Side altar at the Antoniter church, 1935
“Each summer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas invites his four new law clerks to his home to watch a movie.
Not just any movie, but the 1949 film version of the classic of libertarian conservatism, Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.”
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/harlan-crow-purchase-properties-clarence-thomas-report-ii387j7r
Justice Thomas.is a huge fan of Ayn Rand and the book Fountainhead. The protagonist blows up the Cortlandt building, because Liberal Socialist Do-gooders added their crap to his original vision – and ruined his philosophy of life – that the Christian-right has adopted. Clarence would invite law students to view this movie with him because it is all about INDIVIDUALISM. After Obama won the Presidency, the Christian Think Tanks got to work, and depicted the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT as Howard Roark’s evil nemesis, Ellsworth Toohey.. Nancy Pelosi is Mrs. Toohey. Obamacare was pure Toohey Evil that had been attached to our Capitol and Supreme Court – and had to be removed – even if it meant blowing up these buildings!
“Release the Kraken!”
Capitalism has always had a difficult time with JESUS THE TRIBAL SOCIALST. Our Founding Fathers struggled with this. They did not set black slaves free – or give women the right to vote. Why? Because they didn’t want to throw out their Roman Capitalist Ways. Jesus was depicted as a Rebel who bucked the socialist tribal system of laws – and created a Democracy.
“Let my people go – and make money!”
When Jesus overturn the money lending tables, he designed the first Stock Exchange. This is why he was arrested – and murdered!
Did Ginni Thomas see her husband as a rugged Jesus Individualist? How about Harlan Crow – and John Eastman – who might know about the Supreme Remodel Job on Ginnis mother-in-law’s house, where she only got a new carport. Why not a brand new – TWO CAR GARAGE? My question will be the downfall of the Christian Nationalists, because the only answer can be…..IT WOULD BE TOO CONSPICUOUSE! Followers of the Socialist Satanic Obama Cult would ask questions.
THEY HATE BILLIONAIRES AND CAPITALISM!
When you got a hundred billion bucks, of course you WANT CHANGE! Harlan Crow said he was just making a MONUMENT to the second black member of the Supreme Court. Did Crow give any money to help enhance The Legacy of the First Black President – who can be compared to Howard Roark by sane and loyal Americans. Here is the motive for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
The world is watching our vital fight For Liberty and Justice For All! Consider the changes in Israel that was founded by Socialist who gave God’s People FREE MEDICINE. Is abortion legal in Israel?
John Presco
Presidnt: Royal Rosamond Press
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/harlan-crow-purchase-properties-clarence-thomas-report-ii387j7r
Both Thomas and Crow have released statements downplaying the significance of the gifts, with Thomas maintaining that he was not required to disclose the trips. Crow responded to the latest disclosure with a statement to ProPublica saying that he approached Thomas about the purchase with an eye on honoring his legacy.
“My intention is to one day create a public museum at the Thomas home dedicated to telling the story of our nation’s second black Supreme Court Justice,” the statement said. “Justice Thomas’s story represents the best of America.”
Ayn Rand was very big on the concept of one individual “surrendering” to another (in her books, it is always depicted as the woman surrendering to the man, as Ayn Rand typically depicts men as superior – feminists be damned). Ergo, I believe it was consensual, even though it is called rape. (Rand herself even referred to the scene as “if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation.”) I do not deny and, rather, assert that anytime someone does something to another with force that they don’t want, it is a crime against the victim. However, clearly, that cannot be considered the case here. Ayn Rand put the rape on a pedestal, esteeming the ownership and associated “surrender” with high self-esteem. Dominique wanted the sex, she wanted the sex violent, and she wanted the sexual fantasy exactly the way Roark delivered it.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform
Israeli Supreme Court and judicial review
Under Israel’s current constitutional framework, all legislation, government orders, and administrative actions of state bodies are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power to strike down legislation and reverse executive decisions it determines to be in violation of Israel’s Basic Laws.[6][17]
This role of the Court in Israel has been seen by the majority of Israel, especially the left wing, as crucial for the protection of human rights in light of its otherwise weak system of checks and balances, which lacks a bicameral legislative system, a president with executive powers, a federal government, regional elections, membership in a regional supra-governmental organization, or acceptance of the International Court of Justice’s authority.[18]
Like most people these days, I have been upset about the crises affecting our family, our
Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem Painting
Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump climb a wall at the Capitol during a violent
Pharisee Thomas Smokes With Wealthy Influencers
Posted on April 8, 2023 by Royal Rosamond Press
Republican operative lawyers Peter Rutledge, Leonard Leo, and Mark Paoletta are depicted with United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Republican donor Harlan Crow in this painting by Sharif Tarabay. The canvas is both set at Crow’s lavish Adirondacks resort, Camp Topridge, and part of the compound’s decor.
