I don't disagree.
I would just argue that by virtue of their religious collectivism, conservatives are ALSO on the left, just like any other collectivist movement.
That's the stark reality of politics: communists announced their takeover and in response conservatives offered nothing but, OK but keep it Christian.
Objectivism is a philosophy consistent with classic liberalism and that is the only true "right wing" in politics, if the political spectrum is to mean anything.

There is no "bestowing" of rights. That is just a metaphor for some natural processes. If there is any bestowing it is by a recognition of the conditions necessary for life. I do not see that she is trying to inject atheism but rather that politics should be religion free. That way every citizen has a chance for life.I am getting a bit tired of conservatives making statements that atheists can not be moral without getting god into there lives. I still listen to them for their opposition to socialism.

Rights are not given by some active god or by nature. They are objectively discovered by the nature of life through reason applied rationally. Nature just happens with nothing being given by it since it is not an entity and thus cause an effect. Cause is a property of existence and only can be exorcised by actions of living things. The non living just acts by the identities of the the existing objects.

" not wanting to be seen as the only one advocating for a position that’s right but not popular."

Isn't it the left that is accusing the right of "populism" when they are striving for the interest of the people and country?

Take Europe for example. The countries that resisted the migrant onslaught are dubbed "populist" b/c their leaders did not bend to the collective demand of the left such as Germany, France, Sweden but kept their promise to the people who elected them to put national interest first. Trump is also blamed for it.

I was thinking the same.

You are probably right on this.

You are patently wrong.

What you are stating is only in your head.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinion on the matter, but this post is specifically regarding the items in the article. Ayn Rand's prejudices were her own. If you take them on simply because of who they originated with you fall prey to a fallacy of appeal to authority. If it is a solid principle or conclusion, it should be able to be arrived at no matter who conducts the inquiry.

".today's conservative has more in common with yesterday's communist/fascist that yesterday's conservative because of their lack of a consistent philosophy and lack of principles..."

You have stated this in effect twice, yet this is at odds with the article and my own experience. Would you care to elaborate on why you feel this way? I know there are a lot of leftists who attempt to portray fascists as right-wing, but the core of their belief set is tied to government control and this article's assertions are very much in opposition...

I agree with you that government can not be the source of rights because rights are inherent, but with all due respect the rest of your argument relies upon a notion of "god" which is arbitrary and self-contradictory and concocted by those hostile to the idea in the first place. If you imagine that such is the "god" conservatives associate with, I can understand your antipathy while noting that it is sorely misplaced and based entirely on ignorance. It is a straw man. Even Plato in "The Republic" noted that the notion of an arbitrary and capricious god like those of the Greek Pantheon could not logically exist - and I agree with him.

That being said, conservatives actually hold a very defined view of God which is anything but arbitrary and capricious - though some hold a more refined definition than others. Even accounting for these fluctuations, however, there are several questions which the notion of God answers which Objectivism does not, mainly regarding the origin of the soul and the disposition of the soul after death. It's all fine to criticize another philosophy or religion but one should do so only after studying it. Passing judgement of something based on ignorance is blatant fallacy and if one does so based on antipathy they fall prey to bias - not objectivity.

God-given "rights" are like rights govt-given rights...both can be taken away or imagined vs gods vs govts....natural rights are absolute and not subject to the whim of Gods or govts...and Objectivist philosophy is not arbitrary...it is based on reality...there are not other realities...

I had talked to Ayn Rand in NYC at NBI lectures...she despised conservatives the most...and that is putting it nicely...I also talked to and had lunch with Nat Braden thru the decades and David Kelley...conservatives have a failed philosophy...today's conservative has more in common with yesterday's communist/fascist that yesterday's conservative because of their lack of a consistent philosophy and lack of principles...

I also knew atheist Madelyn O'Hara in Austin, Texas...she was a true atheist with no philosophy...

Objectivism is a serious, coherent philosophy, but as Ayn and Nat would say...you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas...

Whether one arrives at the principles espoused in the article from the notion of God-given rights or natural rights, they end up at the same place. Your argument is simply to take issue with the derivation of the principles - not the principles themselves. I'm not arguing that the derivation isn't important, but you're placing all the emphasis upon the derivation and attempting to claim they are invalid simply because of their derivation. In reality, it should be the other way around: the principles themselves are the testament as to whether or not a philosophy's origin or derivation has merit. The proof of a hypothesis is in the observation, no?

Uh, a major portion of her article is citing the principles you appear to have missed. From the article:

"The federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty and property—a mission that includes not only protecting the sanctity of life but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

·The federal government’s powers should be limited to only those named in the Constitution and exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens.

·Government functions best when it is closest and most accountable to the people and where power is shared between the federal government and the states.

·Individuals and families make the best decisions for themselves and their children about health, education, jobs, and welfare.

·America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system built on free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies that promote general economic freedom and eliminate governmental preferences for special interests, including free trade, deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort free markets and impair innovation.

·Tax policies should raise the minimum revenue necessary to fund only constitutionally appropriate functions of government.

·Regulations should be limited to those that produce a net benefit to the American people as a whole, weighing both financial and liberty costs.

·Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ own personal and political predispositions.

·America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.

·America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security and interests, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad."

I get that you want to inject atheism into the mix and emphasize the differences between Objectivists and conservatives. I don't think anyone is trying to say those differences don't exist. But what I'm seeing here is a substantial list of commonalities.

the article cites "principles of conservatism" without defining those principles...hence I am left to look at past claims of conservative principles and their contradictions...having examined conservatism and objectivism...I find conservatism contradictory and without a sound philosophical, epistemological basis...please do an examination yourself...ref....read Ayn Rand's {Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"...David Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" and "The Art of Reason"...

fact of reality are what they are...recognize them or ignore them at your own peril...

I'm not seeing anything like that in the article, however. And whether or not one chooses to believe in God doesn't obviate or invalidate any of the principles noted by the author. You're creating a straw man.

conservatism is faith-based philosophy...it based on faith and ignorance...an imaginary friend (God)...as opposed to "govt"... an imaginary friend...with same result...death and destruction...

objectivism is based on reality...knowledge and certainty...reason and the rational...respect of the natural rights of the individual and a civilized society...your only hope for a life of your choosing...

So based on the article above, which principles contribute to your theory? From what I can tell, it is the lack of following the principles (primarily by those in leadership in the Republican Party) which have contributed to the apathy necessary for socialism to be making gains. But is that the fault of the principles or just the weakness of those who pander?

IMHO, the major contributor is the media institutions in this nation - they have favored socialism and communism for a century. They fawned over Woodrow Wilson and castigated Calvin Coolidge; they protected FDR while denouncing Eisenhower; they persecuted McCarthy even though he was outing legitimate Communists and turned his name into an epithet; they excoriate Trump after giving a complete pass to Obama.

As to the eventual fall of this nation, the debt will be a major factor in this primarily because there is a faction who wishes to see the Constitution torn down (Democrats) and another which is apathetic (RINO's). Those two outnumber the third faction (Conservatives like the House Freedom Caucus) who would actually do something about it, rendering them impotent on the national policy stage.

I would also mention that if you want a solution, the best friend of the libertarian is the conservative - it certainly isn't going to be the Democrat! Remember, it was the Blue Dog Democrats of the 1980's which used to most closely resemble the libertarian of today, and they were pushed out of that Party by the socialists and communists. In very fact, one can level the very same accusations of apathy toward erstwhile libertarians that you have leveled against conservatives in the Republican Party.

What do I see as the resolution (aside from total collapse and reset which I believe to be the most likely outcome)? I would like to see the abolition/adjustment of the 12th Amendment. People don't bring that one up very often, but it is the one which put the Vice President onto the ballot with the President and effectively ensconced political parties. I think that making the Vice President the Runner-Up in the presidential election would go a long way toward establishing the legitimacy of third parties like the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and yes even the Green and Communist Parties because they would now have a legitimate shot at becoming President while representing that 30-40% of America which doesn't really have a voice in modern politics. I believe that just like competition is a necessity in the marketplace, we need competition in our political sphere and that it is the two-party system - and the apathy it encourages - which is the biggest impediment to a robust US democratic republic.

the communists announced in the early 20th century that they would take over ...the banking system...education...and health care...to gain control of the world...with the Federal Reserve system they got the banks...the "public" school system (govt system) has created unthinking, loyal citizens, and the Obamacare has nationalized healthcare...the conservatives let this happen and are merely "me-tooers"...

conservativism is based on the altruist philosophy...they are on the right and the communist/fascists on the left...

objectivism is not on the that philosophical spectrum...it is based on natural rights...it is based on reality "evidence of the senses" and and a sound epistemology...

conservatives surrendered the republic for democracy which leads to tyranny of the majority...it is now a numbers game...which we will lose...but the destruction of the financial system will soon end in collapse and chaos with a 90% die-off...

who will rise from the ashes?...

Well boo boo have you seen what's going on in Texas? Our 46 year old Speaker of the House (24 years ago I told him he was too young to run and he still is). He was caught on a recording offering a bribe to sabotage ten Republican congressmen. I want his resignation NOW! He has also incurred the wrath of the most effective person in Texas, Ms. Joanne Fleming. He is toast!

How so?

principles are based on philosophy...so-called conservatives have cost us our country and our future by their lack of a philosophy...

I have little doubt about that with Roberts. Ryan might just be a fraud

One certainly wonders if this is what happened to John Roberts and Paul Ryan...

“Many institutions and politicians start out as conservative, but if they’re not firmly rooted in principles, they can deviate from the path.

This is called trajectory: In physics, think of throwing a ball straight ahead. Eventually, forces like wind and gravity will cause the ball to curve and drop instead of continuing straight. In politics and policy, the forces that create a curved trajectory – deviating from principles – include pressure from the media or political opponents, pressure from those you normally agree with deviating from principles themselves, or not wanting to be seen as the only one advocating for a position that’s right but not popular.”

That point is possible but from what I see they deviate from the path because of Blackmail.
That is what Epstein and Brennan/Hussein’s Hammer were all about.
They get elected and then they get compromised.
These elected officials are human and have weaknesses. The Deep state satanists have all the resources they need , it is just a matter of time before the human takes the bait. If not , they just drug them and then put them in a compromised position.