrationality in the majority and dissenting opinions, he avers. True. But his take on the whole issue of gay marriage is most un-philosophical and a disappointment. 

Binswanger wrote, "The government may not legislate morality."  True. But he has little or nothing to say about the new LGBT power bloc infringing on other’s rights, by targeting individual, businesses, and even churches  for punishment for being or appearing to be anti-gay. Will the Court come to their rescue? Doubtful, but it would have been nice to have him speculate on the answer to that question, because that bloc is wasting no time throwing its weight around. Many companies are now pandering to the gay crowd in their commercials to forestall LGBT lawsuits, boycotts, and other nasty business.  These include the makers of Tylenol, Hallmark Cards, and other well-known products.

At times, when one turns to the “authorities” for answers, they fall down on the job. They fail to see the larger picture, or perhaps even reject the idea there is a larger picture to see.

I won’t bore readers with citing some of Barack Obama’s banal remarks on the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. You can read them here.

And my favorite line from Queen Christina is: “One can feel nostalgia for places one has never seen.”

:: Permalink | 0 Comments ::


:: Monday, June 29, 2015 ::

Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part II 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 9:26 PM

As Jean-Luc Picard, captain of the Enterprise, said of the Borg:  "In their collective state, the Borg are utterly without mercy; driven by one will alone: the will to conquer. They are beyond redemption, beyond reason."

This is true of not only Islam and of the Marxist/Progressive agenda for this country, but now of the LGBT movement, whose political agenda has been boosted by the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. To paraphrase Islam authority Robert Spencer’s criticism of Australian Prime Minister’s public statement that divorces Islam from religion and totalitarian theocracy, the Supreme Court’s and the MSM’s responses to the LGBT’S political power play remain “blind, uninformed, and based on falsehood.” The principal falsehood is that homosexuality is not a matter of volition, but of external and/or intrinsic factors beyond the realm of choice. That is, of sociological or biological influences and pressures.

The other falsehood is that the Law of Identity does not apply to one’s sex, and can be defied because one’s sex or “gender” is based on the notion of the primacy of consciousness and not on the primacy of existence. It is the former that governs contemporary thinking, that is, in believing that reality is what the mind makes it to be, fueled by one’s feelings.

The idea that emotions are not tools of cognition is an idea rejected by the whole homosexual advocacy movement. The LGBT movement is moved by a will to conquer, politically and socially, in accordance with Barack Obama’s campaign to “transform” America, and is demonstrably beyond reason.

But, back to the Mexicans, that is, all Central and South Americans who invade the U.S. through Mexico. We left off in Part I by noting that Mexicans can also take another leaf from their Muslim  compañeros de armas in Europe once they become permanent, “legalized” settlers in America who refuse to assimilate, and by highlighting the strategy laid out in the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. I’m sure the National Council of La Raza has a similar organization that researches and describes how the gringo politics and culture can be made to bend to the Hispanic will.

Let’s substitute Mexican for Muslim and see if it rings a bell:

The manifesto could explain "Mexican Minority Affairs" as more than an organization or a social concept, but as a calculated foreign policy of the La Raza Foreign Affairs, designed to achieve these specific goals. Now, don’t start denigrating the immigrating Mexicans. They’re our “friends,” aren’t they?

1) Recruit individual Mexicans who live in a non-Mexican land and transform them as a collective unit by establishing Mexican cultural centers, educational programs, churches, and organizations like La Raza and the Sinoloa and Guadalajara Cartels’ Educational Foundations that serve to discourage and prevent Mexicans from assimilating into the culture of their non-Mexican host nation, namely the U.S.

2) Encourage these Mexican residents of the non-Mexican host nation to shift the demographic scales in their own favor by means of population growth—and by a militant separatism and self-ghettoization — thereby enabling them to more effectively advance an agenda based on fundamentalist anti-West and anti-assimilation doctrines, with special stress on perceived discrimination and career victimhood.

3) Eventually the proliferation of Mexicans in the host nation will hit critical mass, tilting that society toward majority-Mexican or Hispanic status.

4) Ultimately, the host state will join
Los Estados Unidos de México. Well, at least California and most of the Southwest will join it.

