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

:: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 ::

The Financial Panic and the Only Proper Answer to It 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:30 AM

One fact is absolutely clear: most of the blame for the current financial panic is utterly misdirected. Rather than hold accountable the irrational government policies that encouraged irresponsible lending and mountains of homeowner debt (and those who supported these policies), the moral foundation of the free market is itself being disparaged and attacked. We are told that the ruthless self-interest of Wall Street (rather than the "compassionate" gift-giving of the Congress) is the cause of the current crisis. Unfortunately, the truth is a little more complex. Perhaps we should examine this truth, that is, before we blithely allow our political leaders to add nearly a trillion dollars to the public debt and give new powers to those who helped bring the disaster along in the first place.

If you notice, our government has a policy of promoting borrowing over savings. For example, we permit our government to fully tax the savings that someone might make in order to pay for a home while allowing a person to deduct the interest costs of their home mortgage against their taxes; that is, through its tax policies, our government punishes savings and encourages home debt. Given this financial incentive to borrow (an incentive that happens to suit those who build and sell houses and lend mortgage money just fine) you would have to be a fool to save for a house rather than borrow for it. Most people tacitly recognize this fact and that is why they choose to take on debt in order to buy their homes.

Furthermore, if there is one thing that that government is, it is helpful to those who have political pull. For the last seventy years there has been no pull like that of those selling the American dream. To help encourage people to own their own homes, our government created two quazi-private monopolies: Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970. These government-sponsored monopolies buy mortgage debt, pool it, and then resell the debt as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market. This secondary mortgage market increases the supply of money available for mortgage lending and new home purchases.

What happens when the government makes credit more available than credit would otherwise be in a free market? People will respond to the incentive and find ways to take advantage of the newly available cash. As long as home values were increasing because of the ever-increasing demand for homes, there wasn't really much to worry about; a person could do well even with risky financing arrangements like zero-down, interest only or negative amortization loans. And even if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't directly encourage those kinds of loans, they allowed themselves to be dangerously exposed to fallout from those who did.

But that is not the end of it; we didn't demand our government to limit its interference to just tax incentives and home loan monopolies however; we allowed it to offer us even more unearned gifts. Passed in 1977 and amended over the years, our government gave us the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a law that mandated that banks must extend credit to those who otherwise would not be credit-worthy. If the banks didn't make enough risky loans, being heavily regulated by the government, they would be denied the ability to open new branches, merge with other banks and enter new business endeavors, etcetera.

Again, as long as housing prices were always going up, real estate was a great racket to be in; in some areas, home prices saw double digit increase in valuations and there were even whole TV series dedicated to the phenomenon of house-flipping, the process where a real estate speculator would buy a distressed property, fix it up a little, and then cash in on the re-sell. Who would ever argue against the policies that helped make it all happen? How could one ever go wrong when the tide was always rising?

Yet the problem with tides is that they don't always rise. If you allow yourself to be heavily leveraged and the person who lends you money allows himself to be heavily leveraged and the insurer that insures his loan to you allows himself to be heavily leveraged, the fall of your one little domino can wreak a lot of havoc. Add tens of thousands of dominos all falling at the same time and you have the underpinnings of a financial panic.

Now in a free market, you might have your panic, but it would soon stop. Those people who made irrational choices with their money and assets would lose them. Those people who were rational and had chosen to protect themselves from calamity would not. If you look at the financial panics in the age before massive government intervention in our economy, these panics were smaller and when they did their damage, the spendthrifts received their just reward, and the rest of the people soon recovered and moved on with their lives.

Today, we are not fortunate enough to live under a free market. Most Americans seem to like their lives to be controlled by those who claim to act out of the public interest--and today there is no public interest like assuaging need through government controls. If you need to borrow money for a home even though you can't afford to pay back your loan, the government will see to it that you get your money. If you build your house in a flood plain and the flood comes, the government will tax others so you can rebuild it. If you make poor financial decisions that improperly account for economic risk and that cause your bank to go bankrupt, the government will pay to bail you out. Today we live under an economic and political system where need is a blank check and risk is nationalized.

So just who does our current system of national relief favor? Does it favor the independent, thrifty, hardworking and non-foolhardy? Hardly. Such a person is able to think and act for himself; what need does he have for our government? Instead, our system today favors the unwarranted risk-taker. It favors the person who presses for political favors. After all, there was a reason why the most corrupt (and now bankrupt) home lenders were giving sweetheart home loans to key members of Congress--and it wasn't to restore the free market in housing. It was to keep the incentives that Congress created to steer money into housing flowing because there was a ton of money to be had doing so.

So unlike the claims of some, the current crisis is not so much a battle between Wall Street and Main Street. The problem we face today rests in every street; it rests in our nation's unchallenged enshrinement of need as a virtue and its willingness to use government power to assuage that need. Instead of leaving people free to work toward improving their lives though their own efforts, we have created a system of perverse incentives; a system that has now collapsed as a system so-designed must.

What then is the answer to this panic? I hold that we simply ought to let the businesses that failed fail, expedite the liquidation of their assets at their current market value under streamlined bankruptcy laws, and once and for all remove our government from the business of creating perverse economic incentives.

Notice however that such a plan is not a serious proposal being debated within the halls of Congress. Instead we are told that we require more regulation of banking through "Financial Stability Oversight Boards," smaller CEO salaries, stricter business accounting rules, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of banking, subsidies to borrowers, and perhaps most rich, we are told that we should expect our government to make money from it all as it essentially nationalizes the commercial banking sector. I'm sure the folks at Amtrak think that they are going to make money one day too, but institutions that respond to political wishes rather than the reality of the marketplace do not make money; they lose it and in our age they lose it to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars.

So for the market to be restored, we must first demand an ethical revolution, one that says that people have a right to their life, liberty and the freedom to pursue their own happiness, but not a right to claim the unearned or a right to have our government provide it for them. Our nation needs to learn a new mantra: Give us liberty, and death to government controls.

:: Permalink | 7 Comments ::

 

:: Saturday, September 27, 2008 ::

John Allison takes a stand 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 9:26 AM

According to blogger Dave Wilson, Objectivist John Allison, President & CEO of BB&T has shared his thoughts on the current mortgage panic:
    1. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the primary cause of the mortgage crisis. These government supported enterprises distorted normal market risk mechanisms. While individual private financial institutions have made serious mistakes, the problems in the financial system have been caused by government policies including, affordable housing (now sub-prime), combined with the market disruptions caused by the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low and then raising interest rates too high.
    2. There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial institutions. The problems are in high-risk financial institutions and on Wall Street.
    3. While all financial intermediaries are being impacted by liquidity issues, this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions. It is extremely important that the bailout not damage well run companies.
    4. Corrections are not all bad. The market correction process eliminates irrational competitors. There were a number of poorly managed institutions and poorly made financial decisions during the real estate boom. It is important that any rules post “rescue” punish the poorly run institutions and not punish the well run companies.
    5. A significant and immediate tax credit for purchasing homes would be a far less expensive and more effective cure for the mortgage market and financial system than the proposed “rescue” plan.
    6. This is a housing value crisis. It does not make economic sense to purchase credit card loans, automobile loans, etc. The government should directly purchase housing assets, not real estate bonds. This would include lots and houses under construction.
    7. The guaranty of money funds by the U.S. Treasury creates enormous risk for the banking industry. Banks have been paying into the FDIC insurance fund since 1933. The fund has a limit of $100,000 per client. An arbitrary, “out of the blue” guarantee of money funds creates risk for the taxpayers and significantly distorts financial markets.
    8. Protecting the banking system, which is fundamentally controlled by the Federal Reserve, is an established government function. It is completely unclear why the government needs to or should bailout insurance companies, investment banks, hedge funds and foreign companies.
    9. It is extremely unclear how the government will price the problem real estate assets. Priced too low, the real estate markets will be worse off than if the bail out did not exist. Priced too high, the taxpayers will take huge losses. Without a market price, how can you rationally determine value?
    10. The proposed bankruptcy “cram down” will severely negatively impact mortgage markets and will damage well run institutions. This will provide an incentive for homeowners who are able to pay their mortgages, but have a loss in their house, to take bankruptcy and force losses on banks. (Banks would not have received the gains had the houses appreciated.) This will substantially increase the risk in mortgage lending and make mortgage pricing much higher in the future.
    11. Fair Value accounting should be changed immediately. It does not work when there are no market prices. If we had Fair Value accounting, as interpreted today, in the early 1990’s the United States financial system would have crashed. Accounting should not drive economic activity, it should reflect it.
    12. The proposed new merger accounting rules should be deferred for at least five years. The new merger accounting rules are creating uncertainty for high quality companies who might potentially purchase weaker companies.
    13. The primary beneficiaries of the proposed rescue are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The Treasury has a number of smart individuals, including Hank Paulson. However, Treasury is totally dominated by Wall Street investment bankers. They do not have knowledge of the commercial banking industry. Therefore, they can not be relied on to objectively assess all the implications of government policy on all financial intermediaries. The decision to protect the money funds is a clear example of a material lack of insight into the risk to the total financial system.
    14. Arbitrary limits on executive compensation will be self defeating. With these limits, only the failing financial institutions will participate in the “rescue,” effectively making this plan a massive subsidy for incompetence. Also, how will companies attract the leadership talent to manage their business effectively with irrational compensation limits?

:: Permalink | 4 Comments ::

 

:: Friday, September 26, 2008 ::

Weekend Open Thread 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 9:30 PM

You came, you saw, you commented. Have at it here.

