[The necessary-contingent dichotomy] was interpreted in the twentieth century as follows: since facts are learned by experience, and experience does not reveal necessity, the concept "necessary facts" must be abandoned. Facts, it is now held, are one and all contingent --- and the propositions describing them are "contingent truths." As for necessary truths, they are merely the products of man's linguistic or conceptual conventions. They do not refer to facts, they are empty, "analytic," "tautological." 
Although not all or even most contemporary philosopher accept the necessary-contingent dichotomy, those that do advocate it believe in something close to what Peikoff describes. In other words, Peikoff has not grossly misstated this particular view, which is unusual for him. What, then, is his objection to this dichotomy? His main objection is the view, supposedly entailed by the dichotomy, that facts are contingent. Such a view, contends Peikoff,
represents a failure to grasp the Law of Identity. Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. [108-109]
Peikoff is here guilty of doing the very thing that the analytic-synthetic dichotomy (and the necessity-contingent dichotomy that underlies it) was set up to discourage: that is, Peikoff is engaged in verbalistic speculation. He is attempting to determine matters of fact on the basis of logical and verbal constructions. The "law of causality" is not "entailed" by the "law of identity." The so-called "law of identity" is a tautology; and you can't draw specific inferences from tautologies. What if the identity of a given object is that it is governed by chance? If chance can be the identity of something, like a pair of dice, then any talk of causality being "entailed" by the phrase "A is A" is sheer nonsense.
Another objection Peikoff raises to the notion that facts are contingent is that, historically, that view "was associated with a supernaturalistic metaphysics; such facts, it was said, are products of a divine creator who could have created them differently... This view represents the metaphysics of miracles."
Here Peikoff resorts to a common Objectivist trick: he attempts to dismiss one view by relating it to another view. In other words, guilt by association. Since Hume most philosophers who believe in the contingency of facts are not motivated by a supernatural agenda. Nor are they, as Peikoff alleges, guilty of a "secularized mysticism." The secular belief in the contingency of facts arises out of the desire to stop rationalistic speculation at its very root. This may not seem obvious at first glance, but a more detailed explication, to be provided in the next post, will make it clear that it is so.