ADAM writes:

It seems absurd to me that this country rewards people who illegally cross the border with free, taxpayer-provided public schooling. Public schools were created for the education of American children. Citizens would not have been willing to fund public education with their property taxes if they knew that the money would not be used to educate local children, but rather would be used to help settle “refugees” in their communities.

(more…)

  A photo from 1915, well before the Age of Nudity, courtesy of British Paintings blog.

  AT Zero Hedge, Tyler Durden looks at how, in the case of one GOP politician, high finance controls politics.

I MET Kate Millet in the late 1970s. A few other proud, brainwashed, starry-eyed feminists at McGill University in Montreal, Canada and I arranged to have her come speak at the university. We picked her up from the airport on a snowy night and took her to a fancy French restaurant, where she drank a lot of wine, so much so that we nervously wondered whether she would be able to deliver the tour de force lecture we were all expecting. During her talk, women in burkas burst into the lecture hall and chanted pro-Ayatollah Khomeini slogans. It was frightening — a chilling and foreboding convergence of revolutionary and totalitarian ideologies, though I didn’t know it at the time.

I must confess, I had not read all of Millet’s famous treatise, Sexual Politics. But then you didn’t need to read it. Millions of Marxists never read Marx. It was the same with feminism. You just knew it was all so true. Nevertheless, my secret impression of the author was of a woman who was boozy, physically unattractive, and bored.

At Front Page Mag today, Mallory Millet, sister of Kate Millet, reflects on her famous sister’s legacy. It’s an amazing behind-the-scenes look at an American revolutionary. I would like to post the whole thing it is so interesting, but go to Front Page and read it all.

Mallory joined up with her famous sister in New York City after having married and divorced an American executive working in Southeast Asia.

(more…)

ALAN writes:

Writing in 1963 about the so-called “civil rights” bill then being considered in Congress, Ayn Rand stated that the federal government “has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others.  It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments.  No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of other men.  A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him.”

She continued, “if that ‘civil rights’ bill is passed, it will be the worst breach of property rights in the sorry record of American history in respect to that subject…..” [ “Racism,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Sept. 1963, p. 36]

That “civil rights” bill, as we all know, was enacted in 1964. Americans today are still paying for it.

These judgments apply to the case of Gifford vs. New York State.  The Giffords’ refusal to accept agitators for “same-sex marriage” as customers does not harm those people in any way or violate their rights.  If it hurts their feelings, that’s tough.  (more…)