PS: I'm watching the debate and trying to get a grasp on the alleged Main Street / Wall Street dichotomy. Ugh.

:: Permalink | 14 Comments ::

 

America vs. Congress et al. 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 10:01 AM

If one wants to understand why Congress and the White House wish to sneak in "corporate" socialism in the guise of a "bailout" of Wall Street and the American economy, the following ought to serve as a good starting point, and provide some context of why the government thinks it ought to take action:

"The accounts of the receipts and expenditures during the year ending on the 30th day of September last, being not yet made up, a correct statement will hereafter be transmitted from the Treasury. In the meantime, it is ascertained that the receipts have amounted to near eighteen millions of dollars, which, with the eight millions and a half in the treasury at the beginning of the year, have enabled us, after meeting the current demands and interest incurred, to pay two millions three hundred thousand dollars of the principal of our funded debt, and left us in the treasury, on that day, near fourteen millions of dollars....The probable accumulation of the surpluses of revenue beyond what can be applied to the payment of the public debt, whenever the safety and freedom of our commerce shall be restored, merits the consideration of Congress. Shall it lie unproductive in the public vaults? Shall the revenue be reduced? Or shall it rather be appropriated to the improvements of roads, canals, rivers, education, and other great foundations of prosperity and union, under the powers which Congress may already possess, or such amendment of the constitution as may be approved of by the States? While uncertain of the course of things, the time may be advantageously employed in obtaining the powers necessary for a system of improvement, should that be thought best."* (Italics mine)
So wrote President Thomas Jefferson in his last message to Congress in November, 1808. In past addresses and messages to Congress he reported revenue surpluses, and often recommended the reduction or abolition of taxes. The last time the federal government reported an actual surplus that did not reflect bookkeeping legerdemain and an appropriations shell game was during Calvin Coolidge's administration. In Jefferson's and Coolidge's instances the surpluses were in gold and silver currency and metal-based promissory notes, not in the baseless fiat paper and clad-zinc coinage of today. Gold and silver cannot be created by the snap of one's fingers or by an order from the Federal Reserve to cover deficits and debts, as fiat money is now. Gold and silver served as restraints on government spending and intervention, which is why FDR took the U.S. off the gold standard, and why silver coinage vanished by government order after 1965.

Without going into detail about past, pre-Federal Reserve Bank episodes of financial panics - such as the one Alexander Hamilton managed in 1792, the two Bank of the United States experiments, and the Panic of 1907 - it should be stressed that neither the participants nor the institutions involved sought to take over the entire American economy - that is, attempt to "socialize" or "nationalize" it - as the White House, Congress, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the U.S. Treasury are proposing to do now. It should also be pointed out that in none of those instances was the U.S. government the chief instigator or culprit, as it is today.

Another interesting facet of the government-made financial crisis is that two of the entities that needed to be "rescued" by the government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are government-founded mortgage companies created to sell and invest in cheap credit and cheap mortgages. There was no other purpose to their existence. They were created to "serve the public." Treasury chief Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chief Bernard Bernanke have nothing over Scottish banker John Law, author of the Mississippi Bubble in early 18th century France. Their fiscal policies and economic philosophy are so similar to Law's that one would think Law was their mentor, but they have blanked out the ruinous consequences of the same schemes.

Nevertheless, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been portrayed by Congress and the news media as independent of the government, when in fact they are taxpayer-subsidized. In a genuinely free market, an organization that behaved as recklessly as they did would have gone bankrupt and vanished from the scene. But because they were tax-subsidized, risk was no object, American taxpayers being seen by them and Congress as an inexhaustible cash cow. This was also the operating philosophy of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG, four of their biggest "customers." They are government entities that hire their own lobbyists to shill for special favors and treatment from - the government.

Financial skullduggery is not the only offense that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have committed. Their employees, whose salaries are paid by taxpayers, have also "invested" in the perpetuation of their jobs by sending money to the campaigns and pet pork barrels of Senators Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and many other politicians.

But both political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, must share responsibility for the debacle. To wit:

"In 1971, Richard Nixon rescued Lockheed by providing $250 million in loan guarantees. When the Penn Central Railroad failed in 1971, Nixon created Amtrak. Jimmy Carter gave $1.5 billion loan guarantees to Chrysler in 1979. Under Ronald Reagan, the FDIC in 1984 spent $4.5 billion to rescue Continental Illinois, which still holds the record as the largest U.S. bank failure. Then, during the S&L crisis of the 1980's, George H.W. Bush approved the bailout of 747 savings and loans at a cost to taxpayers of $124.6 billion. In 1998, under Bill Clinton, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York bailed out Long Term Capital Management at a cost of $3.6 billion. During the Mexican Peso Crisis, Clinton arranged for loans and guarantees to Mexico totaling almost $50 billion. Then, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, George W. Bush approved $15 billion in subsidies and loan guarantees to aid the faltering airline industry. This year, the Federal Reserve approved a $30 billion credit line to help JP Morgan Chase acquire Bear Stearns, and engineered takeovers of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG."
Topping all that is the $1.8 trillion the federal government will have shelled out to "save" the economy if Congress approves the proposed "bailout." All "guaranteed" by the American taxpayer. Only one senator has been reported as calling the Paulson/Bernanke/Bush/Pelosi/Frank plan "socialism," Jim Bunning of Kentucky. That was accidentally, and it is likely the news media will not let that kind of remark slip through the cracks again.

But, to return to the subject at hand, and to the italicized portion of Jefferson's message to Congress in 1808, the Founders could not imagine that "improvements of roads, canals, rivers, education, and other great foundations" could be financed by other than government intervention and government money. One may forgive Jefferson and his contemporaries for not being politically omniscient or infallible. Capitalism was in its infancy and the Industrial Revolution lay a generation ahead beyond his last administration. Not even the worst of his contemporaries could imagine that the premise of government responsibility for infrastructure and education could lead to anything but to the "prosperity and happiness" of the nation. There was nothing in the original Constitution that gave the government the power to "improve" the economy, either, except, implicitly, to let it alone.

Instead, that premise has repeatedly led to scandal, corruption, the destruction of wealth, and the looting of the productive sector - with the private, productive sector blamed and punished. It is time to begin challenging that premise, and get the government out of the economy, and especially out of education. Jefferson's benevolent but erroneous support of public education has ultimately, by necessity, over the course of generations, created a dumbed-down, docile public, one that expects the government to take care of it and solve all problems, real or imagined.

In my original commentary on this subject, I wrote that Congress, the White House, and the other "rescuers" were acting to stave off the pressure-cooked justice of the wrongdoing and fallacious policies of decades. Perhaps the only thing that will educate the American public now is the failure of the system which they were told, and which they believed, was justice-proof.

Then Americans may rise up, as the polls seem to show them doing now in demonstrations and calls to their Congressmen, to proclaim, "Account overdrawn!"

*Thomas Jefferson: Writings, Library of America, 1984, pp. 548-549.

:: Permalink | 8 Comments ::

 

:: Thursday, September 25, 2008 ::

Welcome C. August to the Rule of Reason 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:50 PM

I'd like extend a hearty welcome to C. August as a new contributor to the Rule of Reason. You may recognize him from his blog, Titanic Deck Chairs. C. lives in the suburbs of Boston and works as web development manager. Prior to going over to the dark side of IT back when the Internet was new, he worked as a scientist at a medical technology company. He has been an Objectivist since his college days in the early 90s, and he tells me that his intellectual interests include history, economics, biology, and helping his two young children develop into happy, rational people.

He says that his main goal in joining the Rule of Reason is to lend his voice in the defense of individual rights and capitalism, from what he sees as their primary ideological enemies; Islamism, Christian fundamentalism, environmentalism, and the crippling pragmatism endemic in modern American politics.

In that light, I could not be happier to have him join the ranks.

:: Permalink | 3 Comments ::

 

Intellectual Thugs and Those Who Fight Against Them 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:08 AM

Diana Hsieh offers some thoughtful analysis of my appearance as a guest on the Laura Ingraham show this Monday and I recommend it to our readers here. As Objectivist ideas percolate more and more throughout our culture, there will be times when those who oppose the philosophy push back--and even push back hard. These times won't be pretty; in fact, they may be outright horrific. For example, there will come a day when an Objectivist is murdered for his or her views and that day is going to be shocking. Yet such is the nature of our enemies.

And now there have been two experiences in my life where some of my countrymen have revealed themselves to be borderline savages. The first was when John Lewis spoke at George Mason University in an event I helped to organize. There Lewis stood firm as Islamists and their leftist sympathizers screamed at him with seething rage for his having the audacity to say that those who seek to impose their creed by force are a threat to the good and must be defeated. In the absence of the 20-plus police officers sent there to guard Lewis as he spoke, I am all but certain that he would have been strung up from the nearest tree, yet Lewis never so much as winced. And now I have my own recent experiences to draw upon.

Of all the reasons my blog post garnered the attention it did, I think the first and foremost was that I expressed my position with moral confidence. When I argued that it was moral for a woman to abort a fetus with Down syndrome and place her own interests and happiness above that of the unborn, I attacked our enemies where they are most sensitive. They believe that their mystic creed makes them good and they responded to me as anyone who relies upon blind faith as a method must. That is the nature of the beast we must grapple. We have seen this before, we will see this ever again, and we should be ready to deal with it.

And in this endeavor, the support of our allies in reason is deeply appreciated. If you agree with our efforts, if you think that we fought well, I ask that you stand alongside us by offering a financial contribution to help further our activities. Our goal is to fight for freedom and win. We will never stop in this effort, we will never quit, but we can do so much more if you help us. Just follow the this link to make a donation; it's quick, easy (and hopefully painless), and by doing so, will help this organization all the better stand for our common values of reason, egoism, and capitalism.