As I remarked in Swamp of Evil I, it may be interesting to witness the clash between Muslims and Mexicans over who gets to lord it over a dissolved United States. I have no idea where Mexican and Muslim gays will fit into this scenario, but the Left, which champions and celebrates the submission of America to homosexuality, dismisses or is oblivious to the fact that in Islam homosexuality is forbidden and gays are tossed off of rooftops or hanged as a matter of enforcement of Sharia law.

The National Council of La Raza? What is that? Is it an organization that advocates the supremacy of Hispanics over all other races, as Islam touts itself as superior to all other religions. Discover the Network reports:

The words “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) in NCLR's name have long been a source of considerable controversy. Critics claim that the name reflects an organizational commitment to racial separatism and race-based grievance mongering. By NCLR's telling, however, such critics have mistranslated the word “Raza.” “The term 'La Raza,'” says the organization, “has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as 'the people' or, according to some scholars, 'the Hispanic people of the New World.'”

According to NCLR, “the full term,” which was coined by the Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos [1882-1959], is “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people.” NCLR describes this as “an inclusive concept” whose purpose is to express the fact that “Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.”

NCLR's interpretation of Vasconcelos's explanation, however, is inaccurate. As Guillermo Lux and Maurilio Vigil (professors of history and political science, respectively, at New Mexico Highlands University) note in their 1991 book, Aztlan: Essays on the Chicano Homeland:

"The concept of La Raza can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority. Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case."

In short, Vasconcelos was not promoting "an inclusive concept," but rather, the notion of Hispanic racial superiority.

Over all others. As Islam refers to all non-Muslims of other faiths (or of no faith) as the “People of the Book” and enemies to be conquered, converted, enslaved, or slain, La Raza’s own “People of the Book” are all non-Hispanics, i.e., Caucasians, blacks, and probably even Asians.

“O People of the Book! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partners unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. (Al-i Imran Surah, 3:64) That is, let us not call others Lord, God, Creator. Let the order of Allah (SWT) and His Pleasure be our criteria for our deeds Let all of us be servants to Allah (SWT). Let us consider ourselves responsible to Him. Let us be dependent on and loyal to each other in accordance with these rules.” (Yazır, II, 1132)

Or else: “Fight against such of those who have been given the Book as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (At-Tawbe Surah, 9:29)

If race is the issue regarding Mexicans or Hispanics, it is central to La Raza’s manifold aims and purposes, as can be seen in this information-rich Discover the Networks report. As the Muslim Minority Affairs report and the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America clearly state, among other things, that the cultural and political assimilation of Muslims in the U.S. is not the goal of the waves of Muslim settlers consciously facilitated by Obama, La Raza’s own overall “strategic end” is to turn large chunks of the country into Mexican or Hispanic enclaves in which non-Hispanics become the minority, an end also consciously facilitated by Obama.

Daniel Greenfield’s fine June 3rd essay, “How Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion” reveals aspects of Islam in America that can be equally construed to apply to the aggressive pursuit of Hispanic hegemony and the LGBT movement as well.

Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race. Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.

The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.

And by equating race with culture, or culture with race, or religion with race, or race with religion, Muslims have the advantage coming or going, and very, very few defenders of the West and of Western civilization have been able to call their bluff.

Anyone who criticizes Islam and Muslim settlers, illegal Mexican immigrants or settlers, and homosexuals risks being accused of Islamophobia, Hispanophobia, or Homophobia. These are the handy blanket smears which the Left, Islamic supremacists, and homosexuals use as weapons to disarm or neutralize their critics. To the MSM, anyone accused of these phobias is an automatic pariah to be denigrated and shunted aside as the vanguards of these ideologies – and, yes, homosexuality has now become an official political player in the pursuit of power for power’s sake – trample underfoot the rights and civil liberties of Americans. And each group seeks absolute, craven, supine submission to its particular Hive, Cube, Umma, or Collective.

And the irony is that they expect the boot each plans to plant on our faces to be supplied by us.

Is resistance futile?

Not on these pages.

:: Permalink | 7 Comments ::



» Recent Posts

» The Supreme Court Gaieties
» Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part II
» Mohammad a Suicide?
» America’s Screaming Mimi Syndrome
» Stolen Words: Plagiarism à la carte
» Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part I
» Book Review: Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty
» The Prancing Unicorn of Bruce Jenner
» Blindfolds and Trigger Warnings
» Hate Crimes vs. Hate Speech: A False Dichotomy

» RSS Feed

» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.

» Feedback
We want to hear from you!


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy



Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster