Another critique of Rand by individuals that claim to understand Rand, but argue from the position that the only 'proper' morals are from God and that any other moral, even if right, derived from just reasoning are nonsense and Utopian.

From the TOS article refuting that critique: "Klavan claims that Rand is “nonsense . . . because she is an atheist, and yet she thinks that there is an absolute moral standard by which to live, which is the absence of force.” Klavan then claims, “Once you remove God, you’re living in a relativist universe,” without objective moral standards.", even going on to pontificate;
"..Klavan summarizes his basic view of Rand: “She’s not nonsense; in a way she’s worse than nonsense. She’s a great deal of good sense, surrounded by absolute nonsense.”and,
"Next Klavan claims that Rand “confuses seflessness . . . with altruism.” He continues, “The difference between selflessness and altruism, is that selflessness doesn’t exist. Everybody is acting for personal gain, even if that personal gain is joy.” Klavan equates altruism with “doing good for people,” which, he says, allows a person to “experience joy.”"

The article links to the Klavan and Whittle discussion and to the TOS answer.

Klavan particularly, and Whittle complicitly, mis-state and mis-characterize Rand's statements while both claiming to fully understand Rand.

What a load of crap--but illustrative of those that really lack understanding, even though having read Rand, but have to fall back to 'God says'.