:: Permalink | 20 Comments ::

 

:: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 ::

Refuting the Distortion and Lies Told About My Stand on Sarah Palin and the Right to Abortion 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:56 PM

Most of the criticism against my blog post defending the morality of abortion and questioning Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's choice to knowingly give birth to a child afflicted with Down's syndrome relies upon outright lies and distortions of my position and the selective interpretation of the text of my post. I think that this distortion is a deliberate tactic of the so-called "Pro-Life" movement because if this movement took my argument at face value, it would be impossible for it to refute my reasoning. I maintain that when you hold a dishonest position, it is inevitable that you will rely upon a straw man to make your case.

Thus the purpose of this post is to reveal the "Pro-Life" straw man being used against my arguments and my response to such dishonesty. Below are some of the common refrains I have seen since my initial post along with my answer to them.


You advocate "Nazi-style" eugenics.

This claim is a lie. The goal of the eugenics movement in history has been to 'improve' the human race by controlled selective breeding, forced sterilizations, forced abortions, and forced euthanasia. I hold that the human race is not improved in such a manner and that any initiation of force is an absolute violation of a person's individual rights.

Furthermore, to call me a Nazi is utterly dishonest and nothing more that a visceral attempt to inflame people's emotions rather than examine my arguments for what they are. There is no parallel between the goals of the eugenics movement and/or the goals of the Nazi's and my personal affirmation the individual, un-coerced and perfectly moral choice of a woman to have an abortion (or not) if she deems it to be in her rational self-interest. There is zero parallel between the force of the Nazi's and my advocacy for individual freedom and moral justice protected under our Constitution and laws--and it is a lie to claim as much.


You only judge a person by their worth to "society" and support forced euthanasia for anyone who is disabled, ill, or otherwise cannot sustain themselves.

This claim is a lie. A person's "worth to society" is not the basis of any part of Objectivism, which is the philosophy I adhere to and advocate. As a living, physically independent entity possessing the unique attributes of human consciousness, I defend the right to life of any born person capable of even a modicum of human thought because that person's life has worth to them and that is enough. If a person decides that life is untenable for them (such as in the case of painful terminal illness), I support the right of that person to terminate their own life in accordance with their own wishes, but I categorically reject any initiation of coercion over the life or mind of man.

At root, I claim no power over anyone's life or anyone's ability to peaceably live it, and I demand as much in return. I am not my brother's lord or keeper, and they are not mine.


You claim that you support the "right to life," and yet you support abortion, and thus you contradict yourself.

That would be either a lie, or a gross misunderstanding of the right to life. A rational view of the right to life does not extend into the womb when a woman wishes to veto the live birth of her fetus. Call it what you will, but the entity that exits in the womb of a woman is different in nature from what exists outside the womb and the difference must be judged accordingly.

In contrast, a living, physically independent human being possessing the unique attributes of human consciousness demands the ability to think and act in furtherance of their own life (or in the case of a born child, the ability to rise to the point where they can to think and act though the care of those who chose to create that child's life).


By defending a woman's choice, including her potentially irrational choices, you advocate moral relativism and/or utilitarianism.

That would be either a lie, or a gross misunderstanding of the basis of a rational code of morality and how it works. Upholding self-interest over codes of religious or collectivist morality is not upholding moral relativism or utilitarianism-it is upholding Objectivism, which is predicated upon perceiving the facts of existence though reason and governing one's personal conduct in accordance with these facts. As Ayn Rand observes:

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good." It is true that capitalism does-if that catch-phrase has any meaning-but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice. [Emphasis mine]

"What Is Capitalism?" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 20.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rand. Justice is the act of giving to each person what that person deserves, and each peaceable person requires the freedom to live a proper human life. In the case of an unborn fetus, it is not yet a person in the true sense of the word and it deserves no special protection against a woman's self-interested wishes for herself and her own life. A woman's life is her alpha and omega and her sovereign judgment over herself must be respected.
And as a corollary of respecting an individual's freedom to make rational choices over their own life, we must not prohibit choices that we may disagree with if these choices do not violate the rights of others. As an example, for some, smoking is a ticket to an early death, while for others, it is one of life's enjoyments worth any risk that the smoker might bear. It is not my place to force my personal estimate of such a choice upon others. I may disagree with a person's private choices and I may declare as much as I have with Sarah Palin, but my primary mission is to defend one's individual freedom over one's own life, and nothing more.

Why? Because my selfish right to make my own rational choices demands as much.


You think that you have the right to "play God" over everyone and/or advocate designer babies.

That would be a lie. I reject any mystical morality that holds that some deity controls the strings of the universe that that we must obey the revealed claims of those who assert that they somehow know this deity's mind. Man is a being of self-made purpose and he must form his own moral code derived from the facts of his existence. He must make and live by his own moral judgments. In this regard, each of us rates the right to be our own lord and master over our own precious lives.

Needless to say, such freedom does not sit well with those who advocate blind allegiance to the wide-eyed mystics of antiquity and who seek a return to primitivism--a time when man had little control over his own nature or the nature of the things around him.


You say that the only moral choice for Sarah Palin was to have an abortion when she discovered she was pregnant with a fetus afflicted with Down syndrome, and thus you deny Palin her right to make her own choice.

This is a lie. I hold that Sarah Palin had every right to make her own choice to carry (or not carry) her pregnancy to term (even if I personally can find no rational reason for her to do so and even if I would not choose to do as she did). Notice however that this is not a right that Sarah Palin is willing to extend to others, and this despite the fact that more than 90% of the women faced with her situation choose to have an abortion by their won will.

People have accused me of playing God and their attention is utterly misdirected; only one person between Sarah Palin and me seeks to lord our own personal and political will against people's most private judgments, and that is Sarah Palin.


You have contempt for the existence of people afflicted with Down syndrome and other genetic disorders and you seek their destruction.

That is a lie. I feel nothing but compassion for the people so afflicted when they are born. I emphasize with those who must contend with the challenges they and those who care for them face. Nevertheless, I defend a woman's moral right to abort her fetus if it is afflicted with such conditions and if the woman decides that it is in her interest to do so. I also support aborting healthy fetuses if a woman decides to have an abortion along similar lines. I simply hold that a woman must be master over her own life and biological processes and I hold her mastery to be absolute.


Abortion has nothing to do with capitalism and your stand is a discredit to capitalism's cause.

Abortion has everything to do with capitalism because capitalism is not just a system of private property and economic liberty; it is a system of rationally identified and validated individual rights. Ayn Rand (the philosopher whose ideas this organization seeks to apply to our social and political relationships) offers the following observation about such rights:

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a "right" pertains only to action-specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive-of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

"What Is Capitalism? Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 19.
The right to have an abortion (or not) is a prime example of the right of a human being to have the freedom to take actions in furtherance of their own life and in affirmation of their own values. Defending such a right is absolutely critical and germane to the advance of capitalism as the only moral social system for mankind.

:: Permalink | 8 Comments ::

 

Capitalism and the Abortion Debate 

:: Posted by C. August at 3:05 PM

During the heated debates over the past week about a woman's moral right to choose abortion, a number of people have asked, "Why is the CAC talking about abortion at all? What does that have to do with capitalism?" This is a reasonable question, though it was often posed in the middle of ranting and sometimes violent tirades.

From: S
... And what has the issue to do with capitalism, anyway? ...

All life should be respected. And if that is not to be honored, I humbly submit that the author of this atrocious article should be deemed of no value and he be first in line.

During this time of national fiscal crisis -- one in which large swaths of the financial system are being nationalized -- why spend time on abortion?

The answer is very simple and clear: individual rights. The protection of individual rights is the fundamental prerequisite for a free capitalist society. This does not mean just some of them. A woman's right to keep the rewards of her productive effort -- her right to property -- is irrevocably tied to her right to her own life, i.e. her right to choose what to do with her own body.

Capitalism is not simply an economic concept that can be divorced from all other areas of life. Capitalism doesn't only describe Wall Street, or the Wal-Mart down the street. Capitalism is a full social system based on the primacy of individual rights. Thus, any attack on individual rights is an attack on the very foundation of our country. A threat to individual rights is a threat to our capitalist society as a whole.

Don't be fooled into thinking the debate is between religious conservatives who supposedly favor free markets but wish to impose their Christian morality in all other areas of life, and progressive liberals who supposedly favor free speech and other civil liberties but wish to socialize the economy in the name of egalitarianism. This is a false dichotomy; you cannot have true "civil liberties" without "economic liberties." The individual rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be upheld piecemeal. We are either free to live our lives in all spheres of action, or we are not.

It is also important to note that although these two "opposite sides" are commonly seen to represent "economic liberties" vs. "civil liberties," in practice, neither side can resist imposing state controls over all aspects of our lives. The Right is currently overseeing the largest nationalization effort in America since the New Deal. The Right is no friend of the free market. Meanwhile, the Left engages in vicious attacks on free speech. The Left is the enemy of any speech it doesn't like.

Thus, the alternative is not a choice between Left and Right, between civil and economic liberties, but between state control over our lives on one side, and full, unabridged freedom of action and thought, of laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights on the other side. This is stated in full recognition of the fact that we do not currently live in such a free society; it has been under attack for well over 100 years and every year brings increasing statism. And yet, it is still the freest country on earth, which makes it all the more important to defend against every encroachment upon our individual rights.

This is why it is not only understandable that the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism would defend the absolute moral right of a woman to choose to abort her fetus based on her own judgment, but it is also vital that we do so. The stakes are high; they represent the very underpinnings of the free capitalist society we hope to achieve.

:: Permalink | 6 Comments ::

 

:: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 ::

My open message to talk show host Barbara Simpson 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 9:37 PM

Yes, Barbara Simpson, there probably was a day when someone "would take a guy like me out in an alley and beat me beyond whatever because they thought I deserved it." There was also a day when women would die from the abortions they had in back alleys because their individual and legal rights were not respected. You and your other "Pro-Life" allies may pine for those days, but as long as I draw breath, as long I am still standing, I will fight you with every fiber of my being.

And if some moron you whipped up into a frenzy does beat me or does kill me as so many who think like you have wished in this past week, I feel secure in guaranteeing you this: thousands will take my place. You and your ilk cannot win here and you will not; not when right and reason are on the side of the good.

:: Permalink | 17 Comments ::

 

Pro-life radio talk show host Barbara Simpson says I should be beaten up 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:03 PM

This comes to me from Jason in Denver:

I thought you should know, if you don't already, that KSFO talk show host Barbara Simpson (a conservative) commented on your pro-abortion article on her radio show in San Francisco.

She is pro-lifer, Catholic, and she writes for WorldNet Daily. She was very negative about your article. In fact she said that you "deserve to be taken out into an alley, and beaten up."

Simpson can be an interesting talk show host, with some correct views, but her comments about you are sickening, and my opinion of her has changed forever.

You can hear her comments online at KSFO560.com. Go to the 7-Day Archives, for Saturday 9-20-08. Click on the 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM hour. Her comments start at about 35-36 minutes into the show. Do listen soon, as they will take down the archive on Saturday 9-27-08.
If this is true (which I have not confirmed), Barbara Simpson (who I don't know from Adam) is human scum who deserves no audience whatsoever. It is one thing to disagree on a political question. It another thing altogether to call for or incite physical violence. And let me make this perfectly clear: this is the disgusting nature of the "Pro-Life" movement in action.

Update: This has been confirmed. After distorting my premise, reading a sentence of mine out of context and equating all abortion with murder, Barbara Simpson says that "there was a day when someone would take somebody like this Provenzo guy out in an alley and beat him beyond whatever. He deserves it."

Here's an MP3 clip of Simpson's rant.

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::

 

Ayn Rand or Objectivism? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 7:25 PM

I noticed in the many comments that have been posted to the blog concerning my abortion posts, a commentator posted a quote that contained a statement by Ayn Rand on the issue. The quote is as follows:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable."

“A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter.
The commenter felt that since even Ayn Rand seems a little bit less than certain abortion in the later stages of pregnancy, perhaps I was overstepping my supposed mandate in affirming the right to abortion up until birth.

I do not agree. I cannot say what Rand's arguments concerning late-term abortion were because she does not flesh them out. Rand certainly lays out the essential point that sacrificing a woman's life to a fetus is vicious (a principle which she also affirmed elsewhere in her writing), but that is the extent of her argument. It would be absolutely improper to allow oneself to become paralyzed by a vague aside and quite frankly, that's not how Objectivism works.

Ayn Rand's contribution to the cause of mankind was the development of a rational philosophy for thinking and acting, not a group of texts for her admirers to slavishly follow like it was the revealed gospel of some lord. As a deeply powerful thinker, Ayn Rand offers volumes of astute observations about the world and its nature. That doesn't absolve those of us who admire her ideas to see the world as it is with our own eyes. I hold that Rand's philosophic system is essential in that identification, but even the merits of Objectivism have to be validated by a person using it for it to be a truly useful tool. There is just no getting around the need to think independently and rationally about the questions of life.

So every now and again, I do come across something that Ayn Rand wrote or said that I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with. These points have been minor and trivial at best, which I think is a powerful statement of Rand's unprecedented accuracy as a thinker. Yet there has never been anything substantive that I have been able to show that was wrong with her philosophic system; quite the contrary, I see a sturdy and stout tool for perceiving reality as it is and acting accordingly. And that's why I choose to use it as such a tool in order to answer my own questions about life and respect her for it. I take Ayn Rand and Objectivism but my loyalty to Ayn Rand and Objectivism is not slavish; it is rational, and there is a world of difference between the two.

:: Permalink | 24 Comments ::

 

Q & A on the Abortion Question 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:25 PM

This note comes to me from Steve C.:

I heard Mr. Provenzo on the Laura Ingraham Show, and although I do not agree with him, I would like to thank him for going on to discuss his views. Knowing Laura I'm sure he had a fair idea of what he would receive, but he went on anyway, and I salute him.

One thing that he mentioned in his interview with her was that he believed that human life begins at birth, or once the baby is out of the birth canal. To me this is a very problematic view, and I would like to ask Mr. Provenzo two questions-

1.) Does location decide worth? It seems to me that the ONLY difference between an unborn child moments before birth, and a child moments after birth is location. Ontologically there is no change. The child's nature hasn't changed- same DNA, same level of development, same physique- only his "home" has changed. So, does human worth depend on our location? ...Also, it must be said, that since the unborn depend on their mother's bodies to survive, this in no way negates their right to full human status. All this shows is that human life's viability is dependent on at least two environments during it's natural existence. To pull a fetus from the womb will kill it as sure as if we held a grown man under the water. In BOTH cases we have pulled a human being from the environment best suited to sustain it's life at that level of development.

2.) Isn't the development of the unborn itself proof of life before birth? To say life begins at birth begs the very question. For the development necessary to bring an unborn to that point is one of the four criteria used to define life. The unborn from conception have all four criteria- metabolism, development, growth, and reproduction (in it's DNA). How can anyone deny the process within the womb as being signs of life, and then affirm the very same process outside the womb? Do not babies continue to develop after birth? ...And isn't this a form of prejudice? Developism? You seem to prefer one set of developmental stages over another purely out of preference.
I thank Steve for his questions and I'm happy to attempt to answer them as I can. To start with his first, I do not argue that a fetus/newborn child's location decides its worth. I say that its location decides its rights.

For example, for a woman who wants nothing more than to have a child, a fetus's worth is inestimable the moment it is first conceived in her womb. In contrast, for woman who does not wish to have a child, a fetus inside her carries no worth.

In this light, I say that it is only the question of individual rights that must concern us. I argue that in the womb and until birth, a woman's right to her own life and her own body supersedes any right of her fetus to be born--that is, if the woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy. A woman assigns worth to both her own live and values and in the case of her pregnancy, that of her fetus. Because we are dealing with a woman's independent body and her own internal processes, a woman's personal evaluation of her life (and her wishes for it) are and must be sovereign.

I think that Steve sees this to a certain degree when he points out that a fetus's existence is dependent upon a woman's body to survive, even if he seeks a different conclusion in respecting the right to choose to have an abortion than I do. In the womb, the fetus is physically dependent upon the woman. A woman must be able to regulate that dependence and shut it down if she judges the needs of her own life to be incompatible with its continued existence.

"Outside the hatch," as I so eloquently put it when I was a guest on the Ingraham show yesterday, the context completely changes. Now giving birth to full-fledged newborn child with a conscious faculty, biological and physical independence, the child enjoys its right to its life and its parents have a moral responsibility to care for the child that they created until it is able to sustain itself.

I think that by reading through my answer, above, one can see why I am not so concerned with the issues Steve raises in his second question. For example, I might not be particularly impressed with a woman who waits until the last moment to abort a healthy fetus absent a particularly compelling cause (such as knowledge of retardation). I might even wonder exactly what such a woman was waiting for in delaying her abortion. Nevertheless, I still and absolutely hold that such a woman has the right to abort her pregnancy; furthermore, if she is acting in her rational self-interest (a far, far more demanding task that many of my opponents consider it to be), I would hold her choice to be fully moral. I hold that rational morality comprises of those choices that advance individual human life without coercion or sacrifice. To deny a woman the right to abort an unwanted fetus would compel her against her will to sacrifice her life in the name of the unborn. I oppose any such attempt with the fiber of my being because no one has the right to coerce another in such a manner, least of all here.

:: Permalink | 9 Comments ::

 

Staring into the Bailout Abyss 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 1:15 PM

I sent this letter to The Wall Street Journal yesterday.

21 September 2008

To the Editor

The Wall Street Journal

New York, NY

(wsj.ltrs@wsj.com)

Editor:

A Kentucky politician remarked, in response to the Federal government’s proposed nationalization of the American economy, that “the free market is dead.” A WSJ front-page headline read, “In Turmoil, Capitalism in U.S. Sets New Course” (Sept. 20-21). The question no one seems to be asking is: Since when has the U.S. ever had a free market, one free of government intervention, or laissez-faire capitalism, one free of government “capital”? Historically, never.

And why is no one asking that question? Because virtually everyone, from the secretary of the Treasury, to the head of the Federal Reserve, to both presidential candidates, to Congress, to the news media, to Wall Street fund managers, to too many denizens of “Main Street,” believes that the government ought to be the bullying gorilla in the marketplace to ensure social or financial equity and justice. Why do so many economic “experts” and politicians believe that? Because they all cling to the idea that the best route to political power and popularity is to offer something for nothing, or for very little, necessarily at someone else’s expense, someone who has no say in the matter. That someone has always been the productive, wealth-accumulating private individual.

Now we have the news media laughably but blithely informing the public that it now owns billions of dollars in bad debt. No, gentlemen and ladies of the anchor desk, the public owns nothing. The government owns the public and will expect it to work hard to erase that “private” debt. This is called fascism, or national socialism.

The recent actions of the Federal government amount to nothing more than panicked regulators and controllers and politicians rushing to stave off, as a friend put it, “reality catching up with unreality,” the unreality of free lunches and low-cost mortgages (which comprise a welfare state within the general welfare state) which must be paid somehow, by someone, at some time. Their actions are also taken to deflect, defer, deny, and postpone justice, whose connection with reality was best dramatized by Ayn Rand in her novel, Atlas Shrugged. And the longer justice is denied, a justice denied ever since the 1960’s, when the welfare state ballooned under Lyndon Johnson, the worse its vengeance will be when reality comes calling.

Don’t blame capitalism for the current crisis. Lay the blame where it belongs: at the feet of the government. Capitalism never promised a free lunch. Our government always has.

Sincerely,

Edward Cline

Yorktown, VA


Of course, I could have gone on for pages - mentioning the Social Security, Medicare, Homeland Security, and other financial scams - or even further back in time beyond the 1960's to the 19th century, but I was afraid I would overload the mind of the letters editor or readers of the WSJ and cause a power-outage. What other things are our political leaders, the news media, the Left and Right not mentioning?

That the scale of the proposed "bailout" is unconstitutional, but the Constitution, limping along as it was long before the current "crisis," is now, for all practical intents and purposes, a dead letter.

That the proposed "bailout" would mean nothing less than the socialist conquest of the American economy, something yearned for by a long line of Democrats, ending most recently with the likes of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, et al.

That, regardless of how soothing and cooperative members of Congress might feel after pushing this conquest through both houses, and how reassured they might feel that they've "done the right thing," the "bailout" will break the spine of the American economy, and precipitate a future and certain collapse.

On another matter, readers will note just how feverish the Democrats are to punish CEOs for their lavish paychecks and severance packages (whether or not these CEO's are overpaid or over-compensated, is a separate issue). You can bet, however, that no Congressman or Senator considers himself overpaid and over-compensated with all his taxpayer-funded medical and other benefits and other perks. I'm waiting to see Matt Lauer or Brian Williams or Charlie Gibson or Bill O'Reilly to throw that hot potato into Obama's or McCain's lap. That is just a rhetorical comment, of course. Neither of them will bring up that subject. Staring into the abyss.

Long Live Lady Liberty!

:: Permalink | 4 Comments ::

 

Peek-a-boo comments problem in Firefox 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:09 AM

I'm working on a fix to solve the problem users have having with slow load times when reading the blog in Firefox. We had put in a script to allow peek-a-boo comments and while this functionality seems to work fine in IE, it doesn't work in Firefox, hence the long load time.

As a temporary fix, I've hidden the comments in my Palin piece as they were the single-largest cause of the long load-time in Firefox (and that was the main reason I decided to turn comments off for that post anyways). We'll bring those comments back live after we get the code straightened out, which will hopefully be later today.

And as always, we apologize to our readers for this snafu.

Update: Fixed the comments problem, but caused another with the wrong text shading . . . we're working on it, but for now, the page should load faster and all the comments are open.

Update II: Everything is all fixed. Sorry for the hassle; like you, I hate slow loading websites and I hate even more that our blog became one of them.

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::

 

:: Monday, September 22, 2008 ::

Pet Your Little Zygote ... Knock Yourself Out 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:06 PM

Our dear conservative freinds at the National Review pointed out that I had some catchy one-liners when I was on the Laura Ingraham Show today, including one that they felt might make a good T-Shirt.

Might? You just can't let inspiration like that pass you by. It is my honor to present to you the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism's First Ever T-Shirt, the "Pet Your Little Zygote ... Knock Yourself Out" special avalible through our CafePress store. Here's the graphic:



And here's the Men's T-shirt. Yup, I know exactly what you are thinking: "Is that just your Zygote, or are you happy to see me?"




And you ladies won't feel left out with our Spaghetti Tee:




And yes, even you Moms to be can get in on the action with our special Maternity Tee:




My view? It's so wrong, it's gotta be right.

:: Permalink | 13 Comments ::

 

Ms. Laura Ingraham: You are an intellectual coward 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:22 PM

Here is an audio stream of my appearance.

Here is a downloadable MP3.

For allowing me the modest opportunity to present my arguments to her listeners, I give Laura Ingraham her due. But for mischaracterizing my position into a straw man, for constantly interrupting me as I attempted to explain my reasoning, for allowing her staff to turn off my mike in our debate (implying that I sat in silent awe while she pontificated), I give Laura Ingraham nothing but my utter contempt. I judge Laura Ingraham to be an intellectual weakling whose main stunt is to bring in a guest on her show for the sole purpose of abusing them in order to aggrandize herself and her followers.

To add to her outrage, Ingraham had the audacity to talk about "elites" such as me dominating our country. I never clerked for a US Supreme Court Justice like she did. I never wrote speeches for a presidential administration like she did. I joined the Marine Corps out of high school to defend my and my country's freedom and to help pay for college. When that money ran out (little as it was), I did things like wash windows to get by. Laura Ingraham shouldn't lecture me about how I'm some sort of out of touch elitist who doesn't understand the problems of real life. I'm well aware of these problems because I've lived through many of them myself.

I've been a guest on countless radio talk shows and I anticipated a rhetorical slug-fest with someone who disagrees with my every view, yet what I received as guest on the Laura Ingraham Show exceeded even my worst expectations. At root, Laura Ingraham is a discredit to civil discourse in this country. She should be nothing but ashamed and appalled for her obnoxious conduct while I was a guest on her show.

:: Permalink | 56 Comments ::

 

Laura Ingraham Show Talking Points 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:55 AM

I stand for three principles here:

  • I stand for the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion under the law because I stand for reason and the principle of individual rights.

  • I stand for the principle that if a woman is acting her rational self-interest, her choice to have an abortion is absolutely proper and moral.

  • I stand for the idea that while a woman has every right to give birth her child without any government interference whatsoever, I see nothing praiseworthy or moral about knowingly bringing a severely retarded fetus to term. I see the decision to give birth in this manner as enshrining needless sacrifice and suffering.


Gov. Sarah Palin
Given Gov. Sarah Palin's choice and her larger anti-abortion stand, I reject that she is some sort of moral exemplar for women and I personaly oppose her holding a position of national power because of the threat she poses to a woman's right to abortion. Palin would deny a woman her right to choose her own happiness as a value. In this light, her stand is loathsome.

Statistics
Roughly 54% of Americans appose abortion in some manner. Most these are adherents of religions that explicitly forbid abortion under any circumstances. Yet when confronted with the tragedy of a pregnancy gone wrong via some sort of genetic disorder, over 90% of women choose to abort their fetuses.

Unenumerated rights:
If it required a Constitutional amendment to outlaw something as trivial as the sale of alcohol in America, it should require a Constitutional amendment to outlaw a woman's right to abortion—and any such proposal would be immoral and must be defeated.

The Pro-Life Lie:
If my inbox stuffed with wishes for my swift torture and death is any indication, the so-called "pro-life" movement is nothing more than utter hypocrisy.

:: Permalink | 4 Comments ::

 

:: Sunday, September 21, 2008 ::

Provenzo to appear on the Laura Ingraham Show 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:00 PM

I am slated to be a guest on the nationally syndicated Laura Ingraham Show at 10:30 AM Monday morning to defend a woman's moral right to have an abortion. Ingraham's show is tied as the fifth highest-rated radio talk show in America. I have been told that my segment will be run approximately 10 to 12 minutes. Ingraham is a staunch opponent of abortion and I expect my appearance to be a hard-fought battle of ideas.

To find a station carrying the broadcast in your area, visit here.

To call the show, dial 1-800-876-4123.

:: Permalink | 8 Comments ::

 

:: Saturday, September 20, 2008 ::

Your Pro-Life Movement in Action 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:14 PM

Below is a sampling of some of the messages that I have received as a result of my public defense of the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's syndrome. I've broken them down into categories (although some could very easily fit in more than one).


I'm Pro-Life, and you need to die or otherwise suffer

Kill the murder advocate!! :

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Jack
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 4:05:54 PM

Comments:

Kill Nicholas Provenzo.
He advocates murder, so let him demonstrate his commitment to his philosophy first hand.
He is an abomination.

Don't feel too bad: I was thinking that your message was pretty outrageous and despicable:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Thomas
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 4:44:58 PM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo's piece on the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down Syndrome is the most outrageous, despicable piece of shit I have ever seen. As is Provenzo. He should hang himself immediately.

'I oppose all abortion, that is, except for you':

MessageType: Problem
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Ms.
FirstName: Addison
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 6:53:57 PM

Comments:

I hate you so bad! Baby Trig is beautiful and all you are is a pathetic loser and probably seriously retarded yourself you sure sound like it. Maybe if your mother aborted you (I wish she'd do it now) wouldn't be so quick to judge you are piece of S#$%.

I actually prefer omelets and women:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Web Site
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Alex
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 8:41:15 PM

Comments:

I bet your mom wishes she aborted you you egg-sucking faggot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If not she's a loser just like you. CHOOSE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'I disagree with you, and you must die for it':

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Gabriel
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 9:03:02 PM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo should experience abortion right now. It would be a relief to society in general to terminate such useless spew!

A new spin on the National Anthem:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Christian
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 10:29:03 PM

Comments:

I just read that Nicholas Pro-bozo thinks that abotuion is "moral" (!!!!) and that innocent babies should be put to death because they aren't as good as him. I think the devel should take a hot pocker and stick it up his ass until he whistles the star spangled banner because he is one sick fuck who needs this badly. Please let me know what I can do to help you all FUCK YOURSELVES and DIE.

