Take the White Whine elsewhere.

you have a point about possible hidden agendas regarding some “libertarians”, but then as Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, and many others like them point out, the Democrats (and obviously the Republicans) are often very complicit in the funding of state-sponsored terrorism, or terrorist organizations, like the School of the Americas, or mass-murder policies, such as those conducted in Nicaragua in the 1980s, or the killing of a third of East Timor’s population, in which American weapons were often those used, and in which American diplomatic and financial support was present during the entire 25 year genocide, from President Ford’s administration until near the end of Clinton’s, without break.

In Chomsky’s book, “Rouge States: The Rule of Force in the World,” he quotes at length from Carter’s Sec. of Defense (I think it was Cyrus Vance), and shows explicitly that the same policies that guided Reagan were almost the same that were guiding Carter’s administration: that Nicaragua could do anything it wanted . . . so long as we (US gov’t) agreed to it first. (or else . . . )

Personally, I don’t find Ayn Rand any more offensive than the average Republican or Democrat — in fact, I find her often less so (though not always).

As with any other teacher or teaching (Christianity, for example), those who “follow” often are the ones who not only distort the original message, they invert and pervert it beyond any semblance of its original intent.

Just think of what Lenin and Stalin did with Marxism. There was no gradual attrition of state power, and the ruling class was still very present.

The Catholic Inquisition was hardly based on the teachings or principles of Christian love and forgiveness etc.

There are so many examples. . .

They have to be careful of the psychopaths that are so much like Landham in their ease in hurting others up to and including mass murder. (Psychopaths aren’t all serial killers and all serial killers aren’t psychopaths) I wonder how they missed that? Maybe they didn’t and hoped he would keep quiet about it till he was elected. It didn’t work out that way.

On the other hand, there have been those who obviously are not “off” at all (in some respects, anyway)! Both Ron Paul and Bob Barr, for example, are definitely “with it” in regard to closing the “School of Assassians”, and ending American imperialism, and stopping the stupid, insane, asinine Drug War, as are many of other political persuasions, like Tom Hayden and Noam Chomsky, and Barney Frank, to name a few.

It should also be mentioned that there is a lot of paradox and irony in life itself. My mom, for example, during the Great Depression, had the love, courage, and integrity to quit her job at a small bank in the South because she had witnessed firsthand the president of said bank deliberately deceive an elderly black man into signing his property over for nothing, making him think he was signing a new mortgage. When the poor man realized what had happened, he started crying, and yet the bank president was laughing!

Yet my mom was a conservative, a George Wallace supporter -when he was around- and a member for a good many years of the John Birch Society. Yet, she used to say, when I was growing up, to my two brothers and myself whenever we expressed hate, not to, that there was too much of it in the world already. And she meant it.

Likewise (going on about irony), Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, in his famous book, “Love and God,” states that he is “God’s instrument.” And, he also states (more or less) in his other speeches and writings that being enlightened means not making mistakes in life. Yet, despite his transcendent nature, he made a mistake once, claiming that “world peace” had been achieved (this was back in about 1978. I still have the TM movement publication in which he is quoted as saying this.). But at the time he said it, the genocide against the East Timorese was still going on like crazy, as well as the US-backed genocide in Guatemala, as well as many other not-peaceful situations in the world.

Even lowly newspapers and magazines often publish “errata” and corrections, that often say something like “In our October issue, we incorrectly identified Morris Dees as a evil person, when in fact, he is not at all, and is in fact, quite wonderful. We sincerely regret the error.” So why can’t Maharishi put a correction in a newpaper like the New York Times, that he was wrong about world peace being achieved, especially now that 30 years have passed!

Inquiring minds want to know!