Video of Mitt Romney stating his utter contempt for half the country

And, here I thought that Paul Ryan was the big Ayn Rand fan, but here's video of Romney making it clear that he thinks that 47% of all American citizens are moochers and parasites.

Via Mother Jones:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.  

[snip]  

[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Wow! Just wow.

It's pretty much every negative right wing cliche about Obama voters and we common folk that you hear on FOX. And, pretty much everything you thought Mitt Romney really thought about the 99% -- the stuff that would sometimes slip out in his gaffes.

Like me, you may have already seen some of the video from this event making its way round the internet, but it hadn't been verified. Apparently, David Corn was able to vet it. There's much, much more at Mother Jones (and they promise more still).

Here's the Obama Campaign's reaction (via email):

STATEMENT ON ROMNEY’S BEHIND CLOSED DOORS REMARKS  

CHICAGO – “It's shocking that a candidate for President of the United States would go behind closed doors and declare to a group of wealthy donors that half the American people view themselves as ‘victims,’ entitled to handouts, and are unwilling to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their lives. It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.”– Jim Messina, Obama for America Campaign Manager

More On Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand's getting a lot of press these days. What I find intriguing is the many many ways in which Rand's a hero (heroin?) to the right. And yet there were so many many ways in which she's not of the right. For instance in the past few days there was this by Michael Gerson of the Washington Post:

The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.

Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”

But that's just some writer writing about Rand. They may be some liberal whack job taking her ideas out of context. Maybe the writer's a jealous Lyndon Larouche follower. Who knows?

What do we find if we dive head-first into the crystal clear waters of Objectivism?

Among other things, we find this:

Roe v. Wade is right in its result, but dangerously wrong in its reasoning. Roe v. Wade is correct in its conclusion that a fetus has no rights and that a woman has the right to determine whether or not to abort her pregnancy. But Roe v. Wade is wrong insofar as it holds that "state interests" justify interference with the woman's right and that, when the state so desires, it may commandeer her body either for her supposed benefit or the benefit of a fetus.

The problem, the writer goes on to say, is found in "balancing" rights against "state interests" as in:

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away. Ayn Rand has explained: "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." The moral standard to be applied, Ayn Rand has shown, is that of man's life and what is "required by man's nature for his proper survival." The fundamental condition for man's survival--the freedom to use his rational faculty to maintain and enjoy his life. Thus, a pregnant woman, like every other individual, has the right to determine her own destiny and the destiny of her body, to choose what constitutes her own best interest and private happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as she respects the same rights in others.

And what of the rights of the fetus? Pro-life Objectivists must be surprised to read:

The concept of rights is based on man's nature and presupposes the existence of an actual, fully formed and separate human being. Fetuses and embryos are not actual human beings; they are potential human beings. They have no rights until they exist apart from the mother, i.e., at birth.

To Ayn Rand abortion is an absolute right that can not be balanced away to any state interest. A woman has absolute right to determine the destiny of her own body and any fetus she may be carrying has no rights at all until it is born.

Imagine if the Secretary of State or the First Lady said exactly the same thing. Fox "News" would never tire of pointing out the radical anti-family philosophy of either.

So tell me again why Rand's such a darling of the right? No really, I am serious.

More Tales From Teh Tea Party Crazie

This time it's Rand Paul.

Via the Huffingtonpost, we find this from a blog called Barefoot and Progressive:


From Huffingtonpost:

Is Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul a creationist?

Last week, Paul spoke at a conference for the Christian Home Educators of Kentucky at a Louisville church where he dodged a question about the age of the earth and expressed skepticism about faith-based programs.

The first question during the Q&A was from a man who asked a two-part question, including how old Paul believed the world was.

"I forgot to say I was only taking easy questions," Paul joked, adding: "I'm going to pass on the age of the Earth. I'm just going to have to pass."

Barefoot and Progressive tracks down the Christian Home Educators of Kentucky and finds that one of the group's objectives is to:

Protect children from mental physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by secular humanists in a socialist society or governmental system.

Though they never actually get around (as far as I could see) to describing exactly all that means.

Back to Huffington:

Andrew Willis of Elizabethtown, who teaches his four children at home, said he hoped Paul's answer would jive with his own belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old.

"I'm not at all surprised that he didn't want to answer that question," Willis said shortly after posing it. "I know that is hugely controversial."

How is it controversial? Either you accept the science of radiometric dating or you don't. If you don't then the burden is on you to explain how the data points to an Earth 4 billion years old but the truth is something else.

Fun fact about Rand Paul. He was named after Ayn Rand. Rand Paul is pro-life.

Ayn Rand was not. From the Ayn Rand lexicon:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Now that's a surprise, isn't it?

Yo. This One's For All The Young Conservatives

Fear not movement conservatives, Stiltz and Serious C are here for you.

From their website:

Stiltz & Serious C are a duo from Dartmouth College and co-founders of the thriving Young Conservatives Facebook group. In a day where conservatives are seen as close-minded and archaic, these fresh hip hop artists bring a new perspective to a long-standing philosophy. They are a bastion of progress in the liberal recesses of the northeast, throwing down their message amidst much adversity. Instead of sinking into the assemblage of the self satisfied, Stiltz & Serious C challenge our hearts and minds with lyrics that makes us think about the current evolution of our American society. The mile-high beats of Josh Riddle collide with the eastern flow of David Rufful to produce a dynamic fusion of hip-hop and a real, profound conservative message.

I am not kidding. Here is their facebook page.

And here is their Anthem:


Where they Serious C raps:

Phase me, make me, into something that ain’t me
Serious c... can’t nobody shake me
great like the Gatsby, poppin posers like acne
Don't matter if your gay, straight, Christian or Muslim
There's one thing we all hate, called socialism.
It's loathsome, and America ain’t the outcome,
Raise taxes on the people,
And you’re gonna feel symptoms, problems
I gotta message for a young con:
superman that socialism,
waterboard that terrorism

Uh, wasn't Jay Gatsby (Serious C's reference above) a criminal who was obsessed with another man's wife? How many commandments has Gatsby broken before he is killed at the end of Fitzgerald's great novel?

How is that a good role model for young conservatives?

In any event, waterboarding is still torture and it's still illegal.

Stiltz has this to say:

Three things taught me conservative love:
Jesus, Ronald Reagan, plus Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged? But elsewhere Serious C raps:

I hate when,
government dictatin, makin, statements, bout how to be a merchant,
How to run a restaurant, how to lay the pavement
Bailout a business, but can't protect an infant

But doesn't the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights declare that abortion is an "absolute" right?

Why yes, it does:

Roe v. Wade is correct in its conclusion that a fetus has no rights and that a woman has the right to determine whether or not to abort her pregnancy.

And didn't Rand herself write:

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

I'm just asking.

Maybe the Young Cons should reread their Ayn Rand as well as their F. Scott Fitzgerald.

(H/T to HuffingtonPost)

Going Galt! (maybe next week)

Pandagon notes that even the blogger for Going John Galt hasn't managed to get around to going galt. These guys are just like Texas -- secede already!

And, their post gives me an excuse to put up a graphic that I did back in March but never got around to using here. I give you Going Galt! magazine:


(Click for larger image)
.