What's that up in the sky? It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Palin's baby! :

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: John
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 11:15:52 PM

Comments:

Hey, Provenzo!
When Palin's baby boy grows up and saves your sorry ass from falling off a tall building someday, maybe you'll think differently.

If I had a pipe, I'd hammer in the morning . . .

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Norbert
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 11:25:02 PM

Comments:

please have mr tiller show you how wise your support for abortion is by useing the pipe and hammer on each of you.

Putting my skin to good use since 1969:

MessageType: Praise
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Dustin
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 4:14:44 AM

Comments:

I sincerely petty the emply selfishness of your organazation and your writers such as Nicholas Provenzo regarding his article on Palin's Down Syndrom child. Nicholas is a waste of skin and I hope that should he somehow become mentally or physically disabled that he is disposed of like the piece of trash that he is.

Should Hitler really be referring to himself in the third person? :

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Aldolph
LastName: Hitler
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 7:18:24 AM

Comments:

Hi Nick! You support eugenuics (sp?) and I hope that when you die Hitler and Stalin beat you up for being such a faggot. I bet you like a dick in your mouth and that;s why you are so jealous of Sara Palin because she has a beautiful baby and all you have is your boyfreind's harry dick in your mouth.

Monkey stomped? I never heard of that one before, so bonus to Jeffery for making me laugh:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Jeffrey
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 12:37:10 PM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo wrote the most disgusting article ever about a special needs child. If he had been around while I was reading it, I would have monkey stomped him. He must have been born stupid.

Rock-climbing, anyone?

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname:
FirstName: John
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 12:42:10 PM

Comments:

You should all stick your heads up your ass and jump off a very high cliff.

Unfortunately for you, all my knives are free of rust:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: Our Web Site
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: College
LastName: Politico
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency: Please contact me back
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 2:17:46 PM

Comments:

You're one sick ****. Stop pretending to be a capitalist because that couldn't be further from what you advocate. I demand that you change your name to the center for the advancement of Fascism and eugenics. You make us actual capitalists look horrible.

P.s. I suggest you voluntarily castrate yourself with a rusty knife in order to atone for the sick **** you have spewed.

Miss Susan has a disturbing fantasy life:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Miss
FirstName: Susan
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 3:59:12 PM

Comments:

I think your wirter who thinks that abortion is moral should be held down and gang raped in a Mexican prison and then made to apologize to Gov. Palin for thinking as he does.

So you think I should have been aborted. That's clever:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: Our Web Site
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: John
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 4:19:47 PM

Comments:

I think the world would be better off if people like Provenzo had been aborted! What a waste of human life.

I'm perfect, so kill me:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Other
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Lianna
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 5:51:06 PM

Comments:

I would like to respond to Nicholas Provenzo's statement that Sarah Palin should have aborted her baby, Trig, when she realized that he had Down syndrome. Does he need to be reminded that Hitler got his start by killing the disabled? What civilized society debases itself by killing someone or group of someone's based on physical or mental disability? It is compassion for each other, whatever their perceived short-comings, that sets us apart from barbarians. Does Mr. Provenzo need to be reminded that F.D.R. was unable to walk, that Beethoven couldn't hear, that Einstein was "learning disabled", that Thomas Edison was described by his teacher as "addled",that Joseph Pulitzer and Zohar Sharon were blind? Obviously Mr. Provenzo considers himself to be perfect, and in a position to make the judgment as to whether another human being is qualified to live. I would like an opportunity to assess Mr. Provenzo's disabilities and determine whet!
her his mother made a mistake. Maybe he should be eliminated because of his own disability - to tolerate the imperfections of others.

280 lashes? Ouch! That will draw more blood than two viewings of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Lyle
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 8:35:48 PM

Comments:

Provenzo should receive 280 lashes and left to think about his disgusting article on Sarah Palin having Trig.

Your web site will forever be off limits for my group as long as you allow slimes like Provenzo to write for you.

Another stab at the post-birth abortion:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Web Site
Surname: Miss
FirstName: Ida
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 8:45:43 AM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo should be aborted post birth, since he obviously is mentally challenged!

What an idiot! He should be fired and assigned to the ranks of the jobless ad infinitem! He is worse than any Nazi who ever lived and would be confortable in the death camps of the past. His article on Trig Palin is the most revolting, vicious example of the culture of death that is growing in our society that I have ever seen!

Defenestration . . . now that's doing it old-school:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Bill
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 9:17:23 AM

Comments:

I think Nicholas Provenzo should be thrown out a window of an exceptionaly tall building because abortion is murder and he is a Godless puke who has anal sex with his mother.

Another note for Mom:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Warren
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 10:54:14 AM

Comments:

Mr. Provenza's article on Ms. Palin's decision to keep her Downs baby shows arrogance at it's worse. Perhaps his parents would have been wise to have done what Sarah Palin didn't do.

For some reason, everybody hates the red-haired kids:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Craig
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 1:09:12 PM

Comments:

I would personally euthanize Mr. Provenzano (sic) just because he's an annoying asshole who thinks his opinion on such matters even needs to be heard ! Let's go through his entire family and take out his pedophile father, his fat, drunken mother, his red haired whore sister, and his crackhead gay brother, too! Again, what an asshole!!!!!

All life should be respected, but if not, DIE!:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname:
FirstName: S
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 3:51:23 PM

Comments:

Your premise that Down Syndrome babies, and Sarah Palin's baby in particular,should be aborted, is definitely not shared by me. And what has the issue to do with capitalism, anyway?
Eugenics is the beginning of the breakdown of civilized society. From this springboard all life is subject to 'someone's' decision that 'anyone's' life has no value and should be terminated.
All life should be respected. And if that is not to be honored, I humbly submit that the author of this atrocious article should be deemed of no value and he be first in line.

I'll never forgive the Coen brothers for Fargo:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Lawrence
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 6:15:16 PM

Comments:

Why don't mr provenzo stick his head inside a wood chipper and see if ths blades are turning properly. 1 idiot gone one trig alive and doing well.
bandit30286
OK, but just what is Jessie Jackson's method? :


MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Organization
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: barack
LastName: obama
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency: Please contact me back
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 10:05:42 PM

Comments:

coming after nicholas provenzo. if he is so set on murder he will beg for life. jessie jackson's method is what he needs

Is it OK if we sit in a semi-circle? :


MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname:
FirstName: rob
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 10:07:38 PM

Comments:

You people need to sit around in a circle and shoot yourselves in the head

Encounters Wanted:

MessageType: Praise
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Ms.
FirstName: bob
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency: Please contact me back
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 10:08:00 PM

Comments:

you are a son of a bitch. do you want to meet me in person?

Yet another chance to savor the irony:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname:
FirstName: you
LastName: should
Email: havebeenaborted@aol.com
Urgency:
Date: 09/20/2008
Time: 1:43:22 PM

Comments:

You should have been aborted. How rude to talk about Palin's son like that.

Via email:

Because abortion=euthanasia:

I have a better idea..........since 1999 I suffer from a variation of Lou Gehrig's disease that has put me in a motorized wheelchair........ and I know that if people like you ever got power I would be euthanized....

Do the world and specially the USA a bigfavor......

KILL YOURSELF YOU ASSWIPE!!!!!!

Bernard [Redacted]

p.s. I sent that e-mail without any help.... I can still wipe my own ass........

If you're a Nazi and you know it, clap your hands

Geeze. Even Heinrich Himmler calls me a swine. Can't a guy get a break? :

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Heinrich
LastName: Himmler
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 5:03:23 PM

Comments:

Nazi swine.

The long, long shadow of the Third Reich:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Web Site
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Ken
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency: Please contact me back
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 9:08:37 PM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo so conveniently dimisses life with the excuses that the Nazi's used as well as any and every other society that thinks the old, retarded or handicapped should be exterminated.
Here is my thought, what about the stupid? I'm certain that Mr. Provenzo qualifies there, shouldn't that be a consideration now? What about religion? What about potential employment?
Do yourselves a favor and terminate his employment as that kind of tripe can be found in a pig pen so why pay someone to 'write' it?

This guy has a lot on his mind, not all of it sane:


MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Stephen
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 12:12:14 AM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo

When did Mr.Provenzo join the Schutzstaffel? OMG ,Himmer, Heydrich and Eichmann would be so proud of him, not to mention Der Fuhrer himself.
Sarah Palin should have EXTERMINATED her baby????? How about giving all the retards and mentally ill a final bus ride? You should call yourself the Center for the Advancement of National Socialism and Aryan Eugenics. By the way, I see how well Capitalism is advancing now courtesy of PUBLIC money doled out by the PRIVATE Federal Reserve to the greedy, greasy thumbed, shysters, swindlers and chislers of Wall Street and the Banking Industry. I see how Capitalism has advanced itself...inflate the prices of tract homes to astronomical levels, courtesy of the crooked mortgage industry and its phoney appraisers. Induce the suckers who own these homes to refinance, after all it's "free money" isn't it? As each carnivore up the food chain gets his fees, then sell the phoney paper overseas. The CEO gets his "golden parachute" and the company collapses along with housing prices, not to worry though, Uncle Ben will step in and "rescue" the collapsin!
g firm with public capital. Don't get me wrong boys, I'm no Marxist, but capitalism needs to be WELL REGULATED like nuclear energy. It's just that we pulled out all the damper rods and now we're heading for critical mass and then KABOOM!! Really though, Provenzo went way over the top with his Palin comments. ANARCHISM- the theory that all forms of government and regulation are oppressive and should be abolished.