People Who Loved Cortlandt
Posted on March 27, 2022 by Royal Rosamond Press
“We loved all those balconies that we cooked on.”
“Our cats sat out there all day!”
“Why did he have to blow it up?”
“We could talk to each other on our balconies!”
“Narcissistic son of a bitch!”
“Release the Kraken!”
Clarence Thomas is his own man
BY DAVID G. SAVAGE
JULY 3, 2011 12 AM PT
WASHINGTON —
Each summer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas invites his four new law clerks to his home to watch a movie.
Not just any movie, but the 1949 film version of the classic of libertarian conservatism, Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.”
The movie’s hero, played by Gary Cooper, is an idealistic but stubborn architect, who, as Rand wrote, “stood alone against the men of his time.” A character, it might be said, a lot like Thomas himself. “If you think you are right, there is nothing wrong with being the only one,” he said last year in explaining his fondness for the movie. “I have no problem being the only one.
Twenty years ago last Friday, President George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas to the nation’s highest court. In the years since, Thomas has routinely been referred to as a member of the court’s conservative bloc. But the label hardly captures the distinctiveness of his record. In an institution where the ability to decide the law depends on creating a five-vote majority, no other justice is so proud of standing alone.
He strictly avoids the give-and-take among justices during oral arguments; he has not asked a question or made a comment in more than five years.
And his most provocative opinions have been solo dissents. Among them, he has declared that the Constitution gives states a right to establish an official religion. Prisoners, he wrote, have no constitutional right to be protected from beatings by guards. Teenagers and students have no free-speech rights at all, he said in an opinion Monday, because in the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, parents had “absolute authority” over their children.
Two years ago, the court ruled that a school official could not strip-search a 13-year-old girl to look for two extra-strength ibuprofen pills. Thomas — alone — dissented, calling the search of her underwear “reasonable and justified.”
Alone, he voted to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act that is credited with giving blacks political power in the South. And he was the lone justice to uphold the George W. Bush administration’s view that an American citizen could be held as an “enemy combatant” with no charges and no hearing.
He is seen as a sure vote to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law and its insurance mandate because he already has called for striking down a wide range of 20th century federal laws that regulate business, saying they go beyond Congress’ power.
Conservative scholars who admire Thomas say he, more than any justice, exemplifies the legal theory of “originalism” — the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted solely as its words would have been understood by those who approved it 222 years ago.
“He looks to how the Constitution was understood at the time of the ratification. He goes to first principles. And he is willing to challenge precedents that deviate from the original understanding,” said John Eastman, a Chapman University law professor and former Thomas clerk.
His critics see a justice out of step with the court and the country.
“He is the most radical justice to serve on the court in decades,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine Law School and a liberal constitutional scholar. He “would change the law dramatically and give little weight to precedent. It’s easy to overlook how radical [he is] because his are usually sole opinions that do not get attention.”
During most of his tenure, Thomas rarely has written major opinions for the court. Because his views did not sit well with the moderate justices needed to form a majority, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist often assigned him tax and bankruptcy cases.