My poor, poor mother:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Ms.
FirstName: Alice
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]Urgency: Please contact me back
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 9:06:44 AM

Comments:

Mr. Provenzo is a sick person for his attack on Govrnor Palin and baby Trig. After all, Mr. Provenzo's mother had him, and he has turned out to be a useless, callous, cold creep. Dr. Mengele would be proud of Mr. Provenzo. shame, shame, shame on him and on you!
It's shark week at the Rule of Reason:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Clint
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 9:44:29 AM

Comments:

Damn shame that Nicholas Provenzo's parents didn't abort him. That Nazi should be should be shot and his body fed to the sharks. As the parent of a special needs child, my life has been enriched and I have been transformed into a much better, enlightened person. Provenzo is a typical elitist. What a total prick.

I wonder just what are the zoning requirements for a Nazi death camp:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: A.
LastName: P.
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 10:12:45 AM

Comments:

You folks aren't libertarians, you are NAZIs! An important component to liberty is life. Advocating murder is anti-libertarian. As long as NAZI killmonger Nicholas Provenzo ia on your staff, the so called Center for the Advancement of Capitalism is nothing but a vile, NAZI death camp, fringe group. Provenzo's comments are vile and disgusting and you folks should fire the the guy and then help him seek mental health treatment that he desperately needs.

You're excused:

MessageType: Praise
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Donald
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 10:48:22 AM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo's article about Gov. Palin's choosing to keep her baby, Trig, is a beautiful article. I never dreamed that eugenics was alive and well in this country. Heil Hitler! He sure would agree with his statements. Excuse me while I go vomit!

Everything's a fracking syndrome these days :

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Collin
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 4:13:10 PM

Comments:

It's too bad there isn't a way to screen the unborn for Nazi-eugenicist pig syndrome. If anyone deserved to be aborted it would be the sub-human who would suggest that Down syndrome babies should be killed. That goes double for "anything goes" amoral Libertarians. However, since it is God, and God alone who gives life, and God and God alone who has the authority to take life, Nicholas Provenzo should be thanking Him that he wasn't given to a mother who would abort him.


Yes, madam, just what are we coming to??? :

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Christine
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 8:25:40 AM

Comments:

Mr. Provenzo's hideous comments are waking up Americans to what true proabortionists actually think. This is a service that he is exposing the very nazi like philosophy he espouses. "She had a duty"? to kill her down syndrome child? Maybe we have a duty to execute men like Mr. Provenzo who would turn our society into the godless nazi socialist state that would execute all 'the useless eaters'. What are we coming to that this man felt he could express such garbage in a public forum and not be despised?

I am the mother of two special needs adopted children. I suppose Mr. Provenzo would have had her killed if only he had known. What a piece of human debris he is. What an evil man. Ayn Rand must have been a bitch, and Provenzo is an abomination, a wart on the public discussion. The man gives a bad name to capitalism, which I have always felt is the best economic system in the world. I still do. Change the name of your institution or change your policies.

Christine Helrigel
Signal Mountain, TN

That will save on the bandwidth costs, for sure:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Scott
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 8:48:23 AM

Comments:

So, I understand from Provenzo's article that this organization is now dedicated to the Nazi-ish idea of eugenics. Well folks, you just lost my readership, and the readership of thousands I would imagine. Fire Provenzo, ban him from ever returning, and to make up for it do a series of articles on the value of life, and maybe I'll read again. Maybe not, but maybe. What a terrible thing. Shame on you all.

Live under a bridge to nowhere? I thought Palin put the kabash on that one:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Al
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 9:56:48 AM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo is a stark, raving leftover from Nazi Germany! He would been high on Hitler's staff, as a facilitator of Biological Purity! He's a raving maniac, who should be fired and made to live under a bridge to no-where. A member of the human race, he is certainly NOT!

I strongly urge you to get rid of him...he's no speaker for libertarian principles, and is enough to grease the skids of that political party, by association.

Amazed,

Al [Redacted]

And just what were those good ideas?

MessageType: Problem
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Ms.
FirstName: Lisimba
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 1:36:58 PM

Comments:

Please tell Mr. Provenzo that he is no different that Hitler except he is an even bigger loser and while Hitler had at least some good ideas he dosen't have any at all.

Seriously. Just what is it about the people with red hair?

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Sharon
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 2:55:06 PM

Comments:

You do not have the right to decide who lives or dies! Abortion is murder. what is next? Lets kill everyone who has red hair!

You are a really big first class Nazi!

So abortion is ok if it prevents abortion?

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: David
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency: Please contact me back
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 6:28:11 PM

Comments:

As a parent of a special needs young adult, I am thankful that Hitler's agenda died with him--it is ashamed that your mother did not abort you and save us the trouble of having to fight the same war again that was fought against the Nazi regime.

Let me tell you what troubles me:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: James
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 9:29:41 PM

Comments:

Mr. Provenzo would fit right in if he were able to go back to WWII days in Germany to practice his philosophy of death to all imperfect humans such as Trig Palin. Hitler would have embraced Provenzo warmly. I find it troubling that our society has bred such evil thinking individuals as he is.

Another ode to my Hitler-esq aspirations:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname:
FirstName: C.
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/20/2008
Time: 1:25:08 AM

Comments:

I am alarmed and disgusted that Nicholas Proenzo condemed Sarah Palin for the birth of their Down syndrome baby! What part of murder doesn't he understand? Killing a human being is just that.........murder. In addition, what business of his is the birth of their own child?? Sounds like an aspiring Hitler to me. Vile!


It is you, Sir, who are mentally disabled

Is that your medical opinion there Kathy?

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Kathy
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 8:56:58 PM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo's remarks concerning Gov. Palin's choice to have her child is disgusting. Her child's disability is no comparison to Mr Provenzo's obvious disability. Good thing his mother chose life, huh?

Seems to me that you don't have a clue:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname:
FirstName: Kelly
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 9:16:36 AM

Comments:

Disgusting. Maybe the writer of the article regarding Sarah Palin's baby should have been aborted to save us from having to read such hateful opinions about babies born with disabilities. Seems to me, his ( Nicholas Provenzo's) disability far exceeds being born with Down Syndrome.


God Will Judge You Most Assuredly

I feel more sorry for the women who could lose their freedom to make their own choices:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Jeff
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 10:48:48 PM

Comments:

I feel sorry for Mr. Provenzo. Our world would be much better off if he had never been bron. But we must remember that vengeance belongs to the Lord. I really feel sorry for Mr. Provenzo for the day that he stands before God in judgement.

And I had managed to go so far in life without being guilty of murder:

MessageType: Problem
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: none
LastName: bussness
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 10:57:08 PM

Comments:

Anybody who promotes abortion is guilty of murder. God will have his justice on you and your punishment will be eternal. Do you really want to spend eternity in Hell? You need to get right quick or it's gonna be Hellfire for you. I will pray for you though even though you don't deserve it.

I'm more concerned about the women who would lose their freedom:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Other
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: C
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 11:03:18 PM

Comments:

What part of the underworld are you deriving your gall and outright barbarian remarks toward a woman that "chooses" to give LIFE to a baby with down syndrome? There are multitudes of children born every day with maladies ranging from cleft palate to club feet...are they next?
One day, my friends, you will stand before God and give an account of your life (one that was extended by your mother that you seek to deprive from another) and the utterly callous disregard for a human made in God's image. God have mercy on your soul..more than you can muster for "the least of these".

Part of the freedom of being an American is the right to make your own decisions (except that is, when it comes to abortion) :

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Sue
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 11:24:59 PM

Comments:

Re: the following

"Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome," Provenzo writes.

"Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny," he adds."

Mr. Provenzo - you are sick. Who died and made you God? Part of the freedom of being an American is the right to make your own decisions. I really don't think the Palins (or anybody else) really care what you think about their new son. There is NO 'morality' associated with killing an innocent human life. We can only wish that YOUR mother had aborted YOU, then you wouldn't be here spouting garbage and trying to spread your sick philosophy. May God have mercy on your twisted soul. You liberals will sink to the depths of hell trying to smear Governor Palin. I sincerely hope it backfires on you.

I do find the Bible plenty shocking, but for different reasons:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: larry
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/17/2008
Time: 11:44:39 PM

Comments:

You sir, and those with your view of murdering the unborn, will stand before our creator, God in heaven, and give an account for those murders. May God have mercy on your soul. I would pray that you would repent of those sins and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you do not believe in Jesus, I would invite you to do a little studying on Bible prophecy for the end of days. It will shock you how accurate the Bible is in having predicted the geopolitical make up of the world in these last days.

If you can see me fry in Hell, just where exactly is your vantage point?

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Debra
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency: Please contact me back
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 2:20:39 AM

Comments:

The fact that you, through Provenzo, can even suggest Governor Palin made the wrong decision by choosing not to abort her baby is appalling. How the hell can you even entertain the idea that you are dedicated to advancing individual rights when you denounce someone for doing what you deem wrong. Hypocrite is what you are and you do not stand for freedom of the individual so quit lying and saying that you do. My God, what an arrogant piece of crap you are. Communist agenda is what you are pushing. I support Governor Palin's decision to have her baby and I firmly believe the reason you are so against her is because she represents something you do not have and never will have..........she has morals and ethics and a firm belief in God........like those of us who will see you fry in Hell where you belong.