But this year, under current Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., he has spoken for the court’s conservative majority in significant decisions that limited the rights of prisoners, which has become his signature issue. In March, he announced a 5-4 decision that threw out a $14-million jury verdict in favor of a black Louisiana man who had been convicted of murder and nearly executed because prosecutors hid evidence that could have proven his innocence.
A month later, Thomas said a state’s “sovereign immunity” barred inmates from suing for damages when their freedom of religion had been violated.
Still, it is Thomas’ willingness to go solo that most defines his career. It is a tendency that was almost certainly reinforced by his bitter and ugly confirmation fight in the Senate, which was dominated by questions about his qualifications and allegations that he had sexually harassed former aide Anita Hill. Bruised, he withdrew to a closed circle of loyal friends and clerks.
The relationship with his clerks remains close. “They’re my little family. They’re my kids, and I just really like having them around,” Thomas told legal editor Bryan Garner in 2007. The clerks take the lead in writing and editing opinions, he said.
“Nothing comes to me that hasn’t been through aggressive editing” by all of the clerks, Thomas said.
And there is no room for contrary views. “I won’t hire clerks who have profound disagreements with me,” Thomas told a Dallas group. “It’s like trying to train a pig. It wastes your time, and it aggravates the pig.”
From the start, Thomas was destined to be controversial. He is an African American conservative who was named to replace a civil rights legend and leading liberal.
It was the last week of June 1991 when Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court’s first African American, announced he would retire. That week, Thomas turned 43. He had spent the 1980s as a Reagan appointee heading two civil rights offices and had earned a reputation as an outspoken conservative. He had served one year as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
The elder Bush announced Thomas’ nomination July 1. “The fact that he is black and a minority had nothing to do with this in the sense that he is the best-qualified at this time,” Bush said.
At his confirmation, Thomas reassured senators he would bring “no agenda” or ideology to the court. “I believe I can bring something different, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the court does,” he testified, referring to his childhood poverty. He said that seeing “busload after busload” of mostly African American criminal defendants arriving at the District of Columbia courthouse, “I say to myself almost every day, ‘But for the grace of God, there go I.’ ”
He was confirmed by a 52-48 vote, the closest victory margin for a justice in more than 100 years.
Thomas has proven to be the ideological opposite of Marshall. “They are virtually mirror images of each other,” said USC law professor Lee Epstein, who tracks justices’ voting behavior. Marshall and William O. Douglas were the most liberal members of the Warren Burger court in the 1970s. Thomas has been the most conservative member of the Rehnquist and Roberts courts, Epstein said.
Nowhere is the difference more apparent than in cases involving prisoners. Marshall wrote the court’s opinion holding that deliberately subjecting prisoners to cruelty, including refusing them needed medical care, can violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Thomas, alone among his colleagues, continues to oppose that ruling. The constitutional ban has nothing to do with what happens to an inmate in prison, he argues; it only limits what sentence the defendant may receive. “Judges or juries — but not jailors — impose punishment,” he said. By that standard, brutal beatings meted out by a guard do not qualify as unconstitutional punishment.
In November 1991, two months after Thomas took his seat on the court, the justices heard the case of Keith Hudson, a Louisiana prisoner who had been handcuffed and then repeatedly punched in the face and kicked by a guard. His teeth and dental plate were cracked. He sued, and a magistrate awarded him $800 in damages.
Roberts, then the Bush administration’s 36-year-old deputy solicitor general, argued on behalf of the prisoner. He said that although guards may use force to maintain discipline, it is cruel and unusual punishment for them to brutally beat inmates. The Supreme Court agreed in a 7-2 decision. Thomas dissented. “In my view, a use of force which causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner … is not ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ ” he wrote. Thomas’ approach would permit the torturing of prisoners, Justice Harry Blackmun said.
Whenever the court has rebuked prosecutors for removing blacks from a jury, Thomas has dissented. And when a 7-2 decision sided with a black manager at a Cracker Barrel who was fired after complaining about the mistreatment of another black employee, Thomas dissented. “Retaliation is not racial discrimination,” he wrote.
Decisions of that sort have made Thomas, the only black justice, a divisive figure among many African Americans. Last month, he was invited to speak in Augusta, Ga., at the dedication of a new county courthouse to be named for Judge John Ruffin, a civil rights pioneer and the first black superior court judge in the city.
Some protested the choice. “Ruffin detested Clarence Thomas,” said Mallory Millender, a retired professor from Paine College in Augusta.
Ruffin’s widow, Judith Fennell Ruffin, said she was honored the justice would participate in the tribute to her late husband. “We may have different opinions, but he was coming as our guest,” she said.
Thomas spoke to the local bar and denounced the “cynics” who “demonize” the court without reading its opinions. “I think there is a disease of illiteracy or laziness, because just the commentary will tell you they haven’t read it,” he said.
Away from the court, Thomas offers mixed views of his job. He rarely speaks about the law, even when addressing law students, except to say the justices get along well. “I have never heard an unkind word” in the court’s private conferences, he says.
“There’s not much that entices about the job,” he told another college crowd in California. “There’s no money in it. No privacy. No big houses. And from an ego standpoint, it does nothing for me.” While it is an honor to be a Supreme Court justice, “I wouldn’t say I like it. I like sports. I like to drive a motor home,” he said.
What he and his wife, Virginia, really enjoy, he says, is taking to the road in the summer in their 40-foot motor coach and meeting new friends at RV parks.
Still, he figures to be on the court for many years to come. Marshall was 83 when he retired, and Thomas, now 63, says he would like to match him. If so, Thomas is at the midpoint of his court career, with 20 more years ahead of him.
“In his opinion, Thomas called for the court to revisit rulings on cases that had affirmed the right to privacy, including access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights.”
One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.
This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
Herman Cain Does Howard Roark
Posted on November 10, 2011 by Royal Rosamond Press
I know why millions of Christians are so forgiving of Herman Cain – he is Ayn Randish! Evangelicals worship Ayn Rand even though she was an atheist. In Atlas Shrugged evangelicals get permission to not pay taxes to support the socialist safety net. It’severy man and woman for themselves, just like Howard Roark! If you don’t design and build a skyscraper, you are lowlife scum. Then, there is the Tea Bag dream to return to the good old days of Davey Crockett, whose wife made her own soap.
Evangelical leaders are Vietnam Vets who want to succeed in America, because they failed so badly in Vietnam to gift primitive people with the Randish Capitalist Dream. They didn’t want all that Madison Avenue crap hung on their ancient way of life, that did not need to be changed, especially by Peace Makers armed to the teeth. In the army all rugged individualism is highly discouraged, one told you have no identity, but are one with your warrior brothers. Thinking for oneself, is not allowed – along with women!
In the movie and book ‘Fountainhead’ the Domineering princess of old money comes upon Howard drilling away on a rock. Look at that size of that drill. What powerful arms that dude has. Dominique must have – what she wants – a good drilling. But, instead of going directly to what she wants, she uses feminine cunning and guile, just like her male counterparts who love to enslave their fellow man in red tape and socialist committees that suck precious bodily fluids out a real man, like Howard – who in self defence is forced to rape Dominique.
“This is what you want?”
Of course, weak, ass-kissing wimps like Keating are not allowed to rape beautiful women, because the woman is guranteed to come out on top, which is a no-no amongst folks who want to run the world according to the Bible, where one is told over and over there will be severe penalties for not doing exactly what God tells you to do. As strange as this might sound, ten of millions of evangelical sheep believe God is telling them to vote for Herman Cain, and thus, He can do not wrong!
Jon Presco
“GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values,” the network explains. “Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible.” The network complained that “GOP leaders want to argue that they are defending Christian principles” while also praising Rand.
Amy Sullivan, in the Swampland, wrote something quite striking. George W. Bush declared that his favorite philosopher was Christ. The far right, now, though appears to have rejected Christ, in favor of Rand.
Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. One of the greatest books of all time. Though Atlas Shrugged is, by far, the better book (considered the second-most influential book after the Bible), it’s all relative. The Fountainhead is, in my opinion, required reading before taking on Atlas Shrugged. Without reading The Fountainhead first, you miss important concepts in Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is a highly complex book to read and is deep in philosophical tenets. Reading The Fountainhead first will help you enjoy and experience Atlas Shrugged so much more.
But putting aside these benefits, there are other reasons to read The Fountainhead, not the least of which is the sex. (Atlas Shrugged will also whet your sexual appetite.) Granted, most don’t associate Ayn Rand with eroticism. However, one of the reasons Ayn Rand is so successful at effectively communicating her philosophy, which later came to be known as Objectivism, is because she mixes philosophical proselytizing with drama. And, after all, what’s drama without sex?
Of course, neither The Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged compare to the eroticism and violent sexual images found in books such as Pauline Reage’s The Story of O or Marquis De Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom. But The Fountainhead attacks a sexual topic most wouldn’t consider very controversial: rape. Though arguably starting earlier (call it foreplay), pages 215-218 in The Fountainhead paperback represent the infamous “rape” scene.
…have you ever had sex where you’ve felt “owned” and/or you “surrendered?”
What is rape? Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or without sexual penetration of another person without that person’s consent. I’ve had many conversations over the years about this scene, especially with those who I would consider “surface-readers” – those who read without the curiosity to explore the implications. Was it rape or wasn’t it? The answer boils down to whether or not Dominique Francon gave her consent to Howard Roark.
I think Dominique did consent to the sex, wanted it, and even encouraged it through her actions. Within the scene, there are multiple facts to support my contentions. (There are even more if you include other passages surrounding the scene and overall character development.) For example, Ayn Rand writes, “She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help.” (bottom of p. 216). She goes on: “He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him – and she would have remained cold, untouched by the things done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted.” Later, when Dominique wants to take a bath, she writes: “She turned the light on in the bathroom. She saw herself in a tall mirror. She saw the purple bruises left on her body by his mouth. She heard a moan muffled in her throat, not very loud. It was not the sight, but the sudden flash of knowledge. She knew she would not take a bath. She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied.”
In fact, after Roark leaves, Ayn Rand writes (middle of p. 219): “She could accept, thought Dominique, and come to forget in time everything that had happened to her, save one memory: that she had found pleasure in the thing which had happened, that he had known it, and more: that he had known it before he came to her and that he would not have come but for that knowledge. She had not given him the one answer that would have saved her: an answer of simple revulsion – she had found joy in her revulsion, in her terror and in his strength. That was the degradation she had wanted and she hated him for it.” When Dominique is reading a letter from Alvah Scarret: “She read it and smiled. She thought, if they knew… those people… the old life and that awed reverence before her person. I’ve been raped… I’ve been raped by some red-headed hoodlum from a stone quarry… I, Dominique Francon… Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms.” Additionally, when Dominique goes to the quarry looking for Howard Roark and doesn’t find him (bottom of p. 220), Ayn Rand writes: “She walked away. She would not ask for his name. It was her last chance of freedom.” Finally, she had multiple scenes where Dominique would consider something a “win” (i.e., against Roark) and would then proceed to dominate him by being the more sexually forceful.
Ayn Rand was very big on the concept of one individual “surrendering” to another (in her books, it is always depicted as the woman surrendering to the man, as Ayn Rand typically depicts men as superior – feminists be damned). Ergo, I believe it was consensual, even though it is called rape. (Rand herself even referred to the scene as “if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation.”) I do not deny and, rather, assert that anytime someone does something to another with force that they don’t want, it is a crime against the victim. However, clearly, that cannot be considered the case here. Ayn Rand put the rape on a pedestal, esteeming the ownership and associated “surrender” with high self-esteem. Dominique wanted the sex, she wanted the sex violent, and she wanted the sexual fantasy exactly the way Roark delivered it.
Over the years, I’ve heard many false claims about the implications of this scene (and her books in general). “Rand has a cavalier attitude toward love.” “Rand’s conception of love would make love impossible.” “Rand is unfeeling.” “Rand minimizes rape.” To understand her philosophy better, it helps to get to the base motivations of each character’s thoughts and actions. So, in this case, why is it that Dominique surrendered? What was her motivation? What did she learn as a result of the experience? What were her subsequent actions? If you can figure that out, you will learn the moral implications and philosophical tenets of love, feelings, and sex.
Ayn Rand was anything but cavalier toward love. Unlike what many believe, her concept of love is logical and rational. In fact, I’d suggest that one of the reasons so many relationships typically seem to end poorly is because we have forgotten (or, more likely, never learned) that all successful relationships are based on an exchange of value-for-value. Additionally, she, in no way, discounted feelings, which is obvious with even a cursory look at character development. I’m actually struck that I am so flushed with emotion (and sexual desire) every time I re-read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Feelings can be controlled, and they are controlled by the mind. Feelings are also rational (as they are part of human nature). I think Rand’s point is that using feelings instead of (or as a higher priority than) thought is always likely to lead to poor decisions and, thus, improper/irrational actions.
Let me conclude with a somewhat provocative question: if, dear reader, you’ll excuse my crudeness and brashness, have you ever had sex where you’ve felt “owned” and/or you “surrendered?” If not, maybe you shouldn’t knock it until you’ve tried it? Granted, it’s not for those with a weak mind or a weak heart. But, then again, I’m not looking for those with either.
“…A “silly” and “bumptious” novel can have destructive and lasting power…and then it finds new life as a movie. Viewers beware because the new movie Atlas Shrugged is an adaptation of Ayn Rand’s novel, which peddles a starkly anti-Christian philosophy…” Chuck Colson on Atlas Shrugged.
The Pink Flamingo has been writing about Ayn Rand and the factthat she was terribly against Christians. I’ve reached the point where I do not think a person can be a practicing libertarian and a Christian. They two are incompatible.
Is Alan Greenspan’s libertarian philosophy responsible for our economic woes?
About the time Fortunewas extolling Greenspan, I was putting the finishing touches on a book about finances for a major evangelical publisher. I included a chapter on Rand’s quasi-religious philosophies, and another that encouraged Wall Street to embrace a traditional Judeo-Christian ethic. I wrote, “Ayn Rand, like Karl Marx, was one more self-proclaimed prophet who denied the existence of a loving God.” I added this comment from a leading political commentator:
Libertarians have replaced Marxists as the world’s leading utopia builders.” I concluded that we would one day apologize to our children for what Rand had done to our souls, as well as to the political economy.
My junior editor removed the chapter on Rand. “No one has heard of Ayn Rand,” she said. But my senior editor reinserted it. He said he had never understood his family until reading it. It made him realize that they had mixed Rand’s strongly anti-government, unquestioningly pro-business, and individualistic worldview with biblical Christianity. Theologians call this “syncretism”—which George Barna calls America’s favorite religion. It’s a religion too many Christians have bent the knee to.
By the end of 2008, “Maestro” Greenspan was booed off the stage. Yet there are at least three reasons we should stay aware of Rand and her remaining disciples…
Second, Rand still has influential financial disciples like junk-bond king Michael Milken, Chris Cox, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the Bush administration leading up to the crash, as well as cultural influencers like Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, media mogul Ted Turner, and pundits John Stossel, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, who recently advised Christians to leave any church that speaks of social justice….”
The Pink Flamingo has been wondering why Christians are not speaking out against Ayn Rand and her disciples. A few Christians are finally doing just that – and it is about time.
“…Our financial guruscontinue to sing in Rand’s temple, using quasi-biblical principles to obtain wealth but disposing of God’s principles if the investment doesn’t lead to “productive achievement.” I’ve long believed that leaders of the Religious Right and our more popular financial advisers, who have attempted to harmonize their philosophies with economic libertarianism the past three decades, have been nave. Libertarians usually despise Christian social values, advocating the legalization of abortion, illicit drugs, and pornography while worshiping wealth. The biblical discouragement of unholy alliances should have named that tune as syncretism. But the angry white man of 1994 sings on at today’s tea parties. And his anger is still primarily over economic issues….”
Howard Shaft
Posted on March 27, 2022 by Royal Rosamond Press
Howard Shaft
A Musical
by John Presco
Copyright 2022
“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt!”
The strange Ayn Rand dynamics lurking in the relationship of Ginni and Clarence Thomas that caused “The Kraken” to be released on our Nation’s Capitol.
Play videos at same time.
Ayn Rand, Justice Thomas, & The Fountainhead
John Aglialoro, the producer of the movie Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 (2011), recently announced that due to bad reviews and poor box office, he is abandoning the plans for parts two and three of the story. As someone who read Ayn Rand’s long book Atlas Shrugged many years ago, I was interested when I heard they were making a movie version. But when I saw the trailer, the movie looked terribly boring, so I am not among the few who have seen it. I might have watched it on DVD when it came out, but now that I know it may leave me hanging without any resolution, maybe not. Yet, some recent reports indicate the second movie still may be coming out next year.
One person who might be disappointed if the sequels are abandoned is Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the book The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (2007), Jeffrey Toobin (p. 119) wrote that Justice Thomas often requires his law clerks to watch the movie, The Fountainhead, which is based upon another book by Ayn Rand and directed by King Vidor. That one sentence in Toobin’s book jumped out, raising questions about the connection between the movie and Justice Thomas’s judicial philosophy, and what it means for America.
Ayn Rand incorporated her philosophy of Objectivism into her novels. The philosophy has several parts, but she described one of the basic tenants this way: “Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”
One may debate the value of a philosophy of self-interest. A number of conservatives have embraced the philosophy as connected to laissez-faire capitalism, so one might understand why the conservative Justice Thomas admires Ayn Rand’s work. In his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, he wrote about reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and how the books affected him: “Rand preached a philosophy of radical individualism that she called Objectivism. While I didn’t fully accept its tenets, her vision of the world made more sense to me that that of my left-wing friends.” (p. 62) A website devoted to Ayn Rand’s fiction writing, The Atlas Society, has more about Justice Thomas’s connection to Ayn Rand.
Still, The Fountainhead (1949) is an odd movie choice, even though it features excellent actors like Gary Cooper, Raymond Massey, and Patricia Neal. One reviewer summed it up as “one of the strangest and most florid pictures of its time, possibly of all time.” The Fountainhead is about an architect named Howard Roark (Cooper) who has his own vision and does not want to compromise his beliefs and art to popular ideas. When the people who hired him to create a public housing building do not let him do it his way, he blows up the modified building. And he’s the hero of the movie. Okay, I get the idea about not compromising, but isn’t blowing up the building going too far?
One might wonder why Justice Thomas loves this unusual movie so much that he has the recent law school graduates who work for him watch it. And one might speculate what message the new lawyers take from the self-interest theme of the movie regarding one’s lack of compassion for the poor and underprivileged.
Considering Roark’s destruction of the building in the movie, and in today’s atmosphere of terrorism, I hope Justice Thomas has selected another movie. Maybe watching the new Atlas Shrugged will lead him to opt for another movie to show his clerks. And he could even stick with films featuring Republican and anti-Communist Gary Cooper. If Thomas wants an excellent movie that teaches about the importance of the individual and duty, he might select High Noon (1952). Or if he wants to go further, he might choose Cooper in Frank Capra’s Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) or Meet John Doe (1941), both which would give the new lawyers lessons on the importance of common people and the corrupting influence of power.
Rosamond Press 