I don't know if you can perform an abortion on yourself but this guy makes a strong case for self-inflicted lobotomies:


MessageType: Problem
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Kyle
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 2:32:04 AM

Comments:

If Probenzo thinks abortion is so great why doesn't he perform one on himself LOL! I'd watch to see that one (not!)

PS: Please tell him to get right with Jesus and accept him as his Lord and Savior.

If Satanic forces have deeply embedded themselves in my brain, am I really to blame for it?

MessageType:
Subject: Our Web Site
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Christopher O
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 8:24:41 AM

Comments:

I have two beautiful cerebral palsied children who are very productive and have families of their own. Your selfish evil comments can only be attributed to Satanic forces that are deeply embedded in your brain. May God have mercy on your sick soul.

Sincerely,
Christopher Landreneau

The all caps in "HELL" sure makes this argument stand out. HELL!! :

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Edward
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 9:02:36 AM

Comments:

Your fool leader - Provenzo - will find himself in HELL for advocating the murder of God's children. The bible tells us that God will especially punish those who kill or hurt his little children. This means all those who cvarry out or push for abortions. Hell is forever, not the short time we have on earth. Consider, you do not have to believe in God to receive his punishment - it will come. After earthly death comes the judgement

More all caps to help me "bone up" :

MessageType:
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: MARY
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 11:42:48 AM

Comments:

YOU, MR. PROVENZO ARE AN ASS!!! HOW DARE YOU TO DEMAND THAT THE PALIN'S ABORT THEIR CHILD. WHO GAVE YOU THIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHO LIVES OR DIES. YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK! SOMEDAY YOU WILL HAVE TO MEET YOUR MAKER AND YOU BETTER BE BONING UP ON YOUR ANSWERS.

Hmmmm . . . Ed Cline does smoke after all:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Mary
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 1:59:40 PM

Comments:

This is a condemnation of Nicholas Provenzo's attack on Sarah Palin for not aborting her child. It is obvious that the smoke of Satan has entered your organization. How else could anyone promote the deliberate killing of an innocent, defenseless human being because he or she may be disabled. Will you now logically progress to the killing of all the Down Syndrome persons of all ages now alive? And then on to all the disabled persons? May God have mercy on us!

Abortions, abortions, get 'em while you can, two for one special:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Ms.
FirstName: a
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/18/2008
Time: 10:06:51 PM

Comments:

The article condemning Gov. Palin for NOT aborting her Down Syndrome baby is the most horrendous opinion of human life and worth I have ever read. Past proponents allowed that abortion was a tragedy-yes-but an altogether necessary one. You however have gone one step further and revealed the true vileness of your hearts condition - that of being nothing more than an incredibly selfish promoter of murder of others who inconvenience YOUR lifestyle in any way, shape, or form. I am sure you also promote support of abortion if in any capitalistic way you can "turn a buck"!!! The blood on your unbelievably wicked hands as promoter of such a view will most certainly damn your eternal soul to an everlasting hell far worse than the life you wish to thrust on others unless you come to your senses and repent. Each conceived lifes' inalienable right to life comes from the hand of God, and no one has the right to take it from Gods' hand, (even IF they exersize the power !
to do so). To defend the weak, and helpless (even such a worthless one as you have made yours' to be) is the most noble, and highest aspiration of man.

You pagans, you:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: Our Web Site
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Jeff & Kathy
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 6:32:28 AM

Comments:

Ancient cultures would take deficient babies up to the top of mountains and temples and throw them down (abort) for sacrifices. They did not have the medical advancements that enabled them to extract babies from the womb, or to suck their brains through a syringe and then flush them down a toliet. You pagans at The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism think in the same sick immoral way.
Governor Palin made a moral choice to love her special needs baby boy and you have the nerve to dispute her decision.
You sick liberals need to change your organiztions title to "The Center for the Advancement of Satanism".

But can I speak like a true anti-Christ without the 666 birthmark? I mean, it's in all the movies:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Nancy
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 9:55:08 AM

Comments:

On the condemnation of Sarah Palin and her husband's decision to give life to their baby, Trig, who has Down's Syndrome.
God protected this authors right to life and yet he would deny that right to others. Now that is a REAL reason to be condemned. The mother of this person could have chosen abortion. She did not. Please God forgive Nicholas Provenzo. He has spoken like a true anti Christ.

I admire Charles' directness :

MessageType:
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Charles
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 12:00:40 PM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo
Libertarian Group Condemns Sarah Palin for Not Killing Disabled Baby in Abortion

I DON'T WANT ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANY OF YOU BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR YOUR DESPICABLE VIEW POINTS. MAY YOU GO "TO HELL"..!!

Jennifer here says that retardation is a gift from God, and I'm bad for pointing out that this is the worship of retardation:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Jennifer
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 1:02:52 PM

Comments:

I am appalled by the remarks made about Governor Palin in that she should have aborted her youngest instead of allowing him to be born. What is wrong with this person? Has this person no humanity or compassion? All babies are gifts from Almighty God and human beings have no right to destroy what He has decreed to be created. I think Governor Palin did the right thing. Down syndrome is not a death sentence, children born with this disorder are sent here from God to reteach mankind how to have compassion and love for their fellow human beings. To say that they should not be born at all, is cruel and deprives society of lovely human beings. So what if they have challenges, challenges are a part of life and God's tests of faithfulness to His teachings, whether you call Him by Almighty God, Creator, Allah, Father, Heavenly Father, these terms mean all the same thing. For shame and I feel really sorry for that commentor's immortal soul that is almost certain to go into the!
Hellfire at the Day of Judgment if he does not repent of this evil statement.

Damn it, I can't find my teeth:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Fuck
LastName: You
Email: assholesareu@aol.com
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 1:56:32 PM

Comments:

Why would your put your ass out for all to see in respect to Mrs. Palins choice to give birth to her child with DS. Go away, put your teeth back in, having a child with DS is like having an angel. Good luck with your twisted views. You and yours with those views will burn in hell for your beliefs.

What kills me is that there are people out there who would actually respond to this kind of argument:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Hank
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 9:15:51 PM

Comments:

Reportedly, Nicholas Provenzo has witten an article condemning Gov. Sarah Palin for giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child. I urge you to become familiar with God's word which is the Holy Bible. Children are a blessing from God and one day all people will bow to God, and will be
judged by God. Some will be chosen to spend eternity in paradise with God and others will be cast into Hell to spend eternity. Hell is a place of continuous torment (never-ending) prepared for the devil and his angels and all who deny God. Please reconsider your stand on abortion and seek Jesus as your saviour before it is too late.

I already live in a country that agrees with my philosophy. It's America and here, a woman's moral choice to abort her fetus is absolutely legal—that is, at least for now:

MessageType: Suggestion
Subject: Our Philosophy
Surname:
FirstName: Sharon
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/19/2008
Time: 10:29:05 PM

Comments:

Why don't you and your ilk move to a country that agrees with your philosophy? Your recommendation to murder an unborn child sickens me...
As far as getting in touch with me, I would rather you spend time asking Almighty God our Saviour Jesus to forgive you.

Turn that screw! :

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Mary
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/20/2008
Time: 6:58:38 AM

Comments:

Nicholas Provenzo claims that a mother has a moral right to abort her baby if it has Down's Syndrome if that is what she wants to do. I believe he is advocating Nazi-style eugenics. Every baby is a gift from God, even if it suffers from retardation and no one has the right to play God, least of all Mr. Provenzo.

Since Provenzo's opinions on a woman's right to commit murder are utterly beneath contempt, I'll only say this: evisceration in the womb would have been good a fate for the likes of him, but since it's too late for that, let's just say that when God finally gives him the justice he deserves for his wretched life, I hope He turns the screws just that much harder.
I'd respond by saying I only subscribe to a rational morality and not the mystical ravings of the nomadic sheep-herders of antiquity.

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: An Article or Essay
Surname: Mr.
FirstName: Greg
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/20/2008
Time: 1:35:07 PM

Comments:

Relative to Nicholas Provenzo's comment about the "morality" of aborting an unborn baby with Down Syndrome, I am wondering to what moral authority he is appealing?

There is only ONE moral authority and that is God our Creator. Any other set of "morals" are of man and therefore relativist. One could just as easily establish a set of "morals" that make it permissable to kill someone who writes articles that are contrary to their own personally held beliefs. How would Mr. Provenzo respond?

Yeah, for putting up with the likes of you, I'm no coward:

MessageType: Complaint
Subject: A Member of Our Staff
Surname: Mrs.
FirstName: Kris
LastName: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
Urgency:
Date: 09/20/2008
Time: 1:38:28 PM

Comments:

The comment that Nicholas Provenzo made regarding the birth of Trig Palin is absolutely atrotrious. Is this man a devil is disguise? How can anyone with any heart and soul say that a child born with Down Sydromes should be killed in-utero? This man should look into this little boy's eyes first, and then make his comment. He is a coward in every sense of the word because anyone with any degree of compassion in them would see that little boy for the remarkable person that he is. Provenzo should be FIRED for making such a stupid and idiotic statment...he should also be checked over in a mental institution. I think he has lost not only his soul but his mind as well.

:: Permalink | 20 Comments ::

 

 

» Recent Posts

» Not Travels With My Aunt
» George Bailey, Global “Equalizer”
» My Own “Enemies List”
» Montessori Made Easy
» Obama’s Tribal Warfare Agenda
» The Turkey Was a Racist
» A Rational Scrutiny Sampler
» The Transparency of Obama’s Malignity
» The Annotated Woodrow Wilson
» Hollywood: Snowshoes vs. Hockey Sticks

» 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
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
Thrutch
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


SPONSORED LINKS